Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121190 CC AgendaCALL TO ORDER: Invocation Flag Salute A nENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETINe TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER DECEMBER 11, 1990.7:00 PM Pastor Gary Nelson, Calvary Chapel Councilmember Moore Next in Order: OrffiRance: No, 90-26 Resol,tion: No, 90-118 ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz, Parks PRESENTATION$/ PROCLAMATiONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name end 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. NO TlCr TO THE R. tELIC 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. 21~eenda/I 211 I0 1 *12/07/i0 CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 City Treasurer's Reoort for the Months EndinQ Au<3ust 31.1990. Seotember 30, 1990 and October 31, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and File 3 Resolution ADoroving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. 4 Cancellation of the Reaular City Council Meetinq of December 25, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the cancellation of the City Council meeting scheduled for December 25, 1990. 5 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 20848 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 20848. 5.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 2/agenda/l 21190 2 12/07/90 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6 Tentative Tract Mao No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a negative declaration and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864. 7 Parcel Mao 25212/Change of Zone No. 5663 Continued from the meeting of November 27, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 252 12 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5. 02 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR PARCELS AND TO CHANGE THEEXISTING ZONING FROM R-R-2.5 TO R-R- 1 LOCA TED A T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS AND LIEFER ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-280-012 7.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5663, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R-2. 5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 2. 5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO R-R- 1 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ON 5. 02 ACRES OF PROPERTY L OCA TED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD. CSD MEETING - (To be held at 8:00 PM) Please see separate agenda 2/ageride/121190 3 12/07/90 COUNCIL BUSINESS 8 Solid Waste Haulers RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize the City Attorney to notify solid waste haulers that their permits expire in no later than five years; and 8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING FEES PURSUANT TO riVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 REGULATING THE COLLECTION, TRANSFER AND REMOVAL OF SOLID WAS TE 9 Intearated Waste Manaaement Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING INTEGRA TED WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING REFUSE COLLECTiON AND DISPOSAL SER VICES WITHIN THE CITY, AUTHORIZING THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICES BY THE CITY OR PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE OR PERMIT, AND REPEALING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA 10 Solid Waste Hauling and Recvclina - Reauest For Proposals RECOMMENDATION: 10. 1 Consider the attached Request For Proposals for solid waste hauling and recycling. 10.2 Continue the matter to the January 8, 1991 agenda so that staff may solicit public comment on the Request For Proposals. 21ageride/121190 4 12/07/90 11 Sohere of Influence Study Continued from the meeting of November 27, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Receive and file staff report 12 Rancho California Town Center Traffic Signalization Continued from the meeting of November 27, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Receive and file staff report 13 Consideration of Establishing New Position and Classification RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize the establishment of an Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services position. 13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECUI. A PROVIDING FOR TIlE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES. 14 Uodate Reoort - Mello-Roos District CFD 88-12 Verbal Presentation by Tim Serlet 21ageride/121190 6 ! 2/07/90 CITY MANA OER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Special meeting: Adjourn to a meeting to be held the week of December 15-20 regarding City Hall Improvements, Systems Furniture and Computer Network Needs. Next regular meeting: December 18, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California 2/lOanell/121190 e 12/07/90 ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer December 11, 1990 City Treasurer's Reports for the Months Ended August 31, September 30, and October 31, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENT: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's reports for the months ended August 31, September 30, and October 31, 1990. Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. Accordingly, the City's investment policy includes these Government Code Sections as an integral part of City policy. None City Treasurer's Reports for the Months Ended August 31, September 30, and October 31, 1990. City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report For the Month Ended August 31, 1990 Cash Activity: Beginning Balance, August 1, 1990 $ 1,694,121 Cash Receipts 1,522,776 Cash Disbursements (456,022) Cash and Investments as of August 31, 1990 $ 2,760,874 Cash and Investments Portfolio as of August 31, 1990: Description Institution 'Yield Maturity Balance Money Market Demand Deposits Petty Cash L.A.I.F. Overland Bank Overland Bank N/A State Treasurer 6.50% 4.75% N/A 8.52% N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 666,201 14,322 350 2,080,000 Cash and Investments as of August 31, 1990 $ 2,760,874 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report For the Month Ended September 30, 1990 Cash Activity: Beginning Balance, September 1, 1990 $ 2,760,874 Cash Receipts 1,557,872 Cash Disbursements (302,453) Cash and Investments as of September 30, 1990 $ 4,016,293 Cash and Investments Portfolio as of September 30, 1990: Description Institution Yield Maturity Balance Money Market Demand Deposits Certificate of Deposit Demand Deposits Petty Cash L.A.I.F. Overland Bank Overland Bank Overland Bank Security Pacific N/A State Treasurer 6.50% 4.75% 8.25% N/A 7.58% 8.52% N/A N/A 2/26/91 N/A N/A N/A 781,553 25,135 100,000 29,256 350 3,080,000 Cash and Investments as of September 30, 1990 $ 4,016,293 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report For the Month Ended October 31, 1990 Cash Activity: Beginning Balance, October 1, 1990 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as of October 31, 1990 $ 4,016,293 1,187,983 (433,089) $ 4,771,187 Cash and Investments Portfolio as of October 31, 1990: Description Institution 'Yield Maturity Balance Money Market Demand Deposits Certificate of Deposit Demand Deposits Sweep Account Petty Cash L.A.I.F. Overland Bank Overland Bank Overland Bank Security Pacific Pacific Horizons N/A State Treasurer Cash and Investments as of October 31, 1990 6.50% 4.75% 8.25% N/A 7.51% 7.58% 8.52% N/A N/A 2/26/91 N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 232,773 24,760 100,000 38,389 494,915 350 3,880,000 $ 4,771,187 ITEM NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $67,922,17 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this l lth day of December, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 90-118 12/03/90 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 C. 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 c, .:. ,.., ,~ ~ X . ~ ~ o o o o o o ,~,c,~ oo o~ oF o~ OF O~ OF C,~ C,~ OZ O~ O~ I r r F 0 ~ n m ~ m Z Z 2 ~ F ~ ~ 0 ~ Z ~ 0 ,=, o n r.~ t~ ~ t-~ m ~ ~ ~ c4 z ~ o o ~ o o ~ o o OC, 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 q q " C .... ~ .... ~ " ~ ,. ~ .... ~ ,. ~ .... H " r~ B ~ ~ I O \ Z m C C E - ~. ,-.-~.~.~ o o o o ,, c.,F' P .c,.o p ~..~o o o o .,..~ m m o o o o · . o . '4 tJ (.q ,m .", 'D 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I)~ O' 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Ln Ln C, '~ .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 "= "" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, C, 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,Z, 0,2, 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3' I! n n ) C, -0 ~.,2, .. < <: n o · 0 'I ~.-.-I .n ~ f~f' 0 m fi 0 rl-rO C )" 13 ,t 0 3 0 0 0 0 . 0 C' 0 C' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1..3 C..I [.q UI 0 0 ~,.) · b 0 (-.I (-q 000 0 OOO 0 000 0 IJ ~ r,-I ~ U!I,J"'J 0 O-UI'J 0 r.4OLq 0 I I 0 ~0:]> OOF' 01 O~ ZZ O0 O0 O0 O0 UIUI O0 :r fi ~-, ,-~ o ee .0-0~0 I I I tJ I,.! ~J (,.l~(/|Z~ ...... ~.1 I/I r i I' Z O~r 000 000 ~00 0~ 0~ ,0m(**4 000 000 000 ~ ',,1¢.4 [1 3' II n ~-, n o 6 o 0 0 0 ~0 l.J~'O O0 OZ Z OZ O0 00~ · 00000 ~ 0 ~ 00000 Z 0 · OOM~ 0 000000 0 0 ~m .. ...~-o .... ...m .. 0 -4 O rt 0 0 0~ I 0 O~ 0);~ F 0 0 I F 1] (3 ~-, ;-' Ig ~" ~.' IJ r~l (/I "' ,0 '0 0 0 C,I (..I I~ ~ It' -0 0 0 0 ~ .0 H · 0 ,0 LQ H t,J tO O' O' 0 '4 ',1 4) ,0 0 0 ~" NIO® f'q ('q J~ 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0 (.'1 (.4 O) t-,, 0 0 ,0 .0 s-- ~ 0 0 h, N10~'.0~00 Lq (.q .!~ b ;3 II n it' < <: 01~ n n '1 rt m I! I I r, II I Z el n r~ m 0 ~0 -~0 II 1 ~'~ rTrt m nO ~ -,h ill n m ~' *' 1 rJl-o r+~ m" 0 I~ t.,I J~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~x ~ OH O~ 3 0000~ IIII1( ~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~.3~ 0000~ 00000~ O~ O0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 H Z 0 o oo n ooooo ~ 0 ~ ~ m m m m m ~ ~ o oH ~H f..~3 -r ooooz ooo ~ .~ n~ ~ ~ oo o O< O0 0 0000 00000 0 r~ o ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ mm n r n mmmw n ~~ n ~ n ~ n z o R ; ~ mm ~ ~ ~ ~H~ ~ mmmoo ~ r ~ cc ~ m ~ ~ ~4 ~ n 0 ~ ~ ~ n IIII n 0000~ n ~ n o o < o ~ o ~ o --~ o ~NN-- o m o ~ o m ~ " Z " Z " 0 " 0 Z " ~ ,, I I ~ ~ " ~ ) ~ 0 0 "' ~ " "'" " ~ ~ ~ H( --~N mmm n rr n m , FrF Z ~ P ZZ~ HH o o o o o o o o oo o o o oooo o ooooo o oo oo o o ~ o o o o o o o oo o o o oooo o ooooo o oo oo o o o o O o 0 o 0 o oO o 0 0 0ooo o 0o0oo o oo oo o o 3' II fl rt ( n 0 "'I II o) m t~ II n o I o m n o r rf Z $ n o e n ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk December 11, 1990 Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of December 25, 1990 PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council officially cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of December 25, 1990. DISCUSSION: Chapter 2.04 of the City's Municipal Code requires regular City Council meetings to be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Since the fourth Tuesday of December falls on Christmas Day, it is requested that Council formally cancel that meeting. ITEM NO. 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department December 11, 1990 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 20848 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Albert Crisp That the City Council AUTHOR IZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 20848, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On August 18, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Radnor/Sunland/Green Meadows Partnership, Sunland Housing Group 41877 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Federal Insurance Company On March 7, 1990, in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance 460, Section 15.1 { I ), the County Road Commissioner reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one ( 1 ) year maintenance period. No action was taken on the monument bond at that date as several technical requirements had not been met. STAFFRPT\TR20848 1 The necessary requirements have now been satisfied. The inspection and verification process relating to the subdivision monumentation was initiated by the County of Riverside Transportation Department and completed by City Staff. City Staff recommends the release of the monumentation bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to release this bond as follows: Bond No. 8116 92 61 in the amount of $19,300.00 to cover Survey Monumentation. AKC:ks Attachment: Location Map STAFFRPT\TR20848 2 JPROJECTi SITE ~ 6.AUFPRX/A x~eo ~a~c~e VICINITY -.MAP NO SCALE ITEM NO. 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department December 11, 1990 Tentative Tract Map No. 26549, Plot Plan No. 10864 PREPARED BY: Oliver Mujica RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864; ADOPT Resolution No. 90-__ approvin9 Tentative Tract Map No. 26549; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Plot Plan No. 10864, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Boyd and Iszler REPRESENTATIVE: Markham S Associates PROPOSAL: Tentative Tract No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864 proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an overall density of 11.70 units per acre. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1 LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: BACKGROUND: South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga Road. R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) Plot Plan No. 10864 was originally approved at the Riverside County Planning Director's hearing of August 7, 1989. At that time, the project was approved to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on the subject property. Subsequent to this action, the adjacent property owner, Robert Oder, located to the south, filed the appeal based on the contention that development would significantly increase surface runoff and sufficient measures were not taken to insure that their downstream property would not be damaged. On December 12, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors referred the appeal of Plot Plan No. 10864 to the City Council of the City of Temecula. On January 23, 1990, the City Council considered and continued this matter "off calendar"; and referred Plot Plan No. 10864 back to Staff, in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project which would address the applicant's concerns. Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Revised Plot Plan No. 10864 were submitted to the City of Temecula on September 11, 1990. On November 19, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposal; and, continued this item, in order to allow the Planning Department Staff the opportunity to revise the Environmental Assessment, due to concerns in regards to grading, drainage, and flooding. On December 3, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposal and reviewed the revised Environmental Assessment prepared by the Planning Staff, and, forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council by a vote of 3-2. The major issue discussed by the Planning Commission was in regards to the proposed drainage improvements, particularly the potential impacts to the southern properties and Empire Creek. It was noted by Mr. Robert Oder and confirmed by the Engineering Staff that the existing Condition of Empire Creek was created and approved by the STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: OM: ks Attachments: 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District. However, it was also noted by the Engineering Department Staff that this project ( Plot Plan No. 10864) has been reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control District, in which they have recommended certain conditions, if approved, to mitigate any potential impacts, which in turn are acceptable to the City Engineering Staff. After reviewing the proposal, the Planning Commission determined that the mitigation measures, imposed through the Conditions of Approval, adequately address the Commission's concerns· The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864; ADOPT Resolution No. 90-__ approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26549; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Plot Plan No. 10864, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Exhibits A. Tentative Tract Map B. Site Plan C. Preliminary Landscape Plan D. Exterior Elevations Resolution ( Tentative Tract Map No. 26549) Conditions of Approval (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549) Resolution (Plot Plan No. 10864) Conditions of Approval (Plot Plan No. 10864) Planning Commission Staff Report ( dated December 3, 1990 ) Planning Commission Minutes ( dated November 19, 1990 ) STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 TO CONSTRUCT A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.22 ACRES LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011. WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Plot Plan No. 10864 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Plot Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on December 11, 1990, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. the following findings: Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1 ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The City Council finds, in approvin9 projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 1086q proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of. the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) The City Council, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 10864 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. f) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3 g) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. h) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project. j) The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No. 10864 to construct a 260 unit townhouse complex located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4 Resolution. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1990. RONALD J PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 11th day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5 APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 1086~. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 265q.9 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 Si9nal Miti9ation) Public Facility ( Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 17 Condition No. 18 Condition No. 54 Condition No. 32 N/A N/A Condition No. 46 STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 7 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 1086~ 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. 25 Condition No. 31 Condition No. 89 Condition No. 100 Condition No. 16 Condition No. 45 Condition No. 66 STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8 L/// ~ t~/ ,f CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: 10864 260 Townhouses 944-290-011 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a 260 unit townhouse development on a parcel containing approximately 22.22 acres· The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 10864. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void· By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on December 11, 1992. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 10864 marked Exhibits A, B, and C, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. STA FFR PT\TM26549. A 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten {10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty {30) inches. A minimum of 685 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 685 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit B. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit D. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit D {Color Elevations). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer~s successors-in-interest, provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures· A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 25. In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of Temecula, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement by the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities, no building permit shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any units within the subject property until the developer, or the developer~s successors or assignees, provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of the property. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road and Lot "A'~ street. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All existing 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. Any oak trees removed with four (~) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one ( 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director. 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development (the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one- half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit A, a land division shall be recorded, subject to the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549, in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program I per attached example) which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay to the City all applicable Quimby Act fees or shall provide land in lieu of fees. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4 Buildinq S Safety Department 35. The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances inspection. Allow two (2) prior to final Riverside County Fire Department 36. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. 37. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 38. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system {6"x4"x2 1/2x2 1/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 39. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation of built-in fire protection measures. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 41. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building{ s) . A statement that the building{ s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UBC. 43. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, $400.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. 48. The property~s street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the issuance of permits. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. 50. Off-site drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to the issuance of permits. 51. A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 52. A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be developed, and shall be implemented immediately following grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. 53. An underground concrete storm drain should be constructed as shown in concept on Exhibit "E" attached hereto, to convey the entire 100 year flow from the southerly portion of the proposed project to Empire Creek. An energy dissipator and/or rock slope protection shall be provided at Empire Creek to prevent erosion of the channel banks and invert. All facilities shall be constructed to District standards. The offsite portion of the required drain should be constructed prior to any grading operations on the proposed project. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6 En.qineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government AgencY, All questions regardin9 the true meanin9 of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineerin9 Department, It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and 55. The developer shall submit four (~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~¥'x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 56. The developer shall submit four (q) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 57. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d- way. 58, No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. 59. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. 60. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. STAFFRPT\TM265q9. A 7 61. 62. 63. 65. 66. 67. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-of-way. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineeris Office, in addition to any other permits required. An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site and downstream properties. The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and be designed to implement improvements as required. Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following the construction of the slopes and related grading. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may be required. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8 68. 69. All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be designed for the 100 year storm plus, 50% bulking, or as approved by the City Engineer. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review. 70. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 71. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 72. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 73. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 74. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 75. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 76. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. 77. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401. 78. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 79. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 9 80. 81. 82. 83.a. 83.b. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into the landscape maintenance districts: Lots 2, 3, and 4. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. Rancho California Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (43'/55'). The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Temecula for the purpose of construction of street improvements on Rancho California Road by the Margarita Villages Benefit District. In the event the improvements on the south side of Rancho California Road are not already constructed by the Margarita Villages Benefit District prior to occupancy, the developer shall construct these required off-site improvements as approved by the City Engineer. Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 (56'/78'). Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane within a 45' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66'). In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Dedicate a 28 foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all private streets and drives. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 10 90. established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thered, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCBR's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney· The CCBR's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCBR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCBR's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCSR~s shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense. The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. Ce The CCBR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City· The CCSR~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. fe The CCBR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCBR's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCBR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 11 Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 91. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road which includes but is not limited to a 200' left turn lane for southbound Moraga Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125I left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe. These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans. 92. Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and pull box locations alon9 the property fronting the south side of Rancho California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City Engineer. 93. Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 95. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 96. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. 97. All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved traffic signal plan. 98. All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved plan. 99. "A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho California Road to permit these movements. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 12 100. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for: 101. 50% of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward signal mitigation fees. 100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California Road to Via Las Colinas. In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths: 1. Moraga Road entry: 125 feet 2. "A" Street entry: 75 feet STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 13 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26549 TO SUBDIVIDE A 22.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011. WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Tentative Tract Map on December 11, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. the following findings: Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1 ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (C) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: ( a ) There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 265~49 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 {c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division Is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physical ly suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3 (2) The Council in approving of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 26549 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State Law. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access, and density. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. f) Tentative Tract No. 26549 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is likely to create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. g) The proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. h) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Study for this project. i) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application are herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4 j) The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment in that Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees are required and archaeological resources are not likely to be found at the site. k) The project will not be detrimental to human health or safety in that drainage and flood control measures must be approved by FEMA prior to map recordation, and the potential for liquefaction, differential subsidence, and surface fissuring at the site are very low. A soils report must be submitted to the Building and Safety Department addressing soil stability and geological conditions. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2__:. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 for the subdivision of a 22.22 acre parcel into 260 townhouses located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1990. RONALD J PARKS MAYOR STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5 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 1 lth day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 26549 City Council Approval Date: December 11, 1990 Expiration Date: December 11, 1992 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below· This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the Planning Commission approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety· The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers· All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer· Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer· Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer· Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 1 10. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 11. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-2 zone. Craded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the City Attorney: a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, (b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the common area by either the property owners' association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply: The property owners~ association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area~, or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the City of Temecula. The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creatinq the assessment lien. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended or property deannexed there from absent the prior written consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial" if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area'. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners' association Rules and Requlations, if any, this Declaration shall control." Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions: 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 or County Service Area for Rancho California Road in accordance with the Landscapin9 and Lightin9 Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existin9 parkway maintenance district. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City Engineer 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. The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, guaranteein9 the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the district. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3 12. 13. ee 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. fe The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations dated 1-12-88, a copy of which is on file in the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety and the Riverside County Planning Department." The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4 Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road, and Lot "A" street· Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate· All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain· STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5 15. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain· The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. STAFFR PT\TM26549. A 6 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) rods as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property· Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. h. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten {10) feet· All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 7 17. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 18. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. Enqineerin~ Department The followin9 are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 19. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 20. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. 22.a. Rancho California Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (43'/55'). STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8 22.b. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City of Temecula for the purpose of construction of street improvements on Rancho California Road by the Margarita Villages Benefit District. In the event the improvements on the south side of Rancho California Road are not already constructed by the Margarita Villages Benefit District prior to occupancy, the developer shall construct these required off-site improvements as approved by the City Engineer. Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 (56'/78'). Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 45' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66'). In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Rancho California Road and so noted on the final map as approved by the City Engineer. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into the landscape maintenance districts: Lots 2, 3, and 4. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSRts shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCSR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCF, R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 9 30. 31. 32. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. Ce The CCSR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. fe The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate· b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping ( street and parks ). d. Sewer and domestic water systems· Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 10 33. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 34. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 35. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 36. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 37. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 38. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 39. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map. 4O. All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be designed for the 100 year storm plus 5096 bulking, or as approved by the City Engineer. 41. An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site and downstream properties. The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and be designed to implement improvements as required. Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following the construction of the slopes and related grading. 42. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 11 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office, in addition to any other permits required. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 50. All units shall be provided with garage door openers. 51. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 52. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 53. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal ) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 12 54. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION 55. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road which includes but is not limited to a 200~ left turn lane for southbound Moraga Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125' left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe. These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans. 56. Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City Engineer. 57. Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. 58. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 59. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 60. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 13 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved traffic signal plan. All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved plan. "A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho California Road to permit these movements. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for: 5096 of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward signal mitigation fees. 100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California Road to Via Las Colinas. In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths: 1. Moraga Road entry: 125 feet 2. "A" Street entry: 75 feet STA FFR PT\TM26549. A 14 260-UNIT T0g]N!tO SE DEVELO PM~_.NT BOYD AND I SZLER 22.21 ACRE SITE TENECULA, CALIFORNIA DESIGN COHPARISON INFORMATION NEW DESIGN ORIGINAL DESIGN Land Use: Number of Units: Density: Building Coverage: (Including Rec. Build.) Landscape Area: Grading Design: Recreation Facilities: Open Recreation Area: (Not including Rec. Build.) Recreation Bui tdings: Indoor Racquetbatl Courts: Tennis Courts: Parking Coverage: Paved/Parking Area: Parking Spaces Provided: Garaged Parking Spaces: Open Park inq Spaces' Attached Houses 260 units tl.71 Units/Acre 269,397 Sq. Ft. (29.6%) 473,951 Sq Ft. (52.1%) Proposed Cut & Balance On Site 76,500 Sq. Ft. 8,000 +/- Sq. Ft. 1 2 166, 184 Sq. Ft. (18.3%) 685 Spaces 520 Spaces 165 Spaces Apartments 335 units 15.08 Units/Acre 182, 190 Sq. Ft. (20.0%) 434,890 Sq. Ft. (47.8%) 250,000 +/- Cubic Yards Of Export 37,200 Sq. Ft. None None None 292,452 Sq. Ft. (32.3%) 802 Spaces 1 Space 801 Spaces STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 3, 1990 Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 Plot Plan No. 10864 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica Recommendation: 1. Recommend Adoption of Negative Declaration 2. Recommend Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Boyd and Iszler REPRESENTATIVE: Markham & Associates PROPOSAL: Construct 260 townhouses on a parcel containing approximately 22.22 acres. LOCATION: South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga Road. EXISTING ZONING: R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864 proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an overall density of 11.70 units per acre. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the standards for Planned Residential Developments (Section 18.5) and the R-3-3000 zone. BACKGROUND: On November 19, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposal; and, continued this item, in order to allow the Planning Department Staff the opportunity to revise the Environmental Assessment, due to those concerns identified below in the Staff Analysis. ANALYSIS: In response to the comments expressed by the Commission, the Planning Department Staff has revised the Environmental Assessment as described below: STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1 Gradinq The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort which includes 180,000 cubic yards of excavation and 180,000 cubic yards of fill. Substantial grading and recontouring of a fairly prominent natural ridgeline will occur. However, the proposed grading was designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its original condition; and, the conceptual grading plan for the project was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to grading. Drainaqe As a result of the proposed grading for the project, water will be channeled to drainage easements and street. In addition, approximately 18 percent (4 acres) of the subject site, which contains 22.22 acres, which should drain to the south will be diverted to the north. Appropriate drainage control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with City and Riverside County Flood Control District Standards and Conditions of Approval. Floodinq Empire Creek which is located to the south of the subject property may be impacted by the development of this project. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by surface runoff and the proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has indicated that the potential impacts will not be significant and the project will be required to pay an Area Drainage Plan fee which has been included as a Condition of Approval. In addition, the City Engineering Department Staff has discussed this matter with the owner (Robert Oder) of the property to the south of the subject property, in order to insure the prevention of damages caused by surface runoff and to insure the utilization of erosion control measures. Correspondingly, Conditions of Approval have been included as mitigation measures in regards to flood prevention and erosion control. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 2 CONCLUSION: After revising the Environmental Assessment, the Planning Department Staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the following recommendations to the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864; ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26549; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution No. 90-~approving Plot Plan No. 10864. based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. OM: ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. e 10. 11. Environmental Assessment Resolution ( Tentative Tract Map No. 26549) Conditions of Approval (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549) Resolution (Plot Plan No. 10864) Conditions of Approval (Plot Plan No. 10864) Planning Commission Staff Report ( dated November 19, 1990 ) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ( dated November 19, '1990 ) Letter from Cox, Castle 8 Nicholson ( dated November 20, 1989 ) Letter from Riverside County Flood Control (dated November 27, 1989) Letter from Mira Loma Apartments (Oders) ( dated November 16, 1990 ) Large Scale Plan (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549) STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Boyd and Iszler Address and Phone Number of Proponent: PO Box 5718 Canyon Lake, CA 92380 (714) 244-2823 Date of Environmental Assessment: November 21, 1990 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA , Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864 6. Location of Proposal: South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraqa Road Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Co Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\TM26549.A 1 Yes Maybe No Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? bo The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 2 Yes Maybe No Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life· Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants ( including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to exist. ing fish or wildlife habitat? X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3 Yes Maybe No 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources· Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ao Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 4 Yes Maybe No 15. 16. Effects on existing parking facili- ties. or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e® Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? eo Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: ae Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5 Yes Maybe No 17. 18. 19. 20. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health ) ? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. ae Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Ce Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? ( A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X STAFF R PT\TM265~9. A 7 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1.8. 1.b. 1 .c-d. 1,e. 1.f. No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort. There will be substantial grading for this project, which includes 180.000 cubic yards of excavation and 180,000 cubic yards of fill. However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to grading. Therefore, the proposed project will not create an unstable earth condition or change the geologic substructure. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However. this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to all grading. Yes. The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural ridgeline of Temecula. However, the mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its original condition. While substantial grading and recontouring of this site, which includes 180,000 c.y. of excavation and 180,000 c.y. of fill, will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of site topography. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use of watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula~s standards and the Conditions of Approval. It has also been noted that approximately 18 percent (4 acres) of the subject site, which contains 22.22 acres, which should drain to the south will be diverted to the north. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant, due to the fact that appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Yes. Although the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed, Empire Creek is located to the south of the project which may be impacted by the development of this project. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 8 1.g. Air 2.a. 2.b,c. Water 3.a,d. 3.b. 3.c. Water Conservation District has indicated that Plot Plan No. 1086L~/Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9 will be required to pay a flood mitigation charge, which has been included as a Condition of Approval. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Maybe. The subject site is not located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone and is not subject to liquefaction and subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan. However, to mitigate any potential hazards, a geological report will be prepared prior to any construction of the property. The report will include mitigation measures. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Maybe. The proposed project consisting of 260 residential units will generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site. The increased vehicle trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions and particulates in the area. However, since the ambient air quality in the project vicinity is currently very good due to the local wind patterns, this potential impact is not considered significant. The proposed project will not by itself deteriorate the local area's or regional air quality, but will add to the cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the area. No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or alter the area's climate. No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water. Yes. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern will be altered, especially along the southern property line. However, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets through drainage facilities and control devices which will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's Standards and the Conditions of Approval. In addition, approximately 18 percent of the subject site which should drain to the south will be diverted to the north. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Yes. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood channels. Empire Creek may be impacted by the development of this project. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the District) has indicated that the project will be required to pay a flood mitigation charge (Area Drainage Plan fee), which has been included as a STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 9 3,6. 3.f. 3.g. Condition of Approval. In addition, the District has considered this impact not to be significant. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Drainage plans for the site will have to meet the requirements of the Cityis Engineer. Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity in local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered significant. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets, which will have to be approved by the City Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground water. No. Although the proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site, the addition of irrigation for the landscape areas will help to off-set any loss of water absorbed into the ground. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. 3.h. 3.i. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water supply. Maybe. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Veqetation ~.a,c. Yes. The proposed project involves a mass grading of the subject site which will eliminate all of the existing native plants; and the proposal includes landscaping and erosion control which will be designed to City standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation meast~res have been implemented with the project. No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified on-site. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site. STAFF R PT\TM265~9. A 10 Wi Idlife No. Maybe· A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found there is no occupied habitat within the bounds of the tract map. Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in a taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the species or on the species' habitat. In that surrounding lands to the north, south, east and west have previously been developed at urban levels of use or are presently being developed at such levels of use, preservation of this site as a reserve is inappropriate. In addition. the site is now isolated from all other known colonies by impassable residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation other than payment of fees under the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Fee Ordinance is required. Noise 6.a-b. No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project. Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it is concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation standards. It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure compliance with the County~s noise standards. Liqht and Glare Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with applicable lighting standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Land Use No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the 5outhwest Area Community Plan. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 11 Natural Resources 9.a-b. No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall. Risk of Upset 10.a-b. No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. Population 11. Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 260 units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation which allows a maximum of 355 units (according to SWAP). Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Housinq 12. No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use will not create a demand for additional housing. T ran sportat ion / C i rcu l atio n 13. a. Yes. 13.b-e. No. 13. f. Maybe. The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be significant. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented through the Conditions of Approval. Public Services 14. a-e. Yes. l~.f. No. The proposed project will have significant adverse effect effect on public services. However, these impacts are not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented through the Conditions of Approval. Enerqy 15.a-b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 12 Utilities 16.a-f. No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the existing system. Human Health 17.a-b. No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on human health. Aesthetics 18. No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact on aesthetics. Recreation 19. Yes. The proposed project will result in an impact upon existing recreational opportunities. However, the proposed project provides adequate recreational facilities for the subject residents and appropriate Quimby fees will be paid. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Cultural Resources 20. a-d. No impact. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 21 .a. Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or wildlife species. However, the project is located within an area designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition, during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present. 21 .b. Maybe. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed. 21 .c. Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable which may have environmental effects. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed. 21 .d. No. The proposed project will not have impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 13 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X November 21, 1990 Date Oliver Mujica Senior Planner For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 14 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 26549 TO SUBDIVIDE A 22.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011. WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1 (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (C) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (a) There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (C) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 26549 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State Law. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3 b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access, and density. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Tentative Tract No. 26549 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is likely to create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Study for this project. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application are herein incorporated by reference. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment in that Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees are required and archaeological resources are not likely to be found at the site. The project will not be detrimental to human health or safety in that drainage and flood control measures must be approved by FEMA prior to map recordation, and the potential for liquefaction, differential subsidence, and STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4 surface fissuring at the site are very low. A soils report must be submitted to the Building and Safety Department addressing soil stability and geological conditions. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 for the subdivision of a 22.22 acre parcel into 260 townhouses located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 5 APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 265L)9. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 26549 Planning Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: December 3, 1990 December 3, 1992 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the Planning Commission approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A I 10. 11. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-2 zone. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the City Attorney: a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall { a ) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, ( b ) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the common area by either the property ownersI association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply: The property owners' association established her,in shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the City of Temecula. The property ownersI association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creatinq the assessment lien· STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended or property deannexed there from absent the prior written consent of the Planning Direct· A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area'. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners' association Rules and Requlations, if any, this Declaration shall control." Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded· The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions: 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 or County Service Area for Rancho California Road in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway maintenance district. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans. from the City Engineer 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. 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. The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the district. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3 12. 13. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the 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. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations dated 1-12-88, a copy of which is on file in the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety and the Riverside County Planning Department." The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes. landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: ae Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road, and Lot "A" street. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4 fe project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access· Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. Any oak trees removed with four (4) inches or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement tress shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 5 15. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivisionis approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6 16. 17. parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping· All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. h. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. i. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety· All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. STAFF R PT\TM265L~9. A 7 18. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 19. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act. and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 20. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. 22. Rancho California Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (43'/55'). 23. Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 (56'/78'). Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one 12~ lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 45' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (~'/66~). STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. In the event road or off-site right-d-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66L~62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Ranch· California Road and so noted on the final map as approved by the City Engineer. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into the landscape maintenance districts: Lots 2, 3, and ~. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC~,R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCF, R~s shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCBR~s shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. The CCE, R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CCF, R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCSR~s shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCF, R~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCF, R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner~s sole expense, any maintenance required STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 9 30. 31. 32. 33. 3~. 35. 36. 37. thereon by the CCBR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four prints'of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2t4" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 10 38. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engine. er. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 39. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map. All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be designed for the 100 year storm plus 5096 bulking, or as approved by the City Engineer. An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site and downstream properties. The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and be designed to implement improvements as required. Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following the construction of the slopes and related grading. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office, in addition to any other permits required. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d- way. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 11 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 50. All units shall be provided with garage door openers. 51. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 52. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 53. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 12 Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION 55. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road which includes but is not limited to a 200~ left turn lane for southbound Moraga Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125' left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe. These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans. 56. Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City Engineer. 57. Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. 58. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 59. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 60. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. 61. All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved traffic signal plan. 62. All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved plan. 63. "A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho California Road to permit these movements. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 13 64. 65. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for: 50% of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward signal mitigation fees. 100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California Road to Via Las Colinas. In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths: 1. Moraga Road entry: 125 feet 2. "A" Street entry: 75 feet STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 14 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 TO CONSTRUCT A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.22 ACRES LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011. WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Plot Plan No. 10864 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on December 3, 1990. at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: ~a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1 (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (C) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 10864 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. ( 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan. makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 10864 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. f) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. g) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. h) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3 The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project. j) The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 10864 to construct a 260 unit townhouse complex located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 10864. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: 10864 260 Townhouses 944-290-011 Plannin.q Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a 260 unit townhouse development on a parcel containing approximately 22.22 acres. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims. action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 10864. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend. indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise. it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval· This approval shall expire on December 3, 1992. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 10864 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown· Plans shall meet all requirements STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches· A minimum of 685 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 685 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer's successors-in-interest, provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 25. In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of Temecula, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement by the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities, no building permit shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any units within the subject property until the developer, or the developerss successors or assignees. provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of the property. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road and Lot 'sA" street. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All existing 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. Any oak trees removed with four (~) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one ( 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director. 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development (the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one- half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety' to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan. and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit A. a land division shall be recorded, subject to the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549, in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program (per attached example) which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay to the City all applicable Quimby Act fees or shall provide land in lieu of fees. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acq,~ire the off-site property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4 Buildinq S Safety Department 35. The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances inspection. AIlow two ( 2 ) prior to final Riverside County Fire Department 36. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. 37. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 C;PM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 38. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2 1/2x2 1/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 39. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation of built-in fire protection measures. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UBC. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, $~00.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The property~s street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the issuance of permits. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. 50. Off-site drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to the issuance of permits. 51. A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 52. A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be developed, and shall be implemented immediately following grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. 53. An underground concrete storm drain should be constructed as shown in concept on Exhibit "E" attached hereto, to convey the entire 100 year flow from the southerly portion of the proposed project to Empire Creek. An energy dissipator and/or rock slope protection shall be provided at Empire Creek to prevent erosion of the channel banks and invert. All facilities shall be constructed to District standards. The offsite portion of the required drain should be constructed prior to any grading operations on the proposed project. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6 Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and 55. The developer shall submit four (~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 56. The developer shall submit four (4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 57. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 58. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. 59. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. 60. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 7 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-of-way. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office, in addition to any other permits required. An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site and downstream properties. The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and be designed to implement improvements as required. Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following the construction of the slopes and related grading. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may be required. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer· STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8 68. All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be designed for the 100 year storm plus, 5096 bulking, or as approved by the City Engineer. 69. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review. 70. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 71. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 72. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a.cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 73. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 75. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. 76. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401. 77. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 78. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 79. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. 80. The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into the landscape maintenance districts: Lots 2, 3, and 4. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 9 81. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 82. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 83. Rancho California Road shall be improved with q3 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (~3'/55'). Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 ( 56'/78' ). 85. Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane within a ~5~ dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (~'/66'). 86. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer~s cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66~62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 87. Dedicate a 28 foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all private streets and drives. 88. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 89. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 10 90. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSR~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto. and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCSR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCBR's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CCSR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CCSR's shall provide for the effective establishment. operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. f® The CCSR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCSR's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCSR~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 91. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road which includes but is not limited to a 200' left turn lane for southbound Moraga Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125~ left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe. These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans. STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 11 92. Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City Engineer. 93. Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 95. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 96. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. 97. All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved traffic signal plan. 98. All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved plan. 99. "A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho California Road to permit these movements. 100. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for: 5096 of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward signal mitigation fees. 100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California Road to Via Las Colinas. STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 12 101. In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths: 1. Moraga Road entry: 125 feet 2. "A" Street entry: 75 feet STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 13 Case No.: Prepared By: Recommendation: 1, 2. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 19, 1990 Tentative Tract hasp No. 265~9 Plot Plan No. 1086z~ Oilvet Mujica Adopt Negative Declaration Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Boyd and Iszler Markham F, Associates Construct 260 townhouses on a parcel containing approximately 22.22 acres. South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga Road. R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) North: R -3-3000 South: R'-3 East: R-2 West: R - 3 · I General Residential) I General Residential ) (Multiple Family Dwellings) ( General Residential ) Not applicable Vacant North: South: East: West: M~lti-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential No. of Units: No. of Acres: Proposed Density: SWAP Density: 260 22.22 11.70 units per acre 8-16 units per acre STAFFRPT\TM265~9 1 BACKGROUND: Plot Plan No. 1086~ was originally approved at the Riverside County Planning Director's hearing.of August 7, 1989. The project was approved to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on the subject property. On October 11, 1989, the RiveFside County Planning Commission considered an aiDpeaL of the Planning Director's approval. The adjacent property owner. located to the south, filed the appeal based on the contention that development would significant|y increase surface runoff and sufficient measures were not taken to insure that their downstream property would not be clamaged. It was the belief of the appellant that this impact was caused by the proposed density of the project. After considering the project, the Riverside County Planning Coemmission upheld the Planning Director~s approval of Plot Plan No. 108i~ and denied the appeal based on the fact that the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District determined there were adequate provisions made for offsite drainage. On December 12, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors referred the appeal of Plot Plan No. 108r~ to the City Council of the City of Temecula. On January 23, 1990, the City Council considered and continued this matter "off ca|endaru; and referred Plot Plan No. 1086~ beck to Staff, in order to allow the applicant the oppOrtunity to reclesign the project. Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Revised Plot Plae~ No. 101141 were submitted to the City of Temecula on September 11, 1990. On September 27, 1990, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project and address any possible concerns, as well as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre-DRC included the following: 1. Traffic Imp~t.s 2. Circulation 3. Grading Drainage 5. Landscaping STAFFRPT\TM265i&9 2 PROJECT DESCR IPTION: ANALYSIS: Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss the required supplemental material in order to address the Pre-DRC's conCerrlS. On November 8, 1990, Tentative Tract Map No. 265q~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~ were reviewed by the Formal Develepment Review ConN~ittee I DRC); and, it was detemined that the project, as designed, can be adequately conditloned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. T he D R C has forwarded a recommen~atlo~ of approval sub~ct to conditions. Tentative Tract No. 265~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086z& proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an overall density of 11.70 units per acre. The proposed development has been designed in accorckence with the standards for Planned Residantial Developments (Section 18.5) and the R-3-3000 zone. The proposed project, which is not planned to be gated, consists of forty-nine IB9) buildings 132 two-story with tuck-under 9aracJes; and 17 two- story only) and utilizes nine 19) different unit floor plans, as follows:- - Two BedroOms Three Bedrooms 1,161 to 1,266 sq. ft. 1,387 to !, 585 sq. ft. The project site plan incorporates two 12 ) tennis courts; a recreation area of approximately 16,500 square feet that features a pool, spa, tot lot, and a ~, 0Oe square foot recreation building; and an open space area of approximately SI&,000 squar~ feet. Traffic I mpact.s The Transportation Eng'meering S-~[ has reviewed and accepted the findings and mitigation measures as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~; and has determined that the proposed project will have a minimal impact to the existing road system and given the proposed mitigation measures, there will be no adverse unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project. STAFF R PT\TM265~9 3 Access and Circulation Access into the proposed development from Rancho California Road is provided by the proposed construction of an extension to Moraga Road, which calls for a fifty-six ~ 56' ) foot street section. I n addition, a secondan/acc~ is provided by the proposed construction of Lot "A" street, which has a forty-four I q~' ) foot street section. The priman/acce~; point, off of Motage Road, provides two (2) ingress and two (2) egress lanes; and, a four (~') foot landscaped median, for a total of sixty 160' ) feet. The secondary access point, off of Lot 'A' Street, provides one t 1 ) ingress and one ( 1 ) egress lane, for a total of thirty-two ~ 32' ) feet. An internal, twenty-eight (28') foot wide, private driveway will provide access to the required street parking areas. In order to lessen potential internal vehicular congestion, the Traffic - Engineering Staff has recommended a condition which requires automatic garage door openers. in addition, it should be noted that parking will be prohibited along the private driveway and shall be enforced through the CC~,R's. A meandering sidewalk throughout the project site provides pedestrial .circulation; and has been designed to lessen the potential safety hazards by separating the sidewalk from the driveway. Both the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Staff, as well as the Planning Department Sta;;, have determined that the applicant's proposed access and circulation are acceptable. Parkincl Six hundred, eighty-five I61S) parking spaces are provided, which exceeds the required 680 peking spaces under the Development Code (Section 18.12). Each dwelling unit is provided with a two-car garage 1520 total spaces), and 165 guest parking spaces are also provided. STAFFRPT\TM265a~9 ~ Refuse Collect, ion With the exception of the recreation center, the applicant's proposa~ does not provide trash enclosures. The applicant has indicated that the trash wild be collected from each individual unit; and that all units will be provided with a trash comp~,lor. In order to lessen the potential safety and noise concerns, Staff has included the folk>wing condition in the ref~mme~,~ded Conditions of Approval (see Condition No. 16d - Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9; and, Condition hle. 35 - Plot Plan No. 1086~): "Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with inland DislDo~al, Inc., for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small p'~k-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval." Gradinq and Landform Alteration The proposed project will generally utilize the existing contours of the site in order to minimize the alteration of an exiting, fairly prominent, natural ridgeline. The gredincj involves approximately 18~, 04)0 cubic yards of excavation and approximately 184),000 cubic yards of fill. Hydrokxly The Engineering Staff h~s reviewec~ and accepted the drainage study prepared for Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~; and has determined that the proposed mitigation me-eqjres (Conditions of Approval) will provide for no adverse unmitigable significant hydrolagy impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project, Drainacre The proposed project is designed to drain towards STAFFRPT\TM265~9 5 Rancho California Road and the southerly property line. The applicant is proposing to construct a storm drain from the southeast corner of the subject property with an outlet to Empire Creek, in which an approval must be obtained from the Riverside County Flood Control District in order to drain into the creek, as welt as an easement from Southern California Edison to construct the proloosed storm drain. The app|icant has indicated that there may be a difficulty in obtaining the necessary easemerits, from the property owners, in order to drain onto the adjoining southerhf properties. Therefore. the appkicant is proposing to oversize the drainage facilities alom3 the southerly property line in order to prevent surface rut~-off. Pedestrian Accessway The Temecula Valley Unified School District has noted an existing I unimproved) pedestrian accessway, within the subject property, which is currently utilized by the scbxx~ children of Vail Elementary School located on Mira Loom Drive. The School District has indicated that an akternative to' this accessway must be provided in order to obtain their support of the project. The School District has indicated that the easement along Empire Creek is owned by Southern California Edison (SCE); and that SCE has agreed to dedicate this property to the City for a bicycle/pedestrian trail. The applicant has agreed to ciecikate tan Ill)~) feet alamg the westeriy property line from Moraga Road to the Empire Creek easement. At the time this Staff Report was finalized, the City's Communkty Services Department had not yet datemined whether or not the subject eaaement would be acceptable to the City of Temecula, for use as a bicycle/pedestrian trail. The concern is due to the uncertainty of the total costs (including: engineering design; improvemant~; and maintenance). Therefore, a rece:._~.a_,clation by the Community Services Department is not available at this time. However, it is anticipated that this issue STAFFRPT\TM266q9 6 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: would be resolved prior to the Planning Commission meeting of November 19, 1990, in which Staff will present an update. Proiect DeskIn The traditional architectural style features a multi- level roof line, bay windows and chimneys. The proposed buildings utilLze the following matef, ial. Roof - Concrete Tile Blend Stucco Walk - Eggshal| "Smooth Texture" Window/Door Frames - White Paint Entry Doors - Colonial Blue Wood Trim - Beige and Gray After reviewing the app|icant~s renderings, Staff has determined that the proposed project design is - compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Landsr. a~e Landscaping is provided throughout the site, in which the proposed ~8~ landscaping for the site exceeds the required 10~ under the Development Code. Trees within the area of the perimeter of the park, recreation center, tennis courts, primary and secondary entrance, and along the Rancho California Road shall comprise of 12q" box ) Ficus Florida, Meleleuca, Carrot Wood, and Ficus Ratusa. Staif has determined that the proposed landscape design is acceptable. In addition, a detailed landscape plea wili be submitted for aplarova& by the Planning Deloartment prior to the issuance of buitdia9 poneits. The proposed density of 11.70 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area CommunLty Plan designation of 8-16 units per acre, In eddieion, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 7 FINDINGS: Tentative Tract Map No. 265a~9 There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 2651&9 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State Law. 10. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in term of the circulation patterns, access, and density. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely effect the public health or welfare. Tentative Tract No. 265~9 is compatible with surrounding 'land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is likely to create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining propertieS.. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Study for this project. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this applicatkm are her·in incorporated by reference. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment in that Stephants Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees are required and archaeological STAFFRPT\TM2654&9 8 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Initial Study was performeck for this project which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption. FINDINGS: Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9 There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 265~9 will be consistent with the CityJs future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable tim in accordance with State Law. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zonkn9 laws. The site is suitab|e to acccx..,K, Jete the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access, and density. The project as designed and conditioned will not edversely affect the public health or we)fire. Tentative Tract No. 26511,9 is r-J~N~ibte with surrounding lind uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and cover-age is likely to create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned lind usa of the area. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 8 10. 11. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely effect the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Study for this project. That said findings are supported by minutes. maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application ere herein incorporated by reference. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment in that Stephents Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees ere required and archaeological resources are not likely to be found at the site. The project will not be detrimental to human health or safety in that drainage and flood control measures must be approved by FEMA prior to map recordation, and the potential for liquefaction, differential subsidence. and surface fissuring at the site ere very low. A soils report must be submitted to the Building and Safety Departmeat addressin9 soil stability and geokKjical con/itkms. Plot Plan No. 108~ There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 1086~ will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in ' accordance with State law. There is net a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning Daws· The site is suitable to accee,,,KaJete the propesed land use in tns of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. ST AFFRPT\ TM26ra~9 g 10. 11. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk. height, intensity. and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property. because it does not represent a significant change to the present or pinned land use of the are. The pro)act has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to. and useable by, vehicular traffic. The pro)act as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project. The design of the project emd the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. That said findings are supported by minutes. maps. exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and her,in incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff rec~,-,,e,,ds that the Planning Commission forward the following recommendations to the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 265q.9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~; ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26r~9; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and STAFF R PT\TM2&ra~9 10 OM: ks Attachments: 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ADOPT Resolution No. 90- .. aiDproving Plot Plan No. 1086~, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Resolution ( Tentative Tract Map No. 2651~9) Conditions of Approval (Tef~tative Tract Map No. 265~49) Resolutk~ [Plot Plan hie. 1086~) Conditions of Approval I PIot Plan No. 1086zl) Environmental Assessment Exhibit: Site Plan City Council Staff Report (dated January 23, 1990) City Council Minutes Idated January 23, 1990) Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\TM265~9 11 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Boyd and Iszler Address and Phone Number of Proponent: PO Box 5718 Canyon Lake, CA 92380 (71q) 2q.q.-2823 e Date of Environmental Assessment: October 30, 1990 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Tract Map No. 256~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~ 6. Location of Proposal: South of Rancho California Road, east of Moracla Road Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached she. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ae Unstable earth conditions or in changes in g~ologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X ee Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\TM265~9 1 fe Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslid·s, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: ae be Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Ce The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: ae be Substantial changes in Currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rats, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? fe Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water qullity, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? Yes Maybe N._9o X X X X X X X X X X X STA F F R PT\TM265~9 2 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantia) reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tida| waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new spec. ies of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT~TM265~9 3 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upsat. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an expiosien or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the propo.sa| alter the lecation, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Gene,-~iion of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM265~9 ~ 15. 16. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Ce Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Parks or other 'recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amoum of fuel or energy? be Substantial increase in demand upon existing sourr_e~_ of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFR PT~TM265~9 5 Yes Maybe No 17. 18. 19. 20, b, Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ae Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health ) ? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation, Will the proposal result in an intpact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources, Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or hisbaric archaeologica|. site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Ce Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal rdstrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM265~9 6 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important exampies of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goats? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of tim while long- term impacts will endure well into the future· ) Does the' project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X STAFFRPT\TM265~9 7 I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1,a. 1.b. 1 .c-d. 1.e. 1.f. 1.g. Air 2.a-c. No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort. There will be substantial grading for this p~oject. However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was zipproved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This impact is not considered significant. No. The mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its original condition. While substantial grading and recontouring of this site will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of site topography. Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of mural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hyciro-seeding of disturbed areas after grading. After the project-is completed. increased water run-off during floods may occur. Water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval. No. Since the project site is net edjacerrt to any creek or stream bed, the proposed project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any creek or stream bed. No. The subject site is designated as subject to liquefaction and subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan. To mitigate under hazard, a geolocJical report should be prepared prior to any construction of the property. The report should include mitigation measures. No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area's air quality. STAFFRPT\TM265~9 8 Water 3.a,d-e. 3.b. 3.c. 3.d-g. 3.h. 3.i. Vecletation ~.a-c. ~.d. Wildlife 5.a-c. No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water bodies. The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and quality of run-off water in the City. No. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the ground through the construction of impernteable surfaces on the site. Run-off will increase but not substantially. No. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood channels. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or quantity of ground waters. No. The proposed project will not impact the public water supply. No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices. No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified on-site. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site. No. A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found there is no occupied habitat within the bounds of the tract map. Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in a taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the species or on the species' habitat. In that surrounding lancls to the north, south, east and west have previously been developed at urban levels of use or ere presently being developed at such levis of use, preservation of this site as a reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is now isolated from all other known colonies by impassable residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation other than payment of fees under the Stephe~'s Kangaroo Rat Fee Ordinance is required. STAFFRPT~TM2654~9 9 Noise 6.a-b. No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project. Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels of noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it is concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation standards. It is further recommended that the final enginc~-ing design of the project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engin::r to ensure compliance with the County's noise standards. Liciht and Glare Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with applicable lighting standards. Land Use No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the Southwest Area Community Plan. Natural Resources 9.a-b. No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall. Risk of Upset 10.a-b. No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. Population 11. Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 260 units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation which allows a maximum of units (according to SWAP ), Housinq 12. No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use will not create a demand for additional housing. STA FFR PT\TM265~9 10 T ran sportation I C ircu lation 13. a. Maybe. 13. b-e. No. 13. f. Maybe. The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be significant. Public Services 14.a-f. No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on public services other than parks and recreational facilities. Enerqy 15.a-b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. Utilities 16.a-f. No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the existing system. Human Health 17.a-b. No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse affect on human health. Aesthetics 18. No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact on aesthetics. Recreation 19. No. Because the proposed project provides adequate recreational facilities for the subject residents. Cultural Resources 20. a-d. No impact. Mandatory Findingis of Siqnificance 21 .a. No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or wildlife species. However, if a project is located within an area designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees for the Stephents Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. STAFFRPT\TM265a&9 11 21 .b. 21 .c-d. No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited or cumulativety considerable. nor will they have environmental affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. STAFF R PT\TM265~9 12 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~vill be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a Te~ significant ect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC EPORT~ required. " / / October 30, 1990 """' Date ' ~~~ /M/EC ten lot F F T ULA X STAFF R PT\ TM265~9 13 /, i '. VOV.~OW . i li iVE iDE cotlnc. PLannin DEPartmEnt DATE: TO: JANUARY 3, 1990 CITY OF TBMECULA; FRANK ALSHIRE, PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 RgQUEST: Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22 acres. LOCATION: South of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road APPLICANT: Helen Moore Oder Plannin~ Co·mission and Staff Rscomnd: A~OPTTON of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 based on the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and DRqeTAr. Of the Appeal based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the staff report; and ~PPROV~T. Of PLOT PIaNNO. 10864, AND. !e0. 2, based on ~he findings and conclusions in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. R . reeter Planning Dire r KJJ:aea 1-3-90 City Nanagate Note: The prc~oeed Iwoject i· · preYiousty el~ovecl ptot p|en to conltruct · 33S ~l~tt 81:mrtmmt campLax m Woximtety 22.22 acres Located south of Nanthe CaLifornia Reed and esst of Nor·g· Road. The ·tie, vhtch is currently vacant, is zoned l-2. Surrounding zoning is l-2, I-]*4alX), I-]-__M~__ end l-). Surrounding Lind uses inckude mJitifwai Ly and single fmi Ly residence and vaunt property. The project vie ellwaved at the PLanning Director he·ring of August 7, 1989. The adjacent pre]plrty whets, Locitad to the s4mtll, filed an al3peaL based on the contention that deveiqmwent veuid significantly increase surface runoff end sufficient Be·lures vere not taken to insure that their dramstream property uouid not he dieBead. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46'209 OASIS STF~EET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 / PP ~0e64/4ppE4L t. -~000 EXISTING 70NING .R-3-,3oo_o CHURCH/. /"O,'VG = R'3'3000 C-p ...._, ~Nc~o cAu __ O0 3 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: October 27, 1989 ~ SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN N0, 10864 - Rancho Viego Apartments - \'~ First Supervisorial District - Rancho California Area - 22.22 Acres - REQUEST: APPEAL of Planning Commission's Approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning ConTnission and Staff Recon~end: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 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, APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN NO. 10864, in accordance with Exhibit A, Amended No. 2, based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 11, 1989; and, DENIAL OF THE APPEAL based on the findings and conclusions incor- porated in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 11, 1989. 10/24/89 treeter, lanning Director tmO imJwm ? 1 -A ( 12/l~l ih'ev. A4n. ref. Depts. Comments DisI. AGENDA NO MIN ES OF THE BOARD OF SUPER% :)RS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10.2 1:30 p.m. being the time set for further hearing on the aOoption of the negative declaration for EA 33292 and on the appeal on the Planning Commission's denial of the application of ~ancho ViegO Apartments in the Rancho California area for Plot Plan No. 108a~, for a 335 unit apartment complex the Chairman called the matter for hearing. The matter was presented Dy Joe Riobards of the Planning Staff who turned the discussion over to Gerald J. Geeflings, County Counsel. Gerry Geeflings, County Counsel, stated it is now in the juriSdiCatiOn Of the City of Temecula. On motion of Supervisor Abraham, seconded by Supervisor Dunlap and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the Planning Staff is directed to refer the matter to the City Council of the City of Temecula. Roll Call resulted as follows: Ayes: Ceniceros, Dunlap, Litson and Abraham Noes: None Absent: 'Younglove I hereby ceflily Thal lhe foreloing is · full. lrue and correcl cor~7 of an order made and entered on nlcemhe~ l~, 1989 of Supervisors Minutes. WITNESS my hand and The seal of the Board of Supervisors (seal) 10.2 xc: Planning, Applicant, to. Co., City of Temecula FliR4 II Oil, (AGENDA ITEH 5-6 - Tape 3A, 3B) APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 10864 - EA 33292 - Helen Hoore Oder - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - 22.2~ acres, south of Rancho California Rd, southeast of Moraga Rd - PROJECT: 335 unit Aparl3nent Complex - REASON FOR APPEAL: Appeal of project approval by adjacent property owners Hearing was opened at 3:23 p.m. and was closed at 3:50 p.m, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of a Negative Declaration for EA 33292, approval of Plot Plan No. 10864, Amended No. 2, and denial of appeal of approval of Plot Plan No. 10864 based on the findings and conclusions listed in the staff report. Staff advised that the proposed project is a previously approved plot plan to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on approximately 22.22 acres located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road. The site, which is currently vacant, ts zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3-4000, R-3-3000 and R-3. Surrounding land uses include multifamily and single family residences and vacant property. The project was approved at the Planning Director hearing of August 7, 1989. The adjacent property owners, located to the south, filed an appeal based on the contention that development would significantly increase surface runoff and sufficient measures were not taken to insure that their downstream property would not be damaged. The appellant Indicated that she would not be available to attend the public hearing until November, but staff scheduled this item for hearing on the first available date in order to move it along In an expeditious manner. TESTIHONY OF APPELLANT: Robert Oder (29923 rJira Loma Drive, Temecula) said that he was the son of the appellant. He said that his parents are overseas and cannot attend this hearing, but would make theeselves available as soon as they come back. Therefore, he asked that this item be continued. When asked, Hr. Oder said that he believed that his parents will be returning on October 19th. Staff advised that possible cbntinuance dates were suggested. In answer to Commissioner Purviance, Mr. Oder said that his mother has an attorney but he was also unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Oder said that his mother suggested that November 15th would be an appropriate date. TESTIHONY OF PROJECT PROPONENT: Grant Becklund (647 N. Hmtn Street, Riverside), representing the project applicant, Indicated on a mylar exhtblt of the subject site that the upper portion showed the existing drainage conditions. He noted that the stte has a ridge that runs through the property in an east/west direction. The lower portion (in blue) drains to the south onto the Oder's property and the yellow portion drains out towards Rancho California Road. The bottom exhibit showed the drainage pattern which will occur after the project is built out. The conditions from the Flood Control District require that they do not change the drainage areas, but maintain the drainage patterns as they exist. They are also requtred to place the water onto the offsite property in the same manner as the drainage presently occurs. Mr. Becklund said that he met with Robert Oder and offered a $12-13,000 offsite storm drain which would deliver the water underground further south and on to Empire' Creek. Tht.~ storm dratn would be butlt at his cltent's cost and would alleviate any concerns that the Oders had concerning water gotng onto thetr property. The only thing the Oders had to do was to provide an easement so the storm drain could be constructed. Mr. Becklund said that that proposal was evidently not satisfactory. He said that he knows the Oders are asking for a continuance, but he was requested that a decision be made today. They have done what the rules require them to do. The Flood Control District has conditioned then so that they cannot drain all the water onsite to to Rancho California Road. He did not believe a continuance would gain anyone anything. Commissioner Purviance said that he did not believe the water in the blue area could be diverted. I~r. Becklund concurred, but said that that was the opinion expressed at the Director Hearing. Nrs. Oder wanted them to take all onsite water and drain it towards the north. He felt that they went an extra step in offering to build the underground storm drain, but they are not getting anywhere. He did not want another month's continuance. In answer to Commissioner Turner, I~r. Becklund said that the Flood Control has conditioned them to be within one acre of a match in drainage. John Kashuba, Flood Control District, said that they do not want to see the blue area changed. Commissioner Turner asked about the proposed underground diversion to Empire Creek. Mr. Kashuba said that the Flood Control District would be satisfied with something less, but the underground drain could be done, if the applicant could acquire the easement. REBUTTAL: Mr. Oder said that he was not fully prepared to present this case, but what he heard scared him. He lived on one of the properties immediately south of this- tract when the 100 year flood occurred ten years ago, and he personally witnessed what happened. If they take a nondeveloped piece of land and pave it, then water that used to soak into the ground will be put into pipes and sent on in concentrated fashion to those areas which are presently ice plant landscaping. The place where the water ends up eventually is Empire Creek, which is the southwest boundary of the parcel to the south. He said that this is an extrenely sensitive area. During the 100 year flood the water got so high, the buildings nearly washed away and people had to be moved out. Now, they are talking about sending more water onto those apar)ent~. He said that there are several other problem with the design and documentation, and those problems are substantial, but he was not prepared or qualified to present them. He said that water runoff was not one of those problems, but that some of those problems ware significant. If his parents are not able to attend soon, then he will prepare and present the case to the Commission. Their downstream property has been substantially damaged by a project that was approved. Commissioner Purvtance said that he read the letter from the law firm and noted that there was quite a btt of staff, with partners and associates. It seened to him that there could have been seemone from that firm who could have artended today. Mr. Ocler said that he wished that they had. He has been told of some of the issues; however, without documentation, he could not bring them up. He was very concerned that Mr. Kashuba said that he would approve the concentration of storm runoff. He suggested that there might be some facts that Mr. Kashuba was not aware of.. Mr. Oder-said that they have owned and operated the two properties for 15 years and have seen what happens tn that area. Mr. Oder went to the exhtbtt to state that where the stte plan shows "storm drains to existing channel ," and satd that there Is no existtng channel. i(owever, if a storm drain is put there, then there wtl] be a channe]. He indicated where the proposed underground storm dratn would go. He said that they have had problems with Empire Creek, where the proposed drain is to empty, and expressed concern about anymore water betng dumped into that Creek. He felt that thts needed further study. He also discussed the storm dratn with Mr. Kashuba. Hr. Oder satd that the storm dratn and easemeht was origlnal]y his idea, and he presented that idea to Hr. Becklurid. Mr. Kashuba said that he heard general agreement that the drainage problem could be taken care of with the pipe. It was Mr. Oder's suggestion to put the pipe in, and it seemed like a good suggestion. He heard that there were other matters, but they did not sound like ones that he could speak to. Commissioner Smith asked about the discharge where the drain would terminate. Mr. Kashuba said, if designed properly, the discharge could be handled by the drain. He said that the Creek itself has problems, but not necessarily as a result of water from this property. Mr. Oder said that the runoff would be increased from the developed property. Commissioner Beadling said from the way the drainage is shown, that in a 100 year flood, the water would not flow straight down and hit the Creek in a "V" shape. Mr. Oder said that the stream changes course. Mr. Kashuba said that he was not aware which storm frequency hit this area ten years ago. Mr. Oder said that it was classified as a 100 year flood. Mr. Kashuba said that there were several points where damage was done, and at one point the walkway of the existing aparl;nents were eroded underneath. There were also soma construction going on, and both water and mud caused considerable damage. Commissioner Turner asked if this item could be appealed further. Ms. Lind advised that it could be appealed to the Board. Commissioner Turner saicX that he could understand the appellant's concern. On the other hand, in giving people the right to make an appeal, they also have the responsibility to be available to represent the case; in not in person, then by counsel. He did not believe a delay was fair to the applicant. f4r. Oder said that the topic was brought up with the Planning Deparl:nent and they had several discussions regarding scheduling. He said that he had a letter (a memorandum of understanding) dated September 25, 1989 which was the result of a telephone call between Ms. Dobson, Planning staff, and one of their people. The letter is from Jean Van Ness (Legal Assistant to E. Ludlow Keeney, jr., of Mitchell, Keeney, 8arry & Pike) in reference to the telephone call, where they were led to believe that the appellants would not have to be at the hearing, or they would have been. He said that they understand and respect the responsibility they have to present the case that they started. However, they were given in omitton indicating that this course of action was acceptable. Mr. Streeter asked Ms. Dobson to mike her position clear. Mr. Dobson said that when she spoke to the attorney's assistant on the phone, she was asked if the appellant needed to be there. Ms. Dobson advised that she said that staff was going to mike a recommendation, and whether or not the item is acted upon or continued was entirely up to the Planning Commission. ~. Dobson said that she could not commit to the attorney's assistant. Mr. Oder said that he was not a party of the telephone call, so he could not argue the position. Commissioner Purvtance said that Mr. Oder does not have any evidence tn hand as to how Dobson responded, except the lawyer's offtce's Interpretation of the conversation. The letter may be the understanding of one party, but may not be the understanding of the other party. Hr. Oder said that he understood. Ms. Lind asked, for the record, tf Ms. Dobson ever Indicated to Jean P. Van Hess that a decision could not be made without the appellan't's presence at the hearing. Ms. Dobson advtsed that she did not. Commissioner Turner said that Mr. Oder did an admirable job with the small amount of information that he had, and that the appellant has a further right to appeal, which would not hold up the applicant. Mr. Oder said that there were other substantial issues besides the one of storm water runoff. Commissioner Purviance said that they have not discussed nor have received any evidence of those issues. Commissioner Bead ling said that she personally belt eyed that there was a water problem, but that she also believed that it is up to the person who is appealing to have someone present when the case comes up. ~4r. Oder said that he was not a party to the telephone call, but he did not believe that Ms. Van Hess "dreamed it up." P.r. Streeter said that no one on his staff is going to tell someone that a decision will not be made when an item is scheduled for hearing. He felt that the real issue is one of flooding, and Mr. Kashuba has said that he is comfortable with the conditions the way they appear on this plot plan. Also, that there are some solutions to the problem, which he believed was the key. They do not need any more information, as they have relied on the Flood Control engineers in the past and he sees not reason to-change that now. Hr. Oder responded to that statement by saying that, yes, the Flood Control District is the authority here,. but he felt that the history frcxn the 100 year flood proves that Flood Control makes substantial mistakes. He said that they will not see that happen again. The hearing was closed at 3:50 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Plot Plan 10864 is an approved request to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22 acres; the site is located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road in the Rancho California area; Plot Plan 10864 was continued from the July lOth to the August 7th Planning Director's Hearing due to flooding concerns raised by an adjacent property owner; the August 7th decision was deferred and the subsequent determination made that flood mitigations required were adequate; Plot Plan 10864 was approved on August 8, 1989 by the Planning Director; the site is vacant, surrounding by vacant land and apartment complexes; the site is zoned R-2; surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3, R-3-3000, R-3-4000 and C-l/C-P; environmental concerns include slopes, grading, noise, biological and archaeological resources; the General Plan calls for Category I and II uses in this area; the I~roposed project meets the criteria for Category I residential development; the Southwest Area Co, mnuntty Plan shows a tentatively approved designation of 8-16 DU/acre; the appellant°s stated basis for appeal is the contention their downstream property would be severely damaged by runoff from PP 10864 during the '100 year flood"; and, the appellant objects tot he property development because of runoff concerns and becau.~e of the density of the project. Plot Plan No. 10864 Is consistent with Ordinance 348, Category I residential criteria, the General Plan, and with the tentatively approved Southwest Area Community Plan; Plot Plan 10864 ts compatible wtth area development; environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of Insignificance; the Planning Department defers to the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation DIstrict in matters of flood control; and, Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District determined there were adequate provisions made for offsite drainage, therefore, staff cannot support the appellant's appeal request. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner, seconded by Commissioner Beadling, and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the Negative Declaration for EA 33292, approved Plot Plan 10864, Amended 2, subject to the conditions of approval, but denied the appeal of Plot Plan 10864, Amended No. 2, based on the above findings and conclusions. Zoning Area: Rancho California Ftrst Supervtsortal Dtstrtct E.A. Number 33292 Regional Team No. I APPEAL OF PLOT PtM NO. 10864 RIVERSIDE COIMTY PLAMIIING DEPARTMEMT STAFF IEPOItT 1. Applicant: 2. Type of Request: 3. Location: 4. Existing Zoning: 5. Surrounding Zoning: 6. Site Characteristics: 7. Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 9. Land Division Data: 10. Agency Recommendations: 11. Letters: 12. Sphere of Influence: Helen rioore Oder Appeal of Planning Director's approval. South of Rancho California Road East of Moraga Road R-2 R-2, R-3-4000, R-3-3000, R-3 Vacant, moderate to severe slopes. Vacant, multi-family and single family residences. Land Use: Category I Denst ty: 8-20 du/ac Open Space/Cons: Areas not Designated Total Acreage: 22.22 Total Lots: 1 DU Per Acre: 15 See letters dated: Road: 4-14-89 Hea 1 th: 4-03-89 F1 ood: 4-19-89 Ft re: 4-04-89 Bldg, & Safety - Land Use: 4-20-89 Grading: 12-01-89 Health-Special Services: 7-07-89 Co, Geologist: 6-05-89 Opposing/Supporting: None received Not within a City Sphere ANALYSIS: Pro,tect Description: Plot Plan No. 10864 was submitted as a request to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on 22,22 acres, The site is located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road in the Rancho California area. APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 10864 Staff Report Page 2 Project Background Plot Plan No. 10864 was first heard at the Planning Direct~r's hearing on July 10, 1989 where it was continued to allow time for investigation of flooding concerns raised by adjacent property owners. At the August 7, 1989 Planning Director's hearing the adjacent property owner's, the Oders, indicated they were still not satisfied their downstream property would not be damaged by run-off. The Hearing Officer deferred decision for one week to confer with the Flood Control District. On August 8, 1989 (see letter attached} the determination was made that the existing conditions of approval were sufficient to mitigate the concerns raised on July 10 and August 7, and the project was approved. Land Use/Zoning: The site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include apartments to the north and south, commercial and vacant land to the west, and a horse ranch to the east. The site is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning includes R-2, R-3, R-3-3000, R-3-4000, and C-1/C-P. ProJect Consistency: The project site is with the Rancho California subarea of the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area. Policies for future land uses indicate uses should generally be Category I and II. Plot Plan No. 10864 meets the criteria for Category I residential land uses, and the applicable requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The site has a tentatively approved designation of 8-16 du/ac on the Southwest Area Community Plan. Environmental Anmlysh: The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 indicated the following concerns; slopes, noise,biological and archaeological resources, and grading. Studtes were prepared to address all the issues and mitigation measures were incorporated in the conditions of approval when applicable. Basis for Appeal: The appellant's primary lasts for appeal (see attached statement dated 8-22-89) is tn re ards to the potential dama to thetr downstream property (adJacent to the south) due to triadequate provisions on Plot Plan No. 10864 for runoff control durtng the "100 Year Flood". The appellant contends they are not legally required to accept runoff from upstream properties. The Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation Dtstrtct's letter dated 11-30-88, Item #2, does require a drainage easement to be'obtained from affected property owner's for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows prior to the APPEAL OF PLOT FLAIl 10864 Staff Report Page 3 issuance of peruits. Therefore, the appellant would have the opportunity to review improvement and gradtrig plans and refuse to grant' an easement tf they were not satisfactory. The appltcant's engineer (Grant Becklund) indicated to staff they had offered to construct a dratn on the appellants property in order to insure prevention of flood damage. The appellant apparently did not feel this was sufficient protection and subsequently filed an appeal of the Planning Director's approval of Plot Plan 10864. The Basis for Appeal states that the appellant ts "vehemently" opposed to the proposed project due to both runoff concerns and the project's lack of open space. At the ttme the application for appeal was submitted on August 23, 1989 the appellant Indicated she would be out of town until November and requested a hearing date during that month. Staff subsequently informed that appellant that Ordinance 348 required the Planning Department to schedule appeals within 30 days. On September 18, the appellant's attorney submitted a letter again requesting a hearing date in November. For the reason stated above staff could not acconmnodate the request. It is staff's position that it is in the best Interest of all parttes concerned to expedtte this matter as soon as possible. FINDINGS: 1. Plot Plan 10864 is an approved request to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22 acres. 2. The site is located south of Rancho California Road and east of Horaga Road in the Rancho California Area. Plot Plan 10864 was continued from the July lOth to the August 7th Planning Director's hearing due to flooding concerns raised by an adjacent property owner. 4. The August 7th decision was deferred and the subsequent determination made that flood mitigations required were adequate. 5. Plot Plan 10864 was approved on August 8th, 1989 by the Planning Director. 6. The site is vacant surrounded by vacant land and apartment complexes. 7. The stte is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3, R-3-3000, R-3-4000, and C-Z/C-P. 8. Environmental concerns tnclude slopes, grading noise, biological and archaeological resources, 9. The General Plan calls for Category I and II uses in this area. The proposed project meets the criteria for Category I residential development. APPEAL OF PLOT PL4JI 10864 Staff Report Page 4 10. The Southwest Area Community Plan shows a tentatively approved designation of B-16 Du/Acre. The appellant's stated basis for appeal is the contention their downstream property would be severely damaged by runoff from PP 10864 during the "100 Year F1 ood." 12. The appellant objects to the proposed development because of runoff concerns, and because of the density of the project. CONCLUSIONS: Plot Plan No. 10864 is consistent with Ordinance 348, Category residential criteria, the General Plan, and with the tentatively approved Southwest Area Community Plan. 2. Plot Plan 10864 is compatible with area development. 3. Environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. e The Planning Department defers to the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation. District in matters of flood qontrol. Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District detemined there were adequate provisions made for off-site drainage, therefore staff cannot support the appellant's appeal request· RECOIIIENDATIONS: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 based on the finding the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, APPROVAL of PLOT PLAII l). 10864, MIENOIl NO. 2, based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval; but, DENIAL of the appeal based on the ftndtngs and conclusions in the staff report. LD:bc;sc 9/25/89 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS Of AP;ROVAL Rancid vqeJo Apartments P.:st Off~ce Bcx 5718 Canyon LaKe, CA 92360 PLOT PLAN NO. 10854. Amended NC. Proaec~ DescrlD~lon: Tc GCnS~rur' a 335 ur-,lt aDar~men~ Assessor's Parce'~ NO.: Area: RanGno California Tt~e iDer,,'.~tLee sna]i cle~end. indemnify. and ~ol3 r, arm]ess T.r,e COurt) of I~vers~de, ~ts agents. off'cots. ant em:,:c~ees fro~ an,' :~.a~m~., ac.-.lon. or 13r'oceedlng against. tr:e Co~r,t:,' ~.vers~cle or its agents, of~lcers. or emP, lcyees to att.~c~'. aside, v:~lc~. ,jr annd). an aDor-cva] of ,the County o~ ~ts aa,.~-:o-) age~cles. appeal I;oarcls. or ~eg';s~a.*.~.e ccncer~]n-] J:]ot Plan 10864. Amended' No. 2 E',~=l:.~t ~ Count) of I~vers'~de will PrOmPt]> notify ,the Dermlttee c',t ar~y s~cl~ c'a~m. action:. c, proceeding against tP.e Count>' or t; ~,/9rsl'Je acd w; ] ] cooperate fu]] y in the defense. if CCur]Cy fal]s to DrcmDt]y notify ~he DermlCtee of any s~cn claim, action or C~oceed~ng or fa~]s to cooperate fully in the Oefense, the permattee shall not. thereafter. De responsible to ~efene. ~demP~fy. or ho!O harmless the County ~ ~ ve rs ~ ~e. This approval shall be used warbin two (2) years of approval dace; otherwise it shal] Oecome nu]] and void and of no effec; whatsoever. By use ~s meant the beginning of substantial construction conCemp]aCed Oy th~s approva] withan the two (2) year period which ia thereafter di]~genC]y Oursued tc comp]e~ion, or the Diginning of subs~antia] ut~]lzat~or contemplated Uy this approval. The development of the premises shall conform suUstan~ally with ,that as shown on plo% plan marked ExhiDit A, Amended 2, or as amended Oy these conditions, the event the use hereDy permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more. this approval s~a11 Oecome null and void. 7 l:. °4. 15. 15. :E' : -.., The &o: ' 1 c.~rlt ~ha 11 ;om;D 1 y w ~ tr. t!',e r'ecomn,en..~t ~ c.-,~: .ca t ". ' ~ · in the Depar~n~nt of Health transm~ttal Oate~ t,~ c- ' 'O.:. ~ Jul~ ?, IgBg. a co~y of wh~c~ ~s attacnea. t Csrrectea Dir~ctor'~ He~r~ng The applicant shall comply with the Eisinore reCOmmendatIOnS datea NovamDer 14. All landscapea areas shall be planted ~n accorCance aDDroved landscape. irrq~atlon and sha~nq plan5 prior issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sDr~n~,ler s'vs~em shall be Installed and all land~capea areas sr, a',~ ma~nta~,lea in e v~ble growth cc,:~:tio.~. P~ntlr~ (10) feet of an entry or ex'mt arl~e.a~ ~ha): nc.t be to gr'o~ h~gher than thirty (~0) ~,~cl~es. PLOT PLAN NO. 10B64 Ccqd~t~ons of Approval Page 4 2; PrlOr tO +,he ~ssuance of DuiIC~lr%g De~-m~ts, the a;D~!cant sha~i obtain c]eJr~nce a:~/cr Oerm~ts from 1:no follower9 aq,~ncqe;-: Road DeDar;ment Environmental Health R~vers~de County Floo~ Cc>n~rcl F~re DeDartmen~ Written evidence of comE118nce shall De presented to ~ne Long Ds~ D~s~Jn of ~he DeDar~men~ of Building and Safe~x. 22. Building elevations sna]] be ~n suDstant~a]]y ConFormante ~ tkat shown on ExhlOlt M-2, Mate- lals used in the constructlet, of a'l 1 ~u~ ~C~:-.u-~ ~:f-..~] I te ',~ substarwtlal conformante ~th that ShOwn ,OcelOt Elevations ~ ..~r~ E,~lbl~ M-1 (Materials ~re ~ fO! 'OwE: Mate..-~al Rcc. f T~!e Clay Re~ wa; l -.- ~ Accent Paint X-50 CryStal w~ ndow G1 ass C )ear walls Stucco .White' 25, 26. 27, Roof-mounted equipment shall De shielded from ~round v~e~. Screening mater~a) shall be subject to Planning Depa,'tmept approval. N~ne (91 trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose 8 total of two bins each shall be centrally located w~th~n the project. and ehall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be s~x feet ~n height and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bins from external view. All street l~ghtl and other outdoor lighting shall De shown on electrical plans suOm~tted to the Department of Bu~ldqng and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply w~th the requirements of R~vers~de County Ordinance No, 655 and the R~vers~de COunty Comprehensqve General Plan, Four (4) Class II b~cyc!e racks shall De provided ~n convenient )ocatqons to facilitate b~cycle access to the project area. R I / ~p 10864 / 4PPEA~ · ~P 15864 - Amend #2 April 14, 1989 Page 3 15. 16. 9e per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Projects creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. All entrance driveways shall be channelized with concrete curb and gutter to prevent back on parking and interior drives from entering/exiting driveways for a minimum distance of 50 feet measured from face of curb. The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights of way to provide for full width right of way on "A" Street. Said right of way shall be improved to the nearest paved maintained road in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A. (44'/66') at a grade and alignment approved by the Road Commissioner. Curb and gutter on project site only; asphalt concrete dike may be required for drainage control. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 at all intersections of roads constructed or improved within the development. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the development 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 pursuant to Governmental Code Section 56000 st. seq. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. Street design and improvement concept shall be coordinated wish PP 9195 and PP 8328. A striping plan is required for aoraga Road and Rancho California Road. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. Principal Eng. Technician LJ:Jw KINNITH L. m~DWARDI CNIIIm INOINmmIM till MAItKrr ITIIIIT Ira, O. IOX IOI3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Rivers i de County .,v.e,om. cAL,ro,.,. easoz Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. Area: '~¢~m~c)lo ~m~k'~/t~CL~m~"'~ Re: have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc.- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports.' This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rGlesArea and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated N~Y 3o~Ii~S is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached coments apply. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. El)WARDS N'H. I~HUBA or Civil Engineer DATE: C unty of River, TO: FROM: RE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: April 3,1989 : v a ten ONI~ENTAL, HEALTH SPECIALIST IV PLOT PLAN 10864, Alandad No. 2 Environmental Health Services ham reviavad Amended No.2 dated March 30, 1989. Our current cosants rill remain as seated in our memo dated November 18, 1988. SN:tac · APR ~ '~u~ ~ RIVERStOE (~Jlfr/ ~.,..?JqNING D~?.~''''' "T GEN FORM 4, (Key 8/87) TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside R I VERS I DE COUNTY PLANN I N(3 DEPT. ATTN: Alex Gann Steve Hinds, St. Plot Plan 10864 Sanitation, DATE: Environmental 11-18-88 Health Svcs DXv The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 10864 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water servlces are available in this area. Prlor to any bulldlng plan submittals, the followzng items will be required: 1. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewsring agencies. ..Three complete sets of plans for the swimming pool/spa viII be submltted, in order to ensure compliance wzth the California Administrative Code. CalifornZa Health and Safety Code and the Unlform BuXldin~ Code. SH:tac GIN. FOiIM 4, (Rev. 8/8T) K/NNrrH L. I:DWARDS CNIIF INOIN&IR reel MARKET ITRICT P. O. BOX 1013 TBL.EJIt4ONI (714) Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IIIVilIIIDI. CAI, IIrORNIA IllOf Re: Attention: Regional Team No. Area: ~(~m~c~o ~m~k'~/t.;CZm~an PP have reviewed this case and' have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area 'consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports.' This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The Oistrict's report dated Nw 3o/IqtS is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWAROS t~f';gt~ N'H. I~ASHUBA or Civil Engineer DATE: KINNrrH L. IDWAR~I CNILIF INIINlI31 I III MARKI"r ITR![? P. O. BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (714) RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVIrRIIDI. CALIFORNIA IZIOl November 30, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 Alex Gann Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 10864 This is a proposal to construct an apartment complex in the Rancho California area. The 22.22 acre site is located on the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Horaga Road, This site lies on a ridge with little or no tributary offsite runoff. The developer proposes to drain the site with interior streets and storm drains. The site plan shows a diversion to the north of about 4 acres which should drain to the south. The Board of Supervisors has adopted the Hurt,eta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting' drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and are normally not required of other types of new development. Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds where an Area Dralnage Plan has been adopted· In order to miti- gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Pub110 Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. MItigation charges, where appropriate, w111 be slmtZar to the current Area Dralnage Plan fee rate. Following are the Dtstrtct's recommendations: A flood mitigation charge shall be paid· The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The new development in thls case includes a total of 20.88 acres. At the current fee rate of $932 per acre, the mitigation charge equals $19,q60. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to lssuance of permits. If Area Drainage Plan fees or mitigation charges have al- ready been pald on thls property In conjunction with an earlier land division or land use case, the developer should contact the District to ascertain what charges are actually due. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Plot Plan 1086~ November 30, 1988 The property's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or di- verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prlor to the issuance of permits. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. Offsite dralnage facilities should be located within publlcly dedicated dralnage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be re- corded and a copy submitted to the Dtstrlct prior to the issuance of permits. A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along wlth supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for revlew and .ap- proval prior to the issuance of.grading or building permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Krls Flanigan of this office at 71q/787-2333. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer JOHN H. KASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer cc: Palmer-Namdar Engineering KF:bab city Counc~ Minu~es Jmnu~ry 23. 1990 i] ~r ~he 3 F: |# ith PUBLIC H~ARING Plot p1 an !~o. 10864 - Aortas1 of p1 In-lug Commissions e s aeorOvsl Of 335 Un4t lDa-ttent Colqplev on 22,22 Acres. Mayor Parks declared ~he Public Hearing open at 8:46 p.m. and explained =he process for hearing all interested parcies. Staff Re;oR City Manager Frank Aleshire introduced County of Riverside Planning staff member Laurie Dobson who gave ~he staff report outlining ~/le history of ~he zoning considerations on the subject property. She explained ~/le basis upon which ~he appeal had been filed. Councilmember Lindemans questioned if ~he provisions of the Quimby Act had been met for this project. He also inquired if the park fees had been paid. N t antes \ 1 \Z3\gQ - 5 - C~tv Council Minutes J-nuary 23. 1990 Richard McCatt, principal planner for the County of Riverside, responded stating that only he didn't know if this project is subject to park fees. ADDliCant Presentation The applicant, Stan Steel, 13555 Plantation Way, Moreno valley, addressed the Council, expressing a willingness to return to the City Council with the specific landscaping plan showing the percentage of open space and play areas. He also stated that the figure of 1,800 additional residents would represent 5-6 residents per apartment, which in his opinion could not be determined prior to actual occupancy.' Grant Beckland, 647 North Main, Riverside, engineer for the project, presented a map showing how drainage is being handled. Mayor Parks questioned the position of the retaining wall adjacent to the appellants proper~y. Mr. Beckland showed a map detailing the retaining wall and percentage of the grade slope at Los Colinas. Councilmember Lindemans questioned the street access for the project. Mr. Steel pointed-out two points of entry and exit, one from Moraga Road and one from the cul-de-sac off Rancho California Road. City Manager Aleshire requested a report from the developer regarding the fees being paid for public improvements. The applicant responded that fees were being paid for traffic signalization, fire mitigation, flood mitigation, Kangaroo Rat litigation fees, and building permit fees. Appellant Presentation Robert Oder, 29923 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, addressed the City Council speaking in opposition to the proposed apartment development. He addressed the history of ~/le project and presented his continuing concerns about the project. He advised the Council that the project represents a 53% increase in density over his neighboring apartment project. Tamar Stein, Esq., of Cox, Castle and Nicholson, 2049 Century Park East, Los Angeles, representing the appellants outlined the points covered in her letter to the City Council dated January 19, 1990. Her testimony stressed concerns regarding the incompleteness of the project file currently in the II | rtutes \ 1 '~3\90 -6- 02/091g0 C{ty Counct~ MInutes Jsn,,srv 23, 1990 City's possession. In summary, she stated the environmental assessment was not complete enough for the Council to support the recommendation of the County Planning Department. Roberic Oder, St., 29911 Mira Loma Drive, #63, Temecula, spoke to the matter of retaining the current topography. In response to a question from Mayor Parks, he stated that there is not an existing flood control easement across his property. In response to a question from Councilmember Lindemans, Mr. Oder stated the density of his apartment project is 12.18 units per acre. Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive #63, Temecula, requested ~hat the Council consider the fragility of the Empire Creek. Public InPUt Ron Fortson, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, requested the City Council allow the School District time to assess the impact regarding the number of students this project will generate. Jean Sparkman, 30554 San Pasqual, Temecula, representing the Temecula School Board requested denial of this project based on the n,,mher of additional pupils it will generate. Steve Sander, 40213 Holden 'Circle, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project because of the limited open space and because of the lack of input by citizens of Temecula during the planning process. Jim Allmon, are already congestion. 43594 Gatewood Way, Temecula stated that there too many apametns and too much traffic John Cloghen, 41304 Bravos Court, Temecula spoke in opposition to ~he staff recommendation, citing the traffic congestion and crime rates in rental properties. Rebuttal Grant Becklurid said there is a need for a flood control easement and ~hat ~he school impacts were addressed during the approval process at the staff level. NJnul:u\l~a3'~ 4- 0~/09/90 City Counc~ ~nute~ J~nuary 23. 1990 Stan Steele said he believes the developers have adequately addressed environmental concerns in the planning of this project. He stated that he would look favorably on a continuance to allow the developers to explore the City's criteria which differs from that of the County. The owner, Mr. Tony Boyd responded to a question from Councilmember Lindemans tJlat he might not be the builder of the project if further delays occur. Mayor Parks declared the public hearing closed at 10:15 p.m. Councilmember considerations topography. Lindemans spoke regarding the density and the need to respect the existing Mayor Parks expressed his concern regarding the changes in topography inherent in the design. He also outlined his concerns about ~he retaining walls and agreed that the criteria has changed as a result of the City's incorporation and involvement in these projects. City Attorney Scott Field outlined the Council's options as follows: 1. Approve =he project and deny the appeall 2. Approve the project and add new conditions. Reopen the hearing and continue the project to a date certain with instructions to staff for considerations to be addressed at the next hearing· Deny the project subject to staff preparing a resolution reflecting the findings which confirm the denial· It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to deny Plot Plan 1086 subject to the appropriate resolution to be prepared by City staff reflecting the appropriate findings· Tony Boyd, owner, responded to a question from Councilmember Moore, that he would prefer to see the project given the opportunity to make modifications rather than compelling them to starc over again with the entire development process· Councilmember Munoz withdrew the motion on the floor and Councilmember Lindemans withdrew the second· 1~ i flutes\ 1%a3\~0 -I- Oal O e lgg C.ttv Council Minutes J~n,,arv 23, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall questioned the necessary time frame needed by the developers to address the concerns expressed by the City Council during the deliberations.. It was moved by Councilmember Councilmember Lindomens to continue additional five (5) minutes. Munoz, seconded by the meeting for an The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to continue the matter "off calendar" and refer it back to staff. The motion was unanimously 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 Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Munoz to extend the'meeting to 11:00 p.m. The motion was unanimously carried. Councilmember LAndsmarts left the chamber at 10:37 p.m. nut es ~ 1 \Z3\ fO - 9- 0;Z109190 6ABEL COOK & BECKLUND TEL No.714-788-5~84 Nov.2?,90 17;08 P.05 '..:';T:.t.:,,' ....' ............ COx. CASTLE 8 NICHO!.SON LAWYI, KS E~4GI Cf F~eUIY IANK rA~3'r r'J%CSI~eli-IP 11:31 ~77-719D November 20, 1989 (213) 284-2248 FAX Grant G~bel, Cook & Becklund 647 North M~i~ ~treet, Suite 1-~ Riverside, California 92501 Re: .Plot Plan 10B64 Dear Mr. Becklund: At the request of the project' proponent and the Board, my clients have reviewed t~e ~rawin~s.received b~ them from Mr. Isz]er on November 9, )989. As you know, the drawings Jndlcate the proposed site aE the proposed storm ~ra~n that your client has suggeste~ as a solution to the drainage issues. · he foZlo~'ing points re, resent the initial ~ems thu~ my clients wou=d require as part of suoh e solution. I want to b~ very clear that those points do not represent ~n offer by my clients and, indeed, may not represent'all of the points that we would wish to raise. Tho~ ere merely ~hose that, ~n the brief ti~o since the hearing, we have been able to formulat~ based upon the drawing received. As you know, no engineered ~l~nB are yet Nove~.ber 20, 1989 Page 2 ~valloble to us. Further, we are attempting to retain an independent engineer to look at the proposal~ however, due to the thanks~ivin~ weekend, this has proved difficult. Lastly, although we W~sh In good faith to discuss a solution to the drainage problamQ, I further want to b~ clear that thic doac not m~an that ~y o~ients have waivQd or r~linquiGbed any issue raised by them at the hearing, including ie~uec related to d~nGity. ~e are, however, a~:tempting in good faith to eett!e with your client. My clients' requirements 1. The pipeline is to be constructed at no e~pense to the Your client will construct an underground R.C.P. storm drain from the east part of their south road to a point near their southwest corner, to acce~t r t the Edison easement~ then down through the Edison easement to the bottom of the hill into Empire Creek. The s~re of the pipe is to be 24 inches or more to drain 8 improved acres of lO0-year flood waters as ~pproved by the Riverside county Roads Department. At Empire Creek an ener dissipater ls to be constructed ~o dtrec~ p~pe Slow downstream, slow the rlow of heavy rains~ and protect the sldes and bottom or Empire creek. Plan~ and construction are to be subject to the Odors' review and engineerin~ approval· There must be a written and recorded agreement between the parties. The provisions of the agreement must be=ome a part of the conditions of proJeo~ epproval. References to mexisting chennels" on the Odors' properties shall be deleted ~rom all project plans, 8iagrame an~ doouments. GABEL COOK ~ BECKLUND TEL No.714-788-5184 Grant W. B~cklund, ROE November 20. 1989 Page 3 Nov.27,90 17:10 P.06 Thc offer by %he Odere of an easement shall expire within one year if =he project is not developed· We look forward tO your early response. Tamar C. Stein TCS:bol TCS:ll-17-O! [rank J. Fea!re, ~.E. Tony BOyd Supervisor wal~ Abraham RIVERglDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONS~:RVATIOIt DISTRICT November 27. 198~ River~ide County PJennlt:G Department County Administrative Center Rivcratdet Californ[a 92501 AttelitlDn: ~e(~lonal Teas }Io. 1 Klm Jarroll Johnsun La~es and Gentlemen: Plot Plan 1086~ Supplemental Report Approval of Plot Plan lOB6q by the Planning Commission wee ap- pealed at a public hearing before the Riveraide County Board or Supervisors on November 1~, 1989. Followjns public testimony the matter was continued until November ~Sm 1989. end this District wa~ requested to roylet4 concome expressed by Mr. and Hrs. ~obert J. Dder and their representatives re~aFdin~ impacts on their prol, crty due to surfsos drainage from the proposed prOjeCt. The Odors' properly lies aou6herly of Plot Plan 1086q and ~orth of Empire Cre~k (see attached Exhibit "A"}. Their property is improved ~itl, apartment units. BuildinS contrOlS were less stringent Hh~n their property was developed, and they have expe- rienced flood .n,~ sedtm~ntatlOn damage to their property in the past. A ~?~tloml of the appliean~'s projeer since about 8 acres, ie nature, tributary to the OOers' north boundary at two well defined Specific concerns expressed by the 0derm regarding the proposed project include diversion of flow~ concentration of flo. and in- cret, sed runoFf due to loss or pervious area on the project site. They also have expressed concern over possible discharge of sedi- ment Lo their property due to ~radin$ operations on the proposed project. In m'e~;ponse to the Odorst concerns, the project applicant has offered to oon~truc~ a storm drain at hie expense ~o convey flows from h~s proJec~ directly ~o Empire Creek, rather than discherR- ing ~hem a~ the two e~isting concentration points onto U,e Oder~' propCr~y. This offer is eonditioned on the Odors providing an underground easement aQross their property alert6 ~he weaLerly boundary as shown on ~xhZbit "B" s~aohed. To date, the two pertic~ have not been able to come ~o an aircement regardln~ this proposal. RIVal'SIde CoUnty Planning Department ~e: Plot Plan 1086q Supplemental Report -2- November ZT~ 19~9 The t~istriot has'reviewed this ease in mere detail and has the followthE observations: He diversion of flou is Involved In the applioant's pro- pose). )he dralnnge facilities 3hewn on th~ spproved Amended Hap No, 2 disch~rge flo~s to the Odors' property at two naturalm historic eonoentratlon points. The District would require that flows dtsnharged to the Odors' property ba r~turned to their nmtural condition with reapsot to velootty of f].ow, ate.m by me~ns oJ' aner- $y dissipaters. fie ooneentratlon or eooeleration of flo~ is ~nvoSv~d ~n ~he applioant~s proposa1. Cvnatruction of d~ellin~ss s~reetsm drivewayam etc,, on the pro~eo~ site wl)l reduce the pervious area available for Infiltration of rainfall to the soilm and runoff in e given ralnfall event will thorease In ~he after condi- tion. Constm'uotion of a storm drain to Enmpire Creek as proposed by the epplloant ~ould mitigate this Instease. Dis~harge of sediment from the presser site u111 not be m proble~ if en adequate er'oston control plan is ~mple- mented ,during gredin~, After the presser ts oompleted sediment loadlngs wLll be reduoed from natural conditionn. In vZew or the above factst the Dtstrtot recommends the followJnE eondiL[ons be added to those previously approved by the PXanntn[ Commisston: An underground oonoreta storm draln should be constructed ms sho~n ~n oonoept on Exhibit "B" mtteahed hereto, to oonvey the entire 100 year flo~ from the southerly por- tion or ~he proposed roJeo~ to Empire Cr'eek. An energy dissipater end/or roo~ slope proteoticn she).% be provided a~ Empire Crock to prevent erosion or the channel banks end invert. All facilities shell be o0nstruoted to Dis- tric~ standards. The offsite portion of the required drain Should be cons~ruo~ed prior to any 6radtng opera- blond on the proposed project· RJver~Ldc County P]annlng Department Plot ~lan lo86~ Supplemental ~eporb -3- November 27, 1989 A comprehensive ¢rc~lon gontrol plan shall be develOped~ and ~hal] be implemented Immediately rollowing grading to prevent d~posttloH of debrls onto aounstream properties or drainage facilities. qveationz~ conoernin~ this matter may be referred to this office. A~teehments O~ Supervisor ~elt Abraham Cabel~ 'Coo~ end Beoklund Attn~ Grant Bccklund Cox, Ca~tle & ~tchol~on Attn: ~amsr Stein Very truly yours, F~ANK J. PEAZRS chler or Plannin8 Division MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS 29911 MIRA LOMA DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92;590 (714) 676-5218 November 16, ! 990 Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, Members of the Planning Commission, and Planning Staff of Temecul~. About a year ago, after we had appealed certain provisions of Plot Plan 10864, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors remanded this application and our appeal to the City Council of our newly formed City of Temecul~ Our points of appeal were presented to the Council, followed by the voiced opinions of other groups and Individuals. Finding sufficient support for the appeal, yet willing to allow the developer another opportunity to develop his land, the Council decided to contlnue the matter 'off calender'. Now the matter is to be heard November 19, 1990, by the Temecula Planning Commission The Council handled this matter the last time and we presume will ultimately do so again, utilizing the findings of the Planning Commlssiof~ Therefore we submit our observations to the Council and to the Planning Commission. We appreciate being noticed of the forthcoming meeting and anticipate being noticed for the Council heartno~ Our Appeal, as outlined In a letter from Tarnat C. Stein to the City or Temecula dated January 19, 1990 was based upon these Issues. I. Inadequacy of the Environmental Review 2. Density of the project 3. Drainage and Flooding We have studied Plot Plan 10864 carefully and are pleased that many changes have been made In response to earlier objections. However, some of the same problems that faced us before are still there and there are some new ones as well. They ar~. A) Inadequacy of the Environmental Review/Drainage and Flooding We have owned and operated a business on our land rot well over fifteen years, and by rat the most rrlghtenlng Issues to us are those concerning protection from rloodlng and eroslorL Storm runoff from the Southerly half of Plot Plan 10864 will flow In a Southerly direction, straight towards our property. The Plot Plan provides for an East to West storm drain as well as street flow which in severe storm conditions might not be adequate. Water, mud and debrls will flow to the southwest comer of the property and It is shown going into a '20' Storm Drain Easement" on our property (Mira Loma Apartments, Tract 4040, Lot two). Although the plot plan as presently drawn Indicates an Easement, there Is at present no drainage Easement of any kind on the northwest side of our property. Furthermore, while some talk has been made with regards to said Easement, absolutely no 'good faith' offer has been made by anyone to acquire such an Easement for any material compensattor~ There are at present no facilities on our property to accommodate water from the Emergency Overflow Structures of Plot Plan 10864. Where Is that water to go? Through our landscaping and subsequently through our buildings? From our perspective, these look like potential fifteen foot waterfalls: the waterfall to the West would flow right onto our property; the waterfall to the East would flow onto tract 8369-1, and subsequently onto the Northeastern comer of our property. During major rainstorms, heavy rains would fill the driveways of the proposed project, and on the Western driveway it would flow rapidly in a Southerly direction down the I0 percent grade and pass right by catch baslns clogged with debris. The water would then exlt the Emergency Overflow Structure. Where It goes then is completely unacceptable. The end of that street Is about 1130 elevation. The natural level there is I! 15 elevation on our property. This waterfall would create great wash outs at the drop and bring destruction to both properties, periling building 39 of the proposed project and eroding hundreds of feet on Mira Loma Apartments !an~ The southeast corner of plot plan 10864 has the same problem. The eight percent grade down 400 feet of the Eastern driveway will pour water rapidly down the hill. The thousand foot plus storm drain at two percent grade will not carry much flood so where does It go? The proposed Building number 33 ls 13 feet higher than the catch basin only a few feet away. The Emergency Overflow Structure shown Is unacceptable as It pours water onto Tract 8369-1 which has no means of accommodating excess water and therefore will flood out Rancho Apartments precisely as was done in the · 1 O0 year" flood. The current drainage system In that location was designed exclusively for Tract 8369-!. It ls not large enough rot any more water than it currently carries. The system carries water from the Levande Place development and 16 houses. Heavy storms could wash out the end or the Eastern driveway, resulting In disaster to the proposed buildings 32 and 33 and disaster to the Rancho Apartments directly to the Soutl~ The storm drain which Is Just above the retaining wall along the entire 5outh boundary or Plot Plan 10864 !s not very specific. This wall In some places exceeds 15 feet and the dirt goes up at a 2-1 slope well above the wall to the building slabs. Any failure of the wall due to hydraulic problems would be a disaster to both plot plan 10864 and to the Rancho Apartments below It. It may In fact be Inappropriate to build such a structure on this ian~ The valley to the east or Plot Plan 10864 Is an area or concern. The current low point rot that valley's drainage Is on Plot Plan !0864's !and for about 160 feet. Problems during the ' I00 year' flood were due to developed property washing out. The plan shows they will rill this !n at their south east corner and block any flow with I0 to 15 feet of rill. This will block all now to the point or wash-out, endangering their buildings, tract 8369-I and certainly everything downstream. The issue of Empire Creek will have to be addressed more thoroughly than has been done so far. To call It a Creek Is an understatement. We have seen this Creek become a raglng torrent of a River during severe rainstorms. The last such rainstorm tore out sidewalks at the rllra Loma Apartments that were thirty feet above the level of the creek bed, severely undermined the foundations or buildings, and tore loose large Edlson Company Electric Poles, leaving one of the poles suspended by its wires. There has been considerable development In upstream regions that are tributary to Empire Creek, so the next major rainstorm will create more water flowing in the Creek than before. In addition, in the Creekbed immediately downstream of the Mira Loma Apartments, and adjacent to the Summer Breeze Apartments, there now exists a "Sewer Protection and Streambed Stabilizer Structure" (a Dam). Presence of this Dam, downstream of our property, In concert with the inevitably greater flows that will result in Empire Creek upstream of our property due to the increased development In the region, wlll create great peril throughout the area In the next major rainstorm. We feel that the · Initial Environmental Study" contained In the Staff Report is inadequate with respect to these Issues regarding this creek. We feel that entering a Negative Declaration based upon this report Is improper, that a closer look into the situation ls called for, possibly mandating an Environmental Impact Report_ The developers have other alternatives for delivering their water to Empire Creek; we suggest they consider them. They could Just as well put a plpellne through the adjacent "Summer Breeze" Apartments to the west and then send It down the Creek, not a bit farther than through our property and possibly a shorter run of pipe. In fact, the bottom of the hill at the dam would be a better place for the addition of concentrated flows into the Creek than on the Mira Loma property where it would have to go abruptly into the Creek at a sharp angle relative to the direction of flow of the Creek, causing serious erosion and other water flow abnormalities that could become critical during a severe rainstorm. B) Density of the project The project has been downscaled from 335 units to 260 units. However, there Is now a significantly greater number or three bedroom units than before, and the one bedroom units have been eliminated altogether. Following Department or Fair Housing stipulations, we therefore will see the 23% reduction In total units leading to only an I1% reduction in the number of persons, and a 9% reduction In the number of bedrooms. This Is still a 39% Increase In persons per acre density over and above the density or the adjacent MIra Loma and Rancho apartment complexes, and is incompatible with the adjacent single family residences. The present staff report completely overlooks these adjacent single family residences In the sections titled 'Surrounding Zoning' and 'Surrounding Land Uses'. C) New Concerns I. A Pedestrian Accessway is mentioned in the staff report. Where are the schoolchildren to go after they exit the Southwest corner of Plot Plan 10864? Are they to trespass our property, walk down to the Creekbed and wade across the Creek In the vlclnlty of the Edlson Substation? Such a mixture of children, high voltage electricity, and flooding would be unwise. The expense of the Improvements necessary to make this pathway safe would be extremely hlgl~ 2. Where is the management office for apartment rental and maintenance? Where Is the service/maintenance faclllty for the buildings and grounds? 3. We are concerned about the garbage collection procedures outlined in the staff report. Will garbage cans sit In front of garages? If garbage sits outside the apartments, dogs and cats wlll stir it up and the wlnd will blow it around - probably onto the catch baslns clogging up the storm dralns~ 4. How do you get into the units from the street? How are deliveries to be made? It ls a long walk around the end of the building to the front door on the side opposite the street. 5. Where are the windows? Some Inner rooms appear to have no natural II~L 6. In plan E, It appears that the back bedrooms and the garage occupy the same space. 7. These are mostly three bedroom units. W~.ere are all the children going to play? One pool and one tot yard does not offer much play space for so many children, and the large open space In the middle or the lot Is rather far away rot children living In the furthest away units. In summary, we still seriously GuestIon several aspects or Plot Plan 10864. we look rotward to seeing these questions addressed In the near future. 51ncerely, Helon rioore Oder Robert J, Oder Robert L. Oder ,.,1- /. Ii MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS 29911 MmA LOMA DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92390 (714) 676-5218 November 30 1990 Mr. Larry R Markham, Principal Markham and Associates 41750 Winchester Road, Suite N Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Mr. Markham, Please accept my most sincere apologies for taking so long to send you the accompanying letters'from the RIverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. They were burled In old riles at one of our 5an Diego offices, and I flna!ly uncovered them today. So here they are at lastl You will please take note or the foliowin!; I. The developer significantly failed to build the structure In accordance with the design that was reviewed and approved by the District in November 1986. Instead, he attempted to modify an existing structure that had originally been built for an entirel), different purpose. The DIstrict later determined that after the modifications to the structure were complete, It still failed to satisfy the Design Requirements for Streambed Stabil Izatlo~ 2. During their field trip to the site In February 1988, the DIstrict observed that ponding of water was not taking place on our propert), (the Mira Loma Apartments). In the 34 months that have passed since that observation was made, there has been a significant progressive buildup of silt behind the structure. I fact, this buildup ls so severe that there ls now a localized Inversion of the stream bed slope Immediately upstream of the structure. (/ks you and I discussed, this could possibly be a result of Inadequate low-level flows through the structure.) This buildup has caused pondlng to occur on our propert),. This was observed by Mr. Middleton of the CIty of Temecula during his visit to the site yesterda),. 'Temecula's Finest Value in Luxury ADart, ments' 3. Apparently, the modification to the structure occured sometime during the winter of 1987/1988. When we noticed ponding starting to occur on our property during this time frame, we filed an official complaint with the County Of Riverside on January 21, 1988. At that time, it seemed our only recourse to the problem. 4. Like you, I have several years of Engineering experience, and I am confident that the following sequence of events will occur. The silt will progressively build up over time. This will result in the ponding becoming more significant as time progresses, thus placing the Mira Loma property at risk during severe storms such as those we experienced in 1978. The installation of the proposed storm drain in this region of the streambed could seriously impact these instabilities. 5. The situation calls for a complete engineering analysis of this critically unstable region of the stream, and a properly engineered solution to solve all of the above mentioned issues. You are uniquely, postured to assist in the solution of this problem. i look forward to a timely addressal of this issue. As you know, my interest in this issue is simply to see that my property is adequately protected. Robert L. Oder cc: John Middleton, City Of Temecula 'Temecula's Finest Value in Luxury Apartments" _~INNI~TH L. rDWARDS CNI[F ENGINEEli RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND \~/ATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERlID[ CALIFORNIA U2,~r, 2 ,luLy 1L>, 198,r~ ,~,ttent ion: ReJ,ion,tL Tenrn No . I Plot PZan 9195 is a proposal to const;ru<;t dp}rLments on Jpproxi- rn .' ;ty 10 aares in the Rancho Cal[/'orn[~ ;~rt.a. The properly IotaLed on thu south side or V~a Los (:ut[na.~, :~ppr3xL:nately -',,.)0 f'~et, '~O,~th,.~aSt, '~f ~ancno CaliFornia The southerly portf. on '~f' this property [s trav~.r'sed by ~ deeply enodej wasi~. This wash [5 not stable :~', t",'j Jenced by the :~nt iv.. h~.a,/w.-~r'] er'osL,>n an.J b~ink sl,~uChin~J. The w'~:sn has cut ~ nearly v~rtt~al ":~rC .-~ or;._~ the north.~rly bank. The; .~i~:':li'-ar"-'s exhibit pr,.~posce:s ', "~ras:s ] [ned" channel to ,. vt-y bribut,.ry storm Fl'~ws throug~ thu prdpert. y. The strea:q sl'>;~,,~ .oF '~ppr ~xi~nat. ely ~% '~[DnF, wLth the hi:-~h' 1/ natur.: oS Lhe Local ,s:)iLs tends Ld pr'e~:[;~{le tQiS <'on,'.-~?t v iab L~ ,~l :ern,~t Lye. .it, 'J.~;'y tr'u:y y3urs, CC: %ellaLore Cons~rjctian ~,Ii;: ,41:TH L. El)WARDS C~mlllll IrNI31NI~ER RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION D!StRiCT RIVERlID[ CALIFORNIA f/25OL T,irljcs ,nl,] PLot PLan 9L95 j~; ,i pr,.Tr~s'~l LD cDnstru,'r ,ff~trtmerlts r>n ,ff'~pr,~xi,nLely lO 7K-res in ~{~ f~tll,'h,~ Q~J Lfnrnia area. ~e property Ls 1,~:at,~t ~l t-i~-. ~uth ..;[ le of VL.-~ [c.s G~l inas, q~pcoxh~Lety 3e,: feet ~-n~th,:,,~::t .ff t~',n, 71~ (MI ifiwni,~ I~,1. The sDut;~erly ~z'tion of this .nro.~erty ~:4 'Ih[~ ~sh }~l~; b~,'.~ fillet an,] a *e-,-r~rary graded r~uth,~rl.y ,}f the prevLous ~nsh. nor_ ;~d,~;tt.,-. '~u' drop is nr.>lir.~, the the out nf si4'~: .l~nsl,D[x~ 1~:,it: i-:: GF this ~l i.n,~l ~x~,~w~y, uv~q t>r,>vi,l,,~, ~it t:,, <]ev~'l..>t~::.'Bt l~S ct cnt.~l Of 9, 56 ,~cr,es of $9J2.,~0 5~r ilcre, ~e :'itiqatinn i~(~st?] ,Dll the prevai.] ing h'/.h-~[{~Tic and Distr Lct for review ;Drier to die i ssu.url,Te ,~f ,lr.~,}L[Yl ~' i~Ui I,]fnq Very trulv yours, co: Be, ll;~to~'e G~nstr. uction JHK: pml Oscc=.qbcr 14, 19.~'i Riverside County Oepartr. lent of Buj. ld'Lr~S a;~d Safety 254.0'3 Ynez Road, Sui~e 212 Plaza Professional Center Rancho CaliFornia, CA 92390-2263 Attention: Hack Gentlemen: :{e: Plob Plan 9195 15-Inch Sewer Protection and Erosion Control Plan The Disbri:;t 'has received a conceptual drawing] of e~osion control measures to be taken in order to protect an existing sewer line and ~o cn~ck channel erosion adjace~t to Plot Plan 9195. This .,. RCE and was r~3ceived by the plan was prepared by Mi~ ~a'aa.:]a, , Disbrict r,]ovembar 2~, 19~37. The District nc~s revie~m] this pl.~n and fi.qds i~. satisfactory ~itn respect Lo its function to present a wor~<ab~e solution to the potential ~rosion problooms. I~ should b.s no~ed, ho~.v~r, that the District msl<es no commit- '.,qent to~ard assurinJ that per'.nission to proceed with the v~ork outside the prop~r~y associated ~;ir.h Pl. ot Plan 91.~5 is obtained. Questio:is concernin:~ this ~,qatter .,nay be referred to Steve Stump this office at 71~4/787-23~3. Very truly your3, KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief EnG, ineer cc: Hik 'l~-~mada COE!{ COUWE~{3ERG Senior Civil En.,.~£neer ~:bab SlOB MARKET STREET P. O. BOX 1033 TrtEPHONE (714) 767-2015 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERBIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 January 28, 1988 Ba!latore Construction Co. 15615 Caminito La Torre San'Diego, CA 92128 Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 9195 15-inch Sewer Protection and Erosion Control Plan Pursuant to our meeting at the site of Plot Plan 9195 on January 22, 1988, we are summarizing the problems left to be addressed arising out of your decision to utilize the recently built sewer protection and streambed stabilizer structure in lieu'of. the en- ergy dissipator presented on approved plans reviewed by this office in November of 1986. There are three basic issues that need attention as discussed in our January 22 meeting: 1. Poor drainage upstream of the structure 2. Lack of flow containment at the structure 3- Slope and channel erosion adjacent to and below the structure In regard to the poor drainage, it was concluded that part of the problem arises out of grading which has taken place in the streambed upstream of the structure which has created localized depressions along the flow line. In addition, the streambed flow line that was established prior to your construction of the stabilizer was somewhat lower than the crest of the structure. This was due to the poor condition of the old existing sewer pro- tection wherein flow was "piping" under.the old structure. It was decided that no action would be taken .until the current wet season is over and we have a chance to see if the stabilized streambed will re-establish flow line grades that existed when the original sewer protection stabilizer was placed on the streambed by the Rancho California Water District. After the stream dries up, you should fill any streambed depressions which may exist on your property and adjacent property to the south, a reasonable distance upstream to allow standing water to drain. The condition of the stream adjacent to the sewer line protection was not before, or is it now, adequate to contain design flows from breaking out on the southerly bank of the stream. Unfortu- nately, your rectifying the "piping" situation that formerly ex- isted at the structure could result in flows breaking out of the stream under lesser flow rates than before. While you are not necessarily responsible for solving this containment problem, we feel it would be prudent for you to assess the extent of the problem by having a hydraulic analysis done. Ballatore Construction Co. Re: Plot Plan 9195 15-inch Sewer Protection and Erosion Control Plan -2- January 28, 1988 The analysis should make an estimate of flow depths over the ~ structure as it now exists, and the expected behavior of the flow with respect to depth and velocity as it drops into the earth channel below. Certain modifications and additions should be made to the stabilizer as follows and as indicated on the attached drawing: 1. Slope protection should extend up channel slopes adjacent to the dissipator a sufficient distance above the expec- ted depth of flow. A cutoff wall should extend along the downstream end of the terminus of riprap in the channel bottom and up the slopes. A 3-foot layer of rock should be extended 20-30 feet downstream of where the rock now ends before instal- lation of the cut off wall. To prevent excessive scour from side flows entering the channel along the southerly side of the stabilizer struc- ture, a~3-foot cut off wall should be installed along the southerly top of slope extending downstream of the struc- ture. It should be tied into the stabilizer cut off wall on the upstream end and into the wall mentioned in Item 2 above on the downstream end. The wall should be de- pressed at its center to assure the side flows enter over the wall and not beyond the downstream end of the cut off wall. Finally, steps should be taken to maximize the quantity · of stream flow that will pass over.the stabilizer without breaking~out around the southerly side. This can be accomplished by building up the south stream. bank just upstream of the structure, moving obstructing larger rock to the bank, and building a curb along the south top of the stabilizer to keep stream flows on the' structure. This should be accomplished without obstruct- ing flows coming from the power station to the south. Please have your engineer submit a hydraulic analysis of the final channel entrance configuration for the design flow of 1100 cfs. Also plans for the modifications mentioned in this letter should be prepared and submitted for review. Making revisions to the plans approved by this office in November 1986 would be an acceptable method of presenting the modification plan. Ballatore Construction Co. Re: Plot Plan 9195 15-inch Sewer PrOtection and Erosion Control Plan -3- January 28, 1988 Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Steve Stump of this office at 714/787-2598. We regret any misunderstanding that may have developed in the evolvement of these changes to the originally proposed channel plan. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDB Chief Engineer COEN COUWENBERG Senior Civil Engineer Attachment CC: Mik Hamada, RCE Dept. 'of Building & Safety (Riverside) Attn: Eric Traboulay Dept. of Building & Safety (Rancho) Attn: Max Hakanian SES:pln / f .J Suqgested Ad~itio~s to Co~itions of approval for Rot Ran No. 10864 1. Change condtion 1 to read as fobNs: "The use hereby permitted by this Rot Ran is f~r the Consmjction of a 260-unit condominium devdopment'... etc. 2. Add new con~ffion: The Find Map fe' Tract No. 26549 must be recerded before ieeJance ot any bulldng permits. 3. The C,C,&R'e shall include the fallowing stipuletion8: This development cannot be mass leased er master leased. Any changes to these C,C,&R8 mum be reviewed and approved by the City Atta'ney. 4. Add new Contort: Pria' to issuance of any permits, Proof of inatrance euffident to indemnify against any damage to downelream property within 300 feet of this devdopment shall be submitted to downsIre property owners for bspeclion and reaaorable approval. Downslream property owners ehal Suggested Addtiorm to Con<ltions of al;q;rovai for Tentative Tract No. 26549 1. Add new con<rrtion: The Final Map for Tract No. 26549 must be recorded before issuance d any bulking permits. 2. The C,C,&R'8 shag indude the fogowing etipulatione: This devdopment cannot be mass leased or master leased. Any change; to theee C,C,&Re must be reviewed and approved by me City Attorney. 3. Add new Concidon: Prior to ieeuence of any permits, Proof of instrance agemet any demage to downstem propely within 300 feet of fie devdopmmt shall be submitted to downstream propely owners f~r inepecli~ and reasonable epproval. Downstream property owners shell be named insurede. PLKNNIN~ COIO~ISSION ~INUTES NOVEK~ER 19~ 1990 AYI of C~ f 8. TRACT MAP 26549 AND PLOT PLAN 10864 8.1 Proposal to construct a 260 townhouse development on 22.22 acres located south of Rancho California Road, East of Moraga Road. OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item. He stated that there was a drainage issue and the applicant has proposed to drain towards Rancho California Road and the southerly portion of the property is proposed to drain to the southwest corner of the project. He added that the applicant will be required to obtain the proposed storm drain as well as oversizing the drainage structures to divert the run-off from other properties to the storm drain. He also stated there was an issue that the school district wanted to address relating to an unimproved pedistrian walkway within the project to be utilized by children walking to Vail Elementary School. He stated that the school district has been in contact with SCE and property owners to the south and the flood control district to acquire the necessary easements. The applicant is proposing a ten foot wide easement along the westerly property line which would extend from Moraga Road along the southerly property line and end at the adjoining pcminll/19/90 -14- 11/28/90 PLKI~IN6 COIO~ISSION MINUTES NOVEHBER 19, 1990 southerly property. He added CSD was not prepared to indicate if they were willing to accept this area or an easement. He stated that Condition No. 25 of the Plot Plan approval did not apply, and should be deleted, and added to staff responses to Environmental Analysis, No. 11, should indicate under SWAP it would be permitted to have 365 units. JOHN MIDDLETON stated that they were adding Condition No. 22B to Tentative Map No. 26549 and 77B to Plot Plan No. 10864 stating that, in the event the improvements to the south side of Rancho California Road have not been completed by the Margarita Village Benefit District prior to occupancy, the developer shall construct these required off-site improvements. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the condition requiring the applicant to obtain a drainage easement prior to recordation of the final map and what would result if the applicant could not get the easement. JOHN MIDDLETON stated that the applicant could not record their map. COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDasked for clarification of Condition No. 39. JOHN MIDDLETON stated that staff has been working with the applicant's engineer to restrict as much drainage to the south as possible and direct flow to the southwest corner by way of a drainage system. They had been discussing a sump system to do this. The engineer is now proposing two storm drain systems, one on the private drive, oversized by 50% and another system on the south property line running down to the southeast corner. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND commented that staff should review Condition No. 9 of the Plot Plan. He suggested that the parenthesis from aspbaltic to base should be deleted as well as the remainder of the paragraph beginning with "decomposed". Commissioner Hoagland also asked for clarification of Condition No. 26. OLIVER MUJICA stated that the first set of parenthesis should have been commas'. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if there will be a signal at "A" Street and if there will be road improvements to Via Las Colinas. pcmin11/19/90 -15- 11/28/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1990 KIRK WILLIAMS stated that there would be a right-in and right-out signal at "A" Street. He explained that the main course of traffic would be through Rancho California Road and Morago and Via Las Colinas would carry a small amount of the main traffic. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if there was any report on the needs of the community for multiple family dwellings and what could be expected from a study of this type. GARY THORNHILL stated that the Lightfoot study would address this and that it would recommend a fee structure. C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. LETTIE BOGGS, Temecula Valley Unified School District representative, stated that the School District is in disagreement with the Environmental Assessment that there is no impact from this project to the schools. She stated that the area where this project exists has been zoned for high density housing, which causes a problem for the schools which would have to house the students generated from this project. She also stated that there was no safe route to walk from this project to the schools and would recommend that the developer provide a public trail through the SCE easement. She stated that they contacted all the adjacent property owners. Mr. Boyd and SCE were agreeable to provide a foot path through their properties as well as Flood Control's approval. Mr. Oder, another adjacent property owner, stated that he would agree to allow the foot path along his property; however, he wanted the flooding of the creek addressed. She stated that the City is willing to discuss accepting this within the City's trail system. The City Engineers have stated that it will be difficult to mitigate the creek issue which supports Mr. Oder's flooding issue. She also stated that although this project was in walking distance of two schools, they would have to bus students to other schools. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, stated their concurrence with staff's conditions and they are prepared to dedicate the strip of land required by the school district for the foot and bike path. He explained the route of the drainage system, one along the southerly road system and also along the southerly property line. He stated that once they get to the southerly corner of the property they have the option of going down the Oder property or pcmin11/19/90 -16- 11/28/90 PLLNNIN3 COIOIISSION MINUTES NOVEKBER 19# 1990 the Summer Breeze property to get to the creek, and they are still reviewing this. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if there would be any on-site trash enclosures. LARRY MARKHAM stated that each homeowner would be responsible for trash containers. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the Engineering Condition requiring that medians being built on Rancho California Road. LARRY MARKHAM stated that if SP199 did not build them then they would be conditioned to complete those improvements. DOUG STEWART stated that SP199 would not be building the medians. LARRY MARKHAM commented, with regards to the Oders, that the have agreed to go to 50% over-bulking of the flood drains. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned a phased development plan. He was concerned with the improvements of Rancho California Road being done in off hours construction so that the public is not affected and also the need for a phased construction plan for this project. DOUG STEWART stated that the improvements to Rancho Califoria Road are being considered for night-time improvements. Phased construction would be based on staff approval and the applicant would have to get a phased map. GARY THORNHILL stated that there was no requirement for phased construction. LARRY MARKHAM stated that they would agree to phased construction of the project. SALLY HORN, 41540 Winchester Road, Temecula, spoke in favor of the project and the need for affordable housing for homebuyers. ROBERT L. ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, stated that he is very pleased with the progress this project has made; however, he is still concerned with the proposed drainage of this project. He provided staff with pictures pcmin11/19/90 -17- 11/28/90 PLKNNING COIO~ISSION MINUTES NOVEK~ER 19, 1990 of flooding to his property as a result of flooding of the creek. He stated that he felt the proposed drainage is incompatible with the proposed density of this project. He expressed a concern for the density of this project and stated that he would like to see the project restricted to a condomium project so that in the future it could not be sold and bought to be converted to a apartment complex. ROBERT J. ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, also addressed the Commission with his concerns that the drainage of the project has not been properly addressedt in relation to his project Summer Breeze Apartments. ROBERT L. ODER also stated that he felt the proposed path along the creek and the SCE easement is a proposed safety hazard. He stated that he felt that the flooding of the creek has not been properly addressed. TAMARA STEIN, 2049 Century Park Boulevard, Los Angeles, attorney for the Oders' stated that she feels her clients of addressed their concerns and would like staff and the Commission to look at all of these issues before sending this project on to the City Council for their approval. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Oders' were opposing improvement to this site. TAMARA STEIN stated that her clients were not opposed to development, they just wanted to see quality as well as sensitive grading. LARRY MARKHAM stated that the issues that have been addressed by the Oders' is better suited for the final map stage. He stated that if there was some drainage that was not being addressed it would be addressed. He stated that they are willing to work with the school district and the Oders' between now and the City Council's approval. COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDquestioned if the City would be held liable if there was flooding resulting from this project. JOHN CAVANAUGH agreed that the possibility did exist. GARY THORNHILL stated that he would feel more comfortable with revising the Environmental Assessment to ensure that all issues are reviewed and proposed that the Commission continue this item to the next meeting. pcminll/19/90 -18- 11/28/90 PLANNING COIOflSSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1990 COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to leave the public hearing open and continue Tract Map 26549/Plot Plan 10864 to the meeting of December 3, 1990, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND and carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: P.~IEL COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff 0 COMMISSIONERS: None a t C~ N~ pcminll/19/90 -19- 11/28/90 ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department December 11, 1990 Parcel Map No. 25212/Change of Zone No. 5663 PREPARED BY: R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: DISCUSSION: Steve Padovan Approval The City Council considered this application on November 27, 1990. At that meeting, the Council directed Staff to prepare a resolution for approval and for Staff to recommend the zoning be changed from R-R 2.5 to R-R 1. In addition, the City Attorney has recommended that Condition No. 37 be replaced with a new condition which reads: "The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City stating that the developer or any future owner of the parcels contained within Parcel Map No. 25212 agrees to record on the property, prior to recordation of the final map, a deed restriction in a form approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director. This deed restriction provides that the applicant agree to participate in and waive any right to protest the formation, or annexation to, a financing district providing for the construction of public infrastructure including but not limited to: roads, sewers, storm drains, and flood control projects." STAFF R PT\PM25212 I STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 90- ; ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5663 and Parcel Map No. 25212; ADOPT Change of Zone No. 5663 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. ADOPT Parcel No. 25212 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SP:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 5. Staff Report Conditions of Approval Resolution Environmental Assessment Exhibits STAFF R PT\PM25212 2 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING OF PARCEL MAP NO. 25212 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.02 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR PARCELS AND TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING FROM R-R-2.5 TO R-R-1 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS AND LIEFER ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-280-012. WHEREAS, Durango Development filed Parcel Map No. 25212 and Change of Zone No. 5663 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map and Zone Change application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Parcel Map and Zone Change on December 11, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said Parcel Map and Zone Change; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. the following findings: Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. { 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STA F F R PT\ PM25212 1 (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b} There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (C) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Parcel Map and Zone Change is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The City Council finds, in approvin9 projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (a) There is reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 25212 and Change of Zone No. 5663 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. STAFFRPT\PM25212 2 D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired .by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The City Council in approving the proposed Parcel Map and Zone Change, makes the following findings, to wit: STAFF R PT\PM25212 3 Chanqe of Zone No. 5663 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for this project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that the zone change from R-R 2.5 to R-R will be consistent with the future General Plan. Further, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. There is not a reasonable probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is not of significant scope. The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the project site. The proposed change in district classification will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the General Plan when it is ultimately adopted. The density and land use proposed are consistent with the Southwest Area Plan. The site of the proposed change in district classification is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district as it is of adequate size and shape for the proposed residential use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely to arise as the project proposes residential uses similar to those existing in the general vicinity of the subject site. Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Nicolas and Lielet Roads. Additional internal access and required road improvements to proposed lots STAFF R PT\PM25212 4 will be designed and constructed in conformance with Riverside County standards. h) That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Tentative Parcel Map No. 25212 a) The proposed Tract Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the future General Plan. c) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. d) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the proposed zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule H. e) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. f) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. g) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. STAFF R PT\PM25212 5 h) All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. i) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT ION 3, the Parcel Map and Zone Change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Change of Zone No. 5663 to change the existing zoning from R-R-2.5 to R-R-1; and further approves Parcel Map No. 25212 for the subdivision of a 5.02 acre parcel into four parcels located at the northeast corner of Nicolas and Lielet Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 914-280-012 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1990. RONALD J PARKS MAYOR STA FFR PT\PM25212 6 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 11th day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 25212. DATED: By Name Title STAFF R PT\PM25212 7 ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5663, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R-2.5 {RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO R-R-1 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ON 5.02 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD.. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 5663 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] PLANNING\M53 .j' II II II II i ..;.>:.:v.I I..v.v.'.vov. ..... I I v.'.- ::;::::;::: ::::::::.:, -:.:-:-: '.:.:.:-:,:..:.:.:.:.:.: ........ i~.i-i.i.i.! X. ...... ::1: ::1:':¥::1:1 :::':. C,~sE NO.- CN.~N~F,. 0,c' ZONE.- No. CHAN6E OF ZONE FROM R-R-2.5 TO R-R-1 ON 5.02 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD. R-R-1 : RURAL RESIDENTIAL - ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE; SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Council December 6, 1990 Parcel Map No. 25212/Change of Zone No. 5663 The following conditions have been revised as agreed upon by the City Council at the November 27, 1990 scheduled hearing: Condition No. 16 Shall Read: "Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-R zone. The minimum lot size shall be one ( 1 ) acre gross." Condition No. 2~ Shall Read: "Liefer Road shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane, or bond for the street improvement may be posted per Condition No. 26, within a 33' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (L~L~'/66') minus sidewalks and street lights. County Condition Nos. 5 and 13 shall be deleted." SP:ks PLANNING\M53 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No. 25212 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 25212, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499· 37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule H unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Planning Commission 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 City· Street names shall be subject to approval of the City of Temecula. 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 City of Temecula. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel map boundary to a City maintained road. STAFF R PT\PM25212 I 9.8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated April 27, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated March 28, 1990, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map. The subdivider shall comply with the. County Road Commissioner's recommendations outlined in the Office of Road Commissioners and County Surveyor's transmittal dated May 7, 1990. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated March 9, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Grading E;ection's transmittal dated May 7, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Airport Land Use Commission letter dated October 2~, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Geologist's letter dated March 29, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be required to pay applicable Quimby fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance ~60. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-R zone. STAFF R PT\PM25212 2 17. 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 City Engineer. Prior to the recordation of the final map, a copy of the 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(s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory· Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the Observatory· Outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminare." Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject property as of the date of recordation of the final map. Ce 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 City Engineer. These constraints affect all parcels. 18. Parcel Map No. 25212 cannot be recorded until Change of Zone No. 5663 is approved and effective. 19. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following condition shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures· A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineerin9 Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 20. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. STA FFR PT\PM25212 3 21. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 22. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. 23. Street "A" shall be a private street, not to be maintained by the City, and shall be constructed 24 feet in width, with an acceptable aggregate base (0.33' thick) on a 32 foot graded section, with a 38' radius turn-a-round. County Road Department Condition Nos. 3 and 14 shall be deleted. 24. Liefer Road shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane, or bond for the street improvement may be posted per Condition No. 26, within a 33 dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66'). County Condition Nos. 5 and 13 shall be deleted. 25. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. 26. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, drive approaches, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate· b. Domestic water systems. 27. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 28. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. STAFF R PT\PM25212 4 29. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 30. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 31, Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 32. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 33. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 34. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 35. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 36. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 37. The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City stating that the developer or any future owner of the parcels contained within Parcel Map No. 25212 will not protest any Assessment District formed for the purpose of constructing the public street improvements for Nicolas Road on the frontage of this map. STAFFR PT\PM25212 5 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 38. Construct full street improvements includin9 but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, drive approaches, and parkway trees on all interior public streets. 39. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 40. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. 41. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation En.qineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION: 42. A si9nin9 and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Lielet Road and Street "A", and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 43. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 44. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 45. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. STAFFRPT\PM25212 6 ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT.' AGENDA REPORT CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY NOVEMBER 27, 1990 DECEMBER 11, 1990 SOLID WASTE HAULERS RECOMMENDATION: (1) (2) DISCUSSION: That the City Council: Authorize the City Attorney to notify solid waste haulers that their permits expire in no later than five years; and Adopt a resolution fixing current hauler rate schedules. Statutory Authority: The California Legislature has given local public entities broad authority to establish a system for solid waste collection and disposal. Collection services may be provided by the City, by another local entity, or by a private hauler. The City Council may, by ordinance or resolution, prescribe the terms and conditions of any contract for the collection and/or disposal of solid waste. These terms may regulate the nature, location, and extent of the services provided, including, but not limited to, the frequency of collection, the means of collection, and the charges or fees imposed for collection. Collection services may be provided by either exclusive or nonexclusive franchise agreements, contracts, permits or licenses, and may be awarded with or without competitive bidding. (Public Resources Code Sections 40058, 40059 and 49300.) Countv System: Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 90-04, Temecula adopted by reference the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 657 regulating solid waste collection and disposal. The County system provides such services via the issuance of permits to individual hauling contractors. Agenda Report- Solid Waste Haulers December 11, 1990 Page 2. The principal County permittee for both residential and commercial collection in Temecula is Inland Disposal, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management of North America, Inc. The other permittees are: Jesse Rodriquez Disposal Waste Management, Inc. - Moreno Valley Disposal Suburban Disposal Canyon Lake Disposal HBJJ/Perris Disposal Western Waste Newco/IRS (a) O.K. Associates The County system involves significant regulation of the haulers. Minimum and maximum rates, and equipment are all regulated. There is also a procedure for the investigation of complaints. To pay for this regulatory system, the County imposed a 5.5% of gross revenues permit fee. In order to fully implement the County system, until the City selects its own hauler(s) through the RFP process, we recommend the Council adopt the attached resolution adopting the existing County rate schedule. In addition, we anticipate bringing a new rate schedule to the Council for consideration after the first of the year. In addition, in order for the City to establish its own hauling program it is necessary to terminate existing County permits. However, Public Resources Code Section 49520 provides that where a local agency (such as the County) has issued nonexclusive permits for the collection of solid waste, and a change to exclusive permits is contemplated, notice must be given five years before the change from nonexclusive to exclusive permits is made to all permittees who have provided services for at least three years. Consequently, we recommend that Staff be authorized to notify existing permittees that their existing permits will expire upon the grant of new City franchises, but in not event later than five years from the date of the notice. FISCAL IMPACT: City will Collect 5.5% permit fee from the effective date of incorporation. ATTACHMENTS Resolution establishing maximum solid waste collection rates (Exhibit A) RESOLUTION NO. ~)- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING FEES PURSUANT TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 REGULATING THE COLLECTION, TRANSFER AND REMOVAL OF SOLID WASTE WHEREAS, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 90-4 the City of Temecula has adopted by reference Riverside County Ordinance No. 657; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 6 of Ordinance No. 657, a fee schedule for permit application reviews and operating permits relating to the collection, transfer and removal of solid waste is hereby established to be effective December 1, 1989, as follows: (a) Collection Permit Application Review Fee (New Permits). (1) (2) First permit area applied for per review - $397.00 Additional permit areas applied for by the same company, per review, - $265.00 (b) Transfer Vehicle Permit Fee (New and Yearly Renewal) (1) (2) (C) First Transfer Vehicle Additional transfer vehicles same site, same company per vehicle $153.00 $ 77.00 Exempt Area Permit Fee (New and Yearly Renewal) (1) First Exempt Area Permit - $202.00 Additional Exempt Area permits applied for by same company, per permit. (d) Collection Permit Renewal Fee 5.5% of permittee's gross receipts from service charges (excluding tipping fees) shall be paid quarterly by the 15th of month following the end of each calendar quarter and shall be accompanied by a financial report on a form provided by the City Finance Department coveting the preceding calendar quarter. Resolution 90- Page 2 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of December, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS 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 1 lth day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] ITEM NO. 9 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY DECEMBER 11, 1990 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council of the City of Temecula introduce and adopt the Ordinance attached hereto which establishes regulations governing integrated waste management. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to City Council instructions, we have prepared an Ordinance, adding Chapter 6.10, entitled "INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT," to the Temecula Municipal Code. This new Chapter 6.10 would place Temecula in a leadership role in the State of California in dealing with the nettlesome problem of solid waste disposal. As the Council is aware, the Legislature completely revised California law regarding management of solid waste when it adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, commonly known as AB 939 (Sher). Cities (and Counties) have been slow to come to grips with AB 939. Many are just now realizing that considerable effort will be required to meet the legislature's mandate to reduce the solid waste stream by 25% by January 1, 1995 and 50% by January 1, 2000. A synopsis of the proposed Chapter 6.10 is as follows: Division 1 - Would provide necessary definitions. Division 2 - "Integrated Waste Management" establishes several critical points. First is that the City shall provide for or furnish integrated waste management services for refuse, recyclables and compostables throughout the City. This would be accomplished by (i) the City; (ii) contractors franchised or licensed by the City; or (iii) agreement with another local agency, such as a joint powers agency. The Council, by resolution, would specify the manner in which services would be provided, and the hours, days, and frequency of collection. Persons responsible for all property in the City would be required to make arrangements for collection of refuse, recyclables, and compostables. A.~enda Re~7ort - Inteflrated Waste Mana.~ement Ordinance Page 2 Division 3 - Would authorize the Council to set fees and to award franchises, by resolution. The Council could award an exclusive or multiple residential and up commercial franchises. Multi-family residential units using commercial bins, would be in the residential or commercial franchise at the discretion of the Council. Division 4 - "Containers," would give the Manager the authority to designate a standard for residential containers and commercial bins. If designated, use of the standard containers and bins would be mandatory. Division 5 - "Collection," sets once weekly as the minimum frequency for residential pick up. Twice weekly would be the minimum for food preparation establishments. The Manager would set the standards for frequency and container/bin size in other CaSeS. Division 6 - Specifies unlawful acts. These include use of containers other than those prescribed by Chapter 6.10, removal of refuse by unauthorized persons, refuse burning and failure to make arrangements for refuse collection services. Division 7 - "Special Collections," provides that the Council may authorize special collections for Christmas trees, white goods, household hazardous wastes, semiannual cleanups and other events. Division 8 - Sets standards for contractor equipment, including trucks and bins. Division 9 - Imposes obligations on Self-Haulers; Division 10 - Prohibits anyone other than the designated recycling contractor from scavenging recyclables set out at curbside. Division 11 - Prohibits unlawful leaving of solid waste anywhere in the City. Division 13 - Imposes cleanup responsibilities on those who generate, dump or spill refuse. Division 14 - Establishes violations of the Ordinance as a misdeameanor. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 90- regarding "Integrated Waste Management." ORDINANCE NO. 90-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY, AUTHORIZING THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICES BY THE CITY OR PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE OR PERMIT, AND REPEALING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Riverside County Ordinance No. 657 as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by City Ordinance No. 90-04, is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. Chapter 6.10 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "CHAPTER 6.10 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT Divisions: Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division 1 Definitions 2 Integrated Waste Management 3 Fees, Franchises, and Licenses 4 Containers 5 Collection 6 Unlawful and Prohibited Acts 7 Special Collections 8 Collection Equipment 9 Self-Haulers 10 Unauthorized Collection of Recyclable Materials 11 Unlawful Dumping 13 Clean-up Responsibility 14 Violations Division 1 o Definitions Sections: 6.10.010 Definitions Generally. 6.10.015 Act. 6.10,020 Bulky Wastes. 6.10.025 Authorized Recycling Contractors. 6.10.030 City. 6.10.035 City Manager. 6.10.040 Collection. 6.10.045 Collector. 6.10.050 Commercial Bins. 6.10.055 Commercial Premises. 6.10.060 Container. 6.10. 065 Contractor. 6.10.070 Designated Recycling Collection. 6.10.075 Detachable Bin. 6.10.080 Franchise. 6.10.085 Franchise Fee. 6.10,090 Garbage. 6.10,095 Gross Revenues. 6.10.100 Hazardous Refuse. 6.10.105 Place or Premises. 6.10.110 Recyclable Waste Material. 6.10.115 Recycling. 6.10.120 Refuse. 6.10.125 Residential. 6.10.130 Rubbish. 6.10.135 Single Family Residential. 6.10.140 Solid Waste or Waste Matter. 6.10.145 Standard Residential Refuse. 6.10.010 Definitions Generally. For the purposes of this Chapter the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Division. Words and phrases not ascribed a meaning by this Division shall have the meaning ascribed by Division 30, Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Public Resources Code, Sections 40105-40200. 6.10.015 ACt. 'Act' shall mean the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as it may be amended form time to time. 6.10,020 Bulky Waste. 'Bulky Waste' shall mean and include, but not by way of limitation, discarded white goods (i.e., major household appliances), furniture, tires, carpets, mattresses and similar large items which cannot be placed in a covered container. 6.10.025 Authorized Recycling Contractor. 'Authorized recycling contractor,' as used in this Chapter means a person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other entity authorized under and by virtue of a contract with the City to collect recyclable waste material in the City. 6.10.030 City. 'City' means the City of Temecula. 6.10.035 City Manager. 'City Manager' means the City Manager of the City or the City Manager's duly authorized representative. 6.10.040 Collection. 'Collection' means the act of collecting solid waste, recyclables or compostables at the place of generation by an approved collector. 6.10.045 Collector. 'Collector' means, depending upon the context in which used, either the City, another local agency or a Contractor. 6.10.050 Commercial Bins. 'Commercial bins' means bins provided by a Collector, usually three (3) cubic yards or greater capacity designed for the deposit of refuse, charged at commercial rates. 6.10.055 Commercial Premises. 'Commercial Premises' means all premises in the City, other than residential premises, where refuse is generated or accumulated. 6.10,060 Container. 'Container' means any bin, vessel, can, or receptacle used for collecting solid wastes for removal, whether owned by the Collector, property owner or tenant. 6.10,065 Contractor. 'Contractor' means a person, persons, local agency, firm, or corporation franchised, authorized or permitted by the City to provide refuse, recycling, or compostable collection services within the City. 6.10,070 Designated Recycling Collection Location. 'Designated recycling collection location,' as used in this Chapter, means the place designated in the contract between the City and an authorized recycling contractor from which the authorized recycling contractor has contracted to collect recyclable waste material. This location will customarily be the curbside of a residential neighborhood or the service alley of an commercial enterprise. 6.10.075 Detachable Bin. 'Detachable bin' means a metal container designed for mechanical emptying and provided by the City or Contractor for the accumulation and storage of refuse. 6.10.080 Franchise. 'Franchise' shall mean the right and privilege: (1) to collect, (2) to transport to landfill or other licensed disposal facilities as determined by City, and/or (3) to recycle from collected Solid Waste and Recyclables all Solid Waste kept, generated and/or accumulated within the City from the Franchise Area. Any Franchise is subject to all of the provisions of Title 6, Chapter 10, the Franchise Agreement, and to any rights held by any other solid waste enterprise holding rights pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 49520. 6.10.085 Franchise Fee. 'Franchise Fee' means the fee or assessment imposed by the City on Contractor solely because of its status as Contractor. The term "franchise fee" does not include: (1) Any tax, fee or assessment of general applicability (including any such tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both businesses and Contractor or their services but not including a tax, fee, or assessment which is unduly discriminatory against Contractor or its customers); or (2) Requirements, reimbursements, charges or fees incident to the awarding, administering, enforcing, transfer or renewal of a Franchise, including payments of bonds, consultants, administrative expenses, fees described at Section 6.10.300(a) of this Chapter, attorney's fees, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages. 6.10.090 Garbage. 'Garbage' means the putrescible animal, fish, fowl, food, fruit, bakery goods, or vegetable matter resulting from the preparation, storage, processing, handling, decay, distribution, manufacturing, or consumption of such substance, except suet, tallow, bones, or meat trimmings that are not rejected by the owner or producer as worthless or useless. 6.10.095 Gross Revenues. 'Gross Revenues' shall mean any and all revenue or compensation in any form derived directly or indirectly by the Contractor, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parents and any person or entity in which the Contractor has a financial interest, from the collection of refuse pursuant to a franchise, including, but not limited to, monthly customer fees for collection of refuse and recyclables, special pickup fees, bin and drop box rental and collection fees, fees for redelivery of bins and drop boxes, and revenue from the sale of recyclables, without subtracting Franchise Fees or any other cost of doing business. Provided, however, that the amount of gross revenues may be reduced by the amount of any bad debts incurred by the Contractor or refunds returned to customers, provided that the revenue with respect thereto has been included in the computation of gross revenues. 6.10.100 Hazardous Refuse. 'Hazardous refuse' means any compound, mixture, substance, or article which, if improperly used, handled, transplanted, processed, or stored, may constitute a hazard to health or may cause damage to property and contaminate the water table by reason of being explosive, flammable, poisonous, corrosive, radioactive, or otherwise harmful to the environment, including wastes or refuse defined as hazardous under state or federal law. 6.10.105 Place or Premises. 'Place' or 'premises' means every dwelling house; dwelling unit; apartment house or multiple dwelling building; trailer or mobile home park; store; restaurant; rooming house; hotel; motel; office building; department store; manufacturing, processing, or assembling shop or plant; and every other place or premises where any person resides, or any business is carried on or conducted within the City or any other site upon which garbage, waste, or refuse is produced or accumulates. 6.10.110 Recyclable Waste Material. 'Recyclable waste material,' as used in this Chapter, means discarded materials such as, but not limited to, newspapers, glass, plastic and metal cans, and compostables which are separated from other garbage or refuse for the purpose of recycling. 6.10.115 Recycling. 'Recycling,' as used in this Chapter, means the process of collecting and turning used products into new products by reprocessing or remanufacturing them. 6.10.120 RefU~. 'Refuse' includes both garbage and rubbish and means putrescible and nonputrescible solid waste or debris, except sewage, whether combustible or noncombustible, and includes garbage and rubbish defined in this section. 6.10.125 Residential. 'Residential' includes single family residences, multifamily residences, including apartments and condominiums, but does not include hotels or motels. 6.10.130 Rubbish. 'Rubbish' means nonputrescible unwanted or discarded material or debris, either combustible or noncombustible including but not limited to paper, cardboard, grass, tree, or shrub trimmings, straw, clothing, wood, or wood products, crockery, glass, rubber, metal, plastic, construction, or demolition material, recyclables, compostables, bulky wastes, and other municipal solid waste. 6.10.135 Single Family Residential. 'Single Family residential' includes single family residences and any other residences that do not require bin services. 6.10.140 Solid Waste or Waste Matter. 'Solid Waste' or 'Waste matter' means 'rubbish' as defined in this section. 6.10.145 Standard Residential Refuse Container. 'Standard residential refuse container' means a container of a size, design, and weight prescribed by the City Council by Resolution, for single family residential solid waste collection, designed, and manufactured for the accumulation and storage of residential refuse. The top diameter of the container shall in no case be smaller than the diameter of the receptacle at the bottom. Division 2 - Integrated Waste Management Sections: 6.10.200 6.10.205 6.10.210 6.10.215 6.10.220 Provision of Service. Manner, Time, and Frequency of Collection. Categories. Collection Arrangements Required. Prohibitions. 6.10.200 Provision of Service. The City shall provide for or furnish integrated waste management services relating to collection, transfer, and disposal of refuse, recyclables, and compostables within and throughout the City. Such services may be furnished by any one or combination of the following: (a) City officers and employees; (b) Contractors franchised or licensed by the City; or (c) Agreement with another local agency. 6.10.205 Manner. Time. and Frequency of Collection. The City Council may establish by resolution, the manner in which integrated waste management services are provided within the City, specifying the hours, days, and frequency of collection. 6.10.210 Categories. The City Council may determine waste management collection categories, i.e., residential, single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, special, special event, household hazardous waste and other, and may make or impose collection requirements which vary for such categories. 6.10.215. Collection Arrangements Required. The owner, occupant, or other person responsible for the day to day operation of every property in the City of Temecula shall make arrangements with the City, another local agency approved by the City, or a contractor franchised or licensed by the City for the collection of refuse, recyclable materials, and compostable materials as set forth in this Chapter. 6.10.220 Prohibitions. No person shall engage in the collection of solid waste without valid authorization from the City of Temecula. Division 3 - Fees. Franchises. and Licenses Sections: 6.10.300 6.10.305 6.10.310 6.10.315 6.10.320 6.10.325 Fees, Franchises, and Licenses. Residential Refuse Collection Franchise. Commercial Refuse Collection Franchise. Hazardous Waste Collection Franchise. Licenses. Liability For Fees. 6.10.300 Fees. Franchises. and Licenses. (a) Pursuant to Division 30, Part 3, Chapter 8 of the Public Resources Code Sections 41900 et ~1., the City may levy fees upon contractors and premises for refuse collection, transfer and disposal, and the collection and transfer of recyclables and compostables. Such fees may include charges for the use of dumps or landfills, and may include costs of preparing and implementing source reduction and recycling elements and integrated waste management plans. The City may determine to collect all or part of such charges on the tax roll, or by such other means as the Council may elect, whether or not delinquent. (b) City Council may by Resolution, waive permit fees for recyclers and collectors of compostables. 6.10.305 Residential Refuse Collection Franchise. (a) The City Council may award one or more franchises for refuse collection from all or a portion of residential properties in the City. Any such franchise shall be granted by the City Council by Resolution, upon a determination that the public convenience and necessity are served by the award of a franchise. Co) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. At a minimum, the franchise shall provide as follows: (1) single family and multifamily). Residential collection rates by categories (e.g., (2) A franchise fee to be paid to the City for a residential franchise of not less than eight percent (8%) of gross revenues. (3) The Franchisee shall be required to cooperate with City in solid waste generation studies, waste stream audits, and to implement measures to achieve the City's solid waste and recycling goals mandated by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 6.10.310 Commercial Refuse Collection Franchise. (a) The City Council may award one or more franchises for refuse collection from commercial (including industrial, governmental, institutional, and all other nonresidential) properties. Such franchises shall be granted by the City Council by Resolution, upon a determination that the public convenience and necessity are served by the award of the franchise. (b) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. At a minimum, the franchise shall provide as follows: (1) Commercial collection rams set according to different classes of commercial rams, based on volume, frequency of collection, and waste stream composition. (2) A franchise fee for commercial franchises of not less than eight percent (8%) of gross revenue. (3) Franchi sees shall be required to cooperate with City in solid waste generation studies, waste stream audits, and implementing measures to achieve the City's source reduction, recycling, and waste stream diversion goals. 6.10.315 Hazardous Waste Collection Franchise. (a) The City Council may award additional franchises for hazardous waste collection from commercial (including industrial, governmental, institutional, and all other nonresidential) properties. Such franchises shall be granted by the City Council by Resolution, upon a determination that the public convenience and necessity are served by the award of the franchise. (b) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. 6.10.320 Licenses. No person shall construct or operate a solid waste management facility including but not limited to a materials recovery facility, landfill, cornposting facility, or buy-back recycling center without a license issued by the City, upon satisfying all City requirements for land use and other approvals. Fees for such licenses shall be set by the City Council by Resolution. 6.10.325 Liability For Fees. (a) Every person required to arrange for refuse collection or the collection of recyclable or compostables shall be liable for the service access fees and charges for such collection, whether or not collection services are utilized. (b) The owner, occupant, or other person responsible for day-to-day operation of the premises shall make arrangements for collection to meet the requirements of this Chapter. If service fees and charges (and any applicable interest or penalties) are not paid as required the owner and occupant each shall be jointly and severally liable for their payment. The City may collect the fees and charges (plus any interest or penalties) on the property tax roll for the property. Division 4 - Containers Sections: 6.10.400 6.10.405 6.10.410 Containers: Location. Use Of Containers. Unlawful Acts. 6.10.400 Containers: Location. It is the duty of every person designated under Section 6.10.215 in possession, charge, or control of any place within the City, in or from which refuse accumulates or is produced, to keep in a suitable place readily accessible to the collector, containers capable of holding without spilling all refuse which would ordinarily accumulate on the premises between the time of two successive collections. 6.10.405 Use Of Containers. (a) Every person designated under Section 6.10.215 who is in charge of residential or commercial premises shall deposit or cause to be deposited all refuse in standard containers or bins as approved by the City Manager and the collector. (b) No person shall maintain or place for collection any container not in conformance with the standard container or bin designated by the City. (c) No container shall be placed adjacent to a street or public right- of-way for collection service more than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the normal collection time. (d) Containers shall be removed from the street or right-of-way location within twelve (12) hours after collection. (e) Dead animals and bulky waste shall not be set out for collection. Bulky waste shall be collected only during annual cleanups or by contractual arrangement between the resident or business and the Contractor. (f) Tree trimmings and brush shall be cut into four (4) foot lengths and tied bundles of not larger than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter for ease in pickup. (g) All residential solid waste must be placed out at the curb pickup site by 6:00 A.M. on the designated pickup day. 6.10.410 Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for any person to place refuse in, or to otherwise use the refuse containers of another person, without the permission of such other person. Division 5 - Collection Sections: 6.10,500 6.10,505 Frequency Of Removal. Containers - Located For Collection. 6.10.500 Frequency of Removal. (a) Persons in charge of the day to day operation of properties other than commercial food preparation establishments, shall make arrangements to have removed, not less frequently than once a week, from the property upon which the residence or residences are located, all refuse on the premises. (b) Every person in charge of commercial food preparation establishments, shall cause all refuse to be removed from the property not less frequently than twice a week. (c) The City Manager may specify the frequency of collection of refuse created, produced, or brought upon the premises of commercial or multifamily residential premises, and the size and number of bins required. (d) Collection shall be made only between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. of any day, Monday through Saturday. Commercial pickup may begin at 5:00 A.M. Earlier pickup time may be authorized only upon prior written approval of the City Manager which shall include requirements for the Contractor to notify the affected customers prior to implementing the change. (e) In order to prevent problems of traffic, noise, wear and tear on the highway, or other problems having the potential to adversely affect health, safety, or the environment, which may develop in any specific area as a result of solid waste collection, the City Manager may regulate the routes, intervals, delivery points, and times for collection by all Contractors operating within the City. 6.10.505 Containers - Located For Collection. During the hours for collection, residential containers shall be placed at the curb or right of way for collection and shall be accessible for mechanized pick-up. Commercial bins shall be accessible to the collector. Division 6 - Unlawful And Prohibited Acts Sections: 6.10.600 6.10.605 6.10.610 6.10.615 6.10.620 6.10.625 6.10.630 6.10,635 Use Of Containers. Removal Of Refuse. Noncompactible Refuse. Institutional, Commercial, or Industrial Refuse. Refuse Burning. Franchise: Applicability. Unauthorized Removal. Public Nuisance. 6.10.600 Use Of Containers. The keeping of refuse in containers or bins other than those prescribed by this Chapter, or the keeping upon premises of refuse which is offensive, obnoxious, or unsanitary is unlawful, constitutes a public nuisance and may be abated in the manner now or hereafter provided by law for the abatement of nuisances. 6.10.605 Removal Of Refuse. No person, other than the person in charge of any premises, or the person authorized by law to remove any container or bin from the location where the container was placed by the person in charge for storage or collection, shall remove any refuse from any cont,~i.'ner or bin, or move the container or bin from the location in which it was placed for storage or collection, without prior written approval of the person in charge of such premises. 6.10.610 Bulky Waste. No person shall place bulky waste adjacent to a street or public right-of-way for collection or removal purposes without prior approval and arrangements with the collector. 6.10.615 Institutional. Commercial. or Industrial Refuse. It is unlawful for any person to place or deposit institutional, commercial, industrial, special, or hazardous waste in any container placed upon the public street by public authority, and meant primarily for the disposal of refuse by pedestrians using the sidewalk. 6.10.620 Refuse Burning. No person shall bum any refuse within the City, except in an approved incinerator or transformation facility or other device for which a permit has been issued by the Building Official, and which complies with all applicable permit and other regulations of air pollution control authorities, and provided any such act of burning in all respects complies with all other laws, rules, and regulations. 6.10.625 Franchise: Applicability. At such times as one or more franchises for collection covering all or part of the City is in force, it shall be unlawful for any person other than the franchisee or its agents and employees, to collect any refuse for hire from premises covered by the franchise. This section shall not, however, be deemed to apply to: (a) Recycling; (b) Any persons holding a valid city business license to engage in the nursery or gardening business; (c) Any person removing shrubbery, grass, tree cuttings, tree trimmings, or other agricultural debris from any property owned or occupied by the person; or, (d) Hazardous or special wastes. 6.10.630 Unauthorized Removal. It is unlawful for any person, other than a person holding a contract or franchise for the collection of rubbish, to take, remove, or appropriate for his/her own use any refuse which has been placed in any street or alley for collection or removal, whether the refuse is so placed in regular containers or not. 6.10.635 Public Nuisance. It is unlawful, and a public nuisance, for any person to occupy, inhabit, or maintain any property within the City for which appropriate arrangements have not been made and kept in full force and effect for regular refuse removal services. Division 7 - Special Collections Section: 6.10.700 Special Collections. 6.10.700 Special Collections. The City Council may authorize, and subscribers to a refuse collection service may order, special collections of such things as discarded furniture, white goods, Christmas trees, and other items too large to fit in standard containers, semiannual cleanups, and household hazardous wastes, subject to City Council approval, and the payment of rates established by the City Council, by Resolution. Division 8 - Collection Equipment Sections: 6.10.800 6.10.805 6.10.810 6.10.815 6.10.820 6.10.825 6.10.830 Contractor Equipment. Trucks: Standards. Trucks: Maintenance. Trucks: Identification. Trucks: Cleaning. Containers-Condition. Trucks: Noise. 6.10.800 Contractor Equipment. Each Contractor shall provide sufficient collection equipment in accordance with the terms of the contract with the City authorizing such Contractor to provide collection, transfer, and disposal services. 6.10.805 Trucks: Standards. Any truck used for the collection or transportation of waste matter shall be leakproof and equipped with a close-fitting cover which shall be affixed in a manner that will prevent spilling, dropping, or blowing of any refuse upon the public right-of-way during collection or transportation. 6.10.810 Trucks: Maintenance. All trucks used for collection or transportation of refuse shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, neatly and uniformly painted, and shall carry a shovel, broom, and fire extinguisher. 6.10,815 Trucks: Identification. The owner of each truck used for collection or transportation of refuse shall have the owner's name, telephone number, and truck number printed on each side of all trucks in letters not less than three inches high. 6.10,820 Trucks: Cleaning. All garbage-conveying trucks, tanks, containers, and other garbage receptacles shall be washed, cleaned, and disinfected both on the inside and outside at least weekly, or more frequently if necessary to protect public health. The outside of all such trucks shall be kept free from refuse at all times. 6.10.825 Containers-Condition. The collector shall maintain in good repair and, as necessary, replace containers and bins furnished to customers. 6.10.830 Trucks: Noise. The noise level for the collection vehicles during the stationary compaction process shall not exceed seventy-five (75) decibels at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet from the collection vehicle and at an elevation of five (5) feet from the horizontal base place of such vehicles. Division 9 - Self-Haulers Sections: 6.10.900 6.10.905 6.10.910 Authorized Dump Sites. Spills. Misdemeanor. 6.10.900 Authorized Dump Sites. Each person removing refuse from his/her own premises shall deposit such refuse only at authorized disposal or dumping sites, recycling or composting facilities and shall not deposit, leave, dump, drop, place, or otherwise dispose of such refuse or other waste upon any street, alley, waterway, or other unauthorized or unimproved lot or any other place within the City. Such persons shall report the type, quantity, volume, and weight of refuse removed, to the City Manager, at such times as the Manager may specify. 6.10.905 Spills. In transporting refuse any self-hauler shall take any and all necessary steps to guarantee that refuse is not scattered. Self-haulers shall clean up refuse spilled or dumped during removal or transport within the City. 6.10.910 Misdemeanor. Violation of this Division shall be a misdemeanor. Division 10 - Unauthorized Collection of Recyclable Materials Sections: 6.10.1010 6.10.1015 6.10.1020 6.10.1025 6.10.1030 Ownership of Recyclable Waste Material. Unauthorized Collection Prohibited. Right of Individual to Dispose of Recyclable Material. Enforcement - Authority. Civil Action By Authorized Recycling Contractor. 6.10.1010 Ownership of Recyclable Waste Material. Upon placement of recyclable waste material at a designated recycling collection location for collection by an authorized recycling contractor, the recyclable waste material shall become the property of the authorized recycling contractor. 6.10.1015 Unauthorized Collection Prohibited. During the twenty-four (24) hour period commencing at 6:00 p.m. on any day preceding a day designated for collection of recyclable waste material, no person, other than an authorized recycling contractor, shall remove recyclable waste material which has been placed at a designated recycling collection location. Any and each such collection in violation hereof from one or more designated recycling collection locations during said twenty- four (24) hour period shall constitute a misdemeanor and a separate and distinct offense punishable in accordance with Section 1.01.220 et sea_. of this Code. 6.10.1020 Right of Individual to Dispose of Recyclable Waste Material. Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the right of an individual person, organization, or other entity to donate, sell, or otherwise dispose of recyclable waste material, provided that any such disposal is in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 6.10. 1025 Enforcement - Authority. The City Manager or his Designee shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this Division. This authority shall be in addition to the authority granted to police officers pursuant to the Municipal Code. 6.10.1030 Civil Action By Authorized Recycling Contractor. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to limit the right of an authorized recycling contractor to bring a civil action against any person who violates Section 6.12.020 of this Code, nor shall a conviction for such violation exempt any person from a civil action brought by an authorized recycling contractor." Division 11 - Unlawful Dumping Sections: 6.10.1110 6.10.1115 Unlawful Dumping. Enforcement. 6.10.1110 Unlawful Dumping. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, deposit, or dump solid waste of any kind whatsoever upon any property, within the City, or to cause, suffer, or permit such solid waste to be placed, deposited, or dumped upon any property, in the City, without first having obtained a conditional use permit pursuant to the zoning laws of the City, as now or hereinafter amended, or pursuant to any other zoning law that may be hereinafter adopted in the place and stead of said zoning laws of the City. 6.10.1115 Enforcement. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 836.5, the Director of Planning and any City Code Enforcement Officer are hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this Division and as well as those of California Penal Code Sections 374, 374a, 374.2, 374.3, 374.4, 374d, 374.7, and 375; California Government Code Section 68055 et $eq.; and California Vehicle Code Sections 23111 and 23112." Division 13 - Clean-up Responsibility Sections: 6.10.1310 Responsibility. 6.10.1310 Responsibility. Until picked up by a collector, each person shall be responsible for the cleanup of any and all refuse which that person has generated, dumped, spilled, or otherwise lost or littered, notwithstanding human or animal interference with bins or containers (whether or not standard containers were used), wind or other natural forces, and whether during storage, collection, removal, or transfer. The City or contractor shall be responsible for any refuse spilled during its storage, collection, removal, or transfer. Division 14 - Violations Section 6.10.1410 Violation. 6.10.1410 Violation. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, violations of this Chapter are punishable as set out in Sections 1.01.200 through 1.01.260 of the Municipal Code." SECTION 3. PRIOR ENACTMENTS. This Ordinance is intended to replace, upon the effective date hereof, Riverside County Ordinance No. 657 as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by City Ordinance No. 90-04. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 6. 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 and published as required by Law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY NOVEMBER 27, 1990 DECEMBER 11, 1990 SOLID WASTE HAULING AND RECYCLING - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the attached Request For Proposals for solid waste hauling and recycling and continue the matter to the January 8, 1991 agenda so that staff may solicit public comment on the Requet For Proposals. DISCUSSION: The Integrated Waste Management Ordinance the Council is considering provides for issuance of one or more franchises for solid waste hauling. Staff proposes issuing such franchises pursuant to a Request for Proposal ("RFP"). The form of the RFP is attached. In brief, the RFP contemplates obtaining bids for a variety of different services. Once the bids are evaluated, City Staff will meet with one or more finalists to negotiate the terms of a franchise agreement. The form of the franchise agreement is attached to the RFP. The request for proposal is modified from the one used recently by CSA 143. As the Council may be aware, on November 1, 1990, CSA 143 began its residential waste hauling and recycling program. The contracted hauler for CSA 143 is Inland Disposal. The services are paid for through a parcel charge levied on the property owners within CSA 143. The chief distinction from the CSA 143 RFP is that the City's RFP seeks bids on a "menu" of services. Once the bids are in, the City can decide which of the following services to use: 1. Residential hauling and recycling paid for through a parcel charge. Agenda Report - Solid Waste Hauling and Recycling - RFP Page 2. Residential hauling and recycling paid for through direct billing to the customers. Mechanized residential collection and recycling paid for through a parcel charge. Mechanized residential hauling and recycling paid for through direct billing to the customers. Exclusive commercial hauling and recycling, with the residential franchise. 6. Non-exclusive commercial hauling and recycling. At this time, it would not be possible to institute a parcel charge at least until the '91- '92 fiscal year. Consequently, bids are being obtained for both types of services so that a comparison can be made as to the advantages of using the parcel charge, and a determination can then be made whether to transition to a parcel charge next year. In addition, there is frequently a dispute among haulers as to whether there is a substantial savings to a city if an exclusive hauling contract for residential and commercial services is granted to a single company. Alternatively, granting the commercial franchise to multiple haulers may result in savings to commercial customers through competition. Again, bids on both options will be sought. However, no proposal is being sought for non-exclusive residential hauling. Attached is the executive summary from the Price-Waterhouse report prepared for the County, evaluating solid waste collection services in the unincorporated areas. At this time, the County permits multiple haulers to serve a single residential area. The Price Waterhouse Report indicates that this practice has resulted in "quilting" where multiple haulers are serving even a single residential street. This results in trash pickup on two or three days of the week for each street, resulting in further wear and tear on the roads, noise, dust and congestion. Consequently, this option is not being sought through the RFP. Finally, it is requested that the Council continue this item until January 8, 1991 for final action. This will enable staff to obtain public comment on the RFP and present it to the Council at the January meeting. A TTA CHMENTS: Request For Proposals for solid waste collection and recycling services. Price Waterhouse Report Summary CITY OF TEMECULA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION, DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING Sealed Proposals are invited and will be received to provide collection, disposal and recycling of solid waste within the City. Proposals must be made in accordance with the Instructions and Specifications contained herein. Proposals must be delivered to, and be on file with, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula on or before : p.m. The proposal shall include a $500.00 application fee. The City Clerk"s office is located at 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92390, (714) 694-1989. The envelope containing the Proposal must be sealed and plainly marked "Proposal for Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and Recycling. Proposals will not be publicly opened or read. All proposals will be reviewed by the Administration of the City. One or more finalists will then be selected, and final franchise agreement negotiation will commence. Based upon those negotiations, a Bidder will be recommended to the City Council for award of the franchise. The City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals, to waive irregularities and/or informalities in any Proposal and to make an award in any manner, consistent with law, deemed in the best interest of the City. David F. Dixon City Manager City of Temecula I MINIMUM CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS Materials: Cart Body: Rotationally molded, first quality, Union Carbide GPEP-803-LMDPE. Certified to contain ultraviolet stabilization provided by the equivalent of .5% of UV 531 stabilization compound. Certified to meet a minimum ESCR rating exceeding 1000 hours for both 100% and 10% Igepal solutions. Cart Handle Mounts: Integrally molded part of cart body. External handle diameter, 1,375 inches. Features three comfortable and convenient gripping areas. Card Lit: Rotationally molded, first quality, Union Carbide GPEP-803-LMDPE. Nominal thickness, 0. 125 inches. Certified to contain ultraviolet stabilization provided by the equivalent of. 5 % of UV stabilization compound. Attached with hinge which rotates with no interference. Encases PVC pipe within 1/4" walls. Domed to facilitate runoff of water. Imprinted with "Instructions" and "Indications and Contraindications" in English, French, and Spanish. Wheel Retainers: Plastic coated steel. AxleS: 5/8" galvanized solid steel fully supported by can body. No bolts or rivets used for mounting. -1- Width: Length: Height: Color: 20 inch by 2 inch (nominal) HDPE. Minimum R.M.A. load rating of 180 pounds per wheel. Safety Bar: Minimum 1.00 inch diameter, 16 gauge, galvanized steel tube. Stainless steel optional. Rotates freely on its axis to facilitate safe engagement and disengagement of dumper locking hook. Accessible for quick, clean, and easy removal and replacement from exterior of cart by maintenance personnel in the filed without use of power tools. Capacity: Container volume 101 U.S. gallons. Dimensions: 31 inches. Fits through gates and doors. 36 inches. 45 lines. Ultraviolet stabilized, non-fading dark green, brown, black. Special colors available. Stability: Designed to prevent being turned over by winds of up to 25 mph in any direction when empty EXHIBIT A -2- I. OBJECTIVE It is the City of Temecula's objective to engage one or more Refuse Collection Firms to provide refuse collection, disposal and recycling services for residential and commercial premises. These services include mechanized bin collection, construction waste removal and curb side recycling. This bid is subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A copy of the Chapter is available from the Temecula City Clerk, located at 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92390. A prebid conference will be conducted on at : p.m. at 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Bidders must submit a Statement of Competency at the prebid conference. Failure to submit the Statement of Competency may disqualify the bidder from further consideration. The entire City of Temecula is to be serviced. A map of the City is available from the City Clerk's Office. H. INSTRUCTIONS 1. PROPOSAL A proposal shall be submitted to the City of Temecula by the Bidder indicating a willingness to perform the services outlined, comply with all requirements and specifications, and enter into the attached Franchise Agreement. Each proposal must be accompanied by a $500.00 application fee. 2. SCOPE OF WORK The work under this Contract shall consist of the items contained in the Bid Instructions and Specifications, including all incidentals necessary to fully complete said work in accordance with the proposed Franchise Agreement, Chapter 6.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Chapter 6.10) and the Bid Proposal. 3. CONDITIONS The Bidder shall fully acquaint oneself with the conditions relating to the scope and restrictions attending the execution of the work under the Franchise. The Bidder shall thoroughly examine and be familiar with the Instructions, Specifications, 2 Chapter 6.10 and the Franchise Agreement. It is also expected that the Bidder will obtain information concerning the conditions at locations that may affect this work. The failure or omission of the Bidder to receive or acquaint oneself with conditions existing, shall in no way relieve one of any obligation with respect to the proposal or to the Franchise. The City shall make all such documents available to the Bidder. The Bidder shall make a determination as to conditions and shall assume all risk and responsibility and shall complete the work in and under conditions encountered or created without extra cost to the City. The Bidder's attention is directed to the fact that all applicable State Laws, Riverside County Health Regulations, City of Temecula Municipal Ordinances and rules and regulations of all authorities having jurisdiction over the work to be performed shall apply to the Bidder throughout, and they will be deemed to be included in the Franchise as though written out in full in the Franchise. 4. NAME. ADDRESS AND LEGAL STATUS OF THE BIDDER The Bid proposal must be prope~y signed in ink and the address of the Bidder given. The legal status of the Bidder, whether corporation, partnership, or individual, shall also be stated. Partners or major stockholders of the Bidder must be clearly shown providing full names and addresses. The Bidder and any holding, subsidiary or associated firms shall provide their office address with county and state and telephone number. Anyone signing the Proposal and Contract as an agent of another or others must submit with the proposal, legal evidence of one's authority to do so. 5. COMPETENCY OF BIDDER The City reserves the right to determine the competence and responsibility of the Bidder from its knowledge of the Bidder's qualifications or from other sources. The City requires to be submitted with the Bid Proposal certified supporting data regarding the qualifications of the Bidder in order to determine whether it is qualified and responsible. The Bidder will be required to furnish the following information sworn to under oath: 3 (a) The name and address of the Bidder. Co) Whether the franchise is sought for residential or commercial collection and recycling, or both. (c) A list of equipment and information related thereto, including: (1) an itemized list of the bidder's equipment available to be used in Temecula; (2) identification of each vehicle with supporting information relative to all of the vehicles for service (primary or backup) in Temecula; (3) a list of vehicle identification numbers; and (4) the type, year, make, model and mileage of all vehicles. (d) Identification of the manager and responsible office personnel. (e) Financial Statements, for the bidder and its parent corporation if the bidder is a subsidiary or division. Financial statements shall be for the last three (3) available years and shall include a statement whether the statements have been audited by an independent firm of Certified Public Accountants. The financial statements shall consist of at least the following documents: (1) income statements; (2) balance sheets; and (3) the total operating budget (0 Evidence that the bidder is licensed and in good standing in the State of California and, in the case of a corporation, that it is organized pursuant to the laws of any state. (g) A statement setting forth facts demonstrating that the bidder owns or has access to suitable facilities for equipment cleaning, maintenance, storage, and business offices. The addresses of all 4 (h) (i) (j) (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) such facilities shall be provided with the application. Included with this statement, shall be a clearance from the appropriate planning agency, Water Quality Control Board, or other appropriate public or private agencies. A statement regarding the bidder's experience and capability in the collection, disposal and recycling of solid waste. A statement describing the bidder's proposed procedure for the processing of customer complaints. Three (3) letters of recommendation. Evidence that the bidder can provide insurance policies in the amounts specified in the Franchise Agreement. The type of organization of Bidder, such as sole proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, corporation, business trust or company, including the names, home addresses, and percentage of ownership of all owners and officers. Information as to ownership interests of less than one percent (1%) need not be provided. A narrative describing the identity and form of the business entity or entities which would own, manage and operate the franchise. As to each such entity, a list of the names and addresses of all officers and directors, and all firms, corporations, other entities or persons owning more than 5 % of the voting stock, and all partners. As to each of the entities or persons described in your response to Item No. (n), since January 1, 1989, have you (I) Ever been named as a defendant or respondent in a complaint filed by any public or private entity or person in a Federal or Sate Court or administrative tribunal in any case or matter in which the complaint or cross-complaint alleged, or was amended to allege, unfair business or trade practices or violation of antitrust laws or violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. (18 USC §§ 1961-68); 5 (2) Ever entered into a settlement agreement with a public or private entity or person concerning alleged unfair business or trade practices or violation of any antitrust laws, or violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. (18 USC § 1961-68); (3) Ever been found by a court to have violated any federal, state, or local statute, ordinance or regulation regarding the proper collection, transportation or disposal of hazardous or solid waste; (4) Ever has been named in a complaint, filed in any federal or state court, alleging the violation of any federal, state or local statute, ordinance or regulation regarding the proper collection, transportation or disposal of hazardous or solid waste; (5) Ever paid, or are now appealing a judgment or order requiting the payment of any civil penalty or fine to any federal, state or local administrative agency based on a finding or determination regarding the violation of a statute, ordinance or regulation regarding the proper collection, transportation or disposal of hazardous or solid waste; (6) Ever been a defendant in a cost recovery or citizens suit filed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; (7) Ever been found by any court or government agency to have violated any federal or state law or regulation or municipal or county ordinance relating to election laws or campaign contributions; (8) Ever been named in any complaint filed in any federal or state court, or regulatory agency, including but not limited to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging the violation of any federal or state law or regulation or municipal or county ordinance relating to election laws or campaign contributions; (9) Ever had a solid waste franchise, permit, license or other 6 entitlement revoked or suspended; (10) Ever had a business license revoked or suspended. (11) If the answer to any of the foregoing is affirmative, provide a narrative describing the conduct that led to the affirmative response. Provide one copy of each solid waste franchise agreement, license or permit granted by a sate or local government agency in the State of California to which the entity or entities identified in response to (n), above is a party. 6. EVALUATION PROCESS All Bid Proposals will be given thorough review. All contacts during the review selection phase will be through the Purchasing Department. Attempts by the Bidder to contact members of the review committee may result in disqualification of the Bidder. At the option of the City, finalists will be selected for a final round of negotiations. However, Bidders are encouraged to present their best offers with their initial submission to insure their selection for the final round. The selection of ~nalists will be done by evaluating the Bidder's cost and qualifications. All evaluation material will be considered confidential and not released by the City. Once a ~nalist is selected, the City intends to negotiate a franchise agreement with the bidder providing the selected services, equipment and supplies. The content of the Instructions, Specifications, Franchise Agreement, Chapter 6.10 and Bid Proposal will become an integral part of the final Franchise Agreement, but may be modified by the provisions of the Franchise Agreement. Bidders must be amendable to inclusion in a Franchise Agreement of the terms provided herein or developed subsequently during the selection process. GENERAL SPECIFICATION 1. BID PROPOSAL 7 The City is seeking bids on a variety of solid waste collection, disposal and recycling options, as specified on the Bid Proposal form. The Bidder shall be prepared to enter into a Franchise Agreement for one or more services. 2. EXCLUSIVITY The City shall grant a single residential franchise. Based on the bids the City may chose to enter into multiple commercial franchises or grant a single exclusive franchise for commercial and residential services. The bids should incorporate a 8 % of gross revenues franchise fee. 3. FRANCHISE TERM The term of all franchises shall be eight years. 4. SERVICE FREQUENCY The Bidder shall provide regularly scheduled service, including recycling, as specified in Chapter 6.10. Recyclables shall be collected on the same day that refuse is collected. 5. BILLING - RESIDENTIAL SERVICE The City may choose to establish a parcel charge for residential service beginning with 1991-92 fiscal year. Accordingly, residential service bidders shall make two alternative proposes. (a) Bidder shall bill subscribers quarterly for all service. Bidder will be wholly responsible for collecting payment and City will not be liable for bad debts. The Temecula Community Services District will levy a parcel charge for collection and recycling service. Bidder will be paid semi-annually for all service rendered according to the number of residences served. INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SOURCE REDUCTION AND RECYLING ELEMENT (Public Resources Code Section 41900 et ,W-q. The Bidder providing residential collection, disposal and recycling shall contract a qualified solid waste disposal consultant to prepare, on behalf of the City, a Solid Waste Management Program and Source Reduction and Recycling Elements CSRREM) pursuant to Public Resources Section 41000 et se~_. The Bid Proposal shall include the proposed consultant's name and qualifications. Should the Bidder selected for residential service not also provide commercial service, the City Manager shall develop a formula whereby the residential Bidder is reimbursed from the Bidder(s) providing commercial service for their fair share cost of the SRRE. The consultant shall work under the supervision of the City, and the City may require rewriting of the SRRE, or selection of a new consultant, should the City determine, in its sole discretion, that it is necessary to achieve an adequate SRRE. 7. COLLECTION IMPEDIMENTS The Bidder shall provide regularly scheduled weekly refuse collection service to each residence in the designated area. A number of collection impediments may require special effort to accomplish this level of service. If this special effort requires the distribution of containers, it shall be the responsibility of the Bidder to distribute them. (a) or prolonged rain. Rain - Some streets become impassable during periods of heavy When the Bidder determines that collection vehicles can no longer provide service in the street, the following steps shall be taken: (1) Notify the City giving location of impassable street. (2) Notify residents that collection service will be available temporarily at the street location. (3) Notify the City when street is returned to service. Return containers if applicable. (4) Notify the residents of the date that collection service will again be delivered in the street location. (b) Infrastructure Renovation - Periodically major renovation is necessary to maintain the infrastructure of the City. This includes such activities as replacing gas, water, and sewer lines, surfacing or resuffacing streets, and replacing wiring for telephone, electricity, or cable T.V. 9 If the City is notified in advance of these activities, City will notify the Bidder. However, it is not uncommon for work to be initiated without prior notification. Alternate sanitation service must be provided during this period of disruption. Each circumstance must be evaluated individually to determine the appropriate alternative. The City shall be notified of the nature of the disruption, its location, and the alternative employed to provide service. (c) Street Blocked by Refuse - When material is placed in the street in such a way that the collection vehicle cannot proceed down the street, the Bidder may notify the City. The City will attempt to locate the individual responsible for the material and have them remove it. However, if the responsible party cannot be located, the Bidder shall remove the material blocking the alley and collect the refuse as scheduled. (d) Street Blocked by Illegally Parked Vehicle - This is usually a matter of hours, thus collection can be provided on the scheduled day. If necessary, collections shall be provided at start of shift on the following day. 8. FUTURE REOUIREMENTS The City may impose other requirements for pickup of recyclable materials throughout the life of the Franchise, to assist the City in meeting state mandated recycling goals. Good faith negotiations will be required of both parties to the Franchise when any new mandates are imposed. 9. REPORTING The Bidder shall provide monthly reports on the quantity (by weight) of each type of recyclable collected to the City, and compare this to the tonnage of refuse delivered to disposal sites from the service area. IV. SPECIAL SPECIFICATION A. MECHANIZED RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION & DISPOSAL 1. MATERIALS TO BE COLLECTED -- 10 The Bidder shall furnish all labor, supervision, materials, permits, licenses, and equipment necessary to provide mechanized contained refuse collection of single family residential dwelling units within the City of Temecula, California as follows. (a) All refuse placed curbside on streets or easements for collections in containers provided by the Bidder. Co) The Bidder will not be required to collect metal bin type containers. (c) They usually occur The Bidder may on occasion be required to collect refuse placed for collection in bag or boxes. These collections will be in special emergency situations and for periods of short duration. when construction or emergency repairs to utilities block access to the usual location of containers. (d) The Bidder shall continue carry-out services for those individuals who are unable to place their refuse for collection in the usual manner due to severe physical handicap. The Bidder shall not receive special payment for this service. 2. CONTAINERS The Bidder will provide both the initial container and any replacement containers to residents to be served. Residents will have individual containers. They may also have an unlimited number of additional containers, but each homeowner must pay the Bidder for each additional container. Additionally, the Bidder shall notify City of all customers utilizing extra containers, so that City may install price disincentives in its assessment structure to help promote state mandated source reduction and recycling goals, and reimburse the Bidder for this extra service. Specifications for containers: See Exhibit A. Repairs to containers shall be the responsibility of the Bidder. This includes replacement of wheels, lids, hinges, axles, and handles. 3. GOVERNMENTAL COLLECTIONS The Bidder shall provide refuse collection to specifically designated governmental locations within the City. These may include, but are not limited to, fire stations, schools, parks, and public buildings. The City will not be billed for this service. B. NON-MECHANIZED RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION & DISPOSAL 1. MATERIALS TO BE COLLECTED The Bidder shall furnish all labor, supervision, materials, permits, licenses, and equipment necessary to provide refuse collection for residential dwelling units within the City of Temecula, with all refuse placed curbside on streets or easements for collection in containers by subscribers. 2. GOVERNMENTAL COLLECTIONS The Bidder shall provide refuse collection to specifically designated non- residential locations within the City. These may include, but are not limited to, fire stations, schools, parks, and public buildings. The City will be billed for this service. C. SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION 1. SCOPE OF WORK Regardless of whether residential collection is mechanized or not, the Bidder shall provide semi-annually collection of bulky waste which is composed of materials which are not easily contained such as Christmas trees, tree trimmings, furniture and large appliances, and of household hazardous waste. D. COMMERCIAL COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 1. MATERIALS TO BE COLLECTED The Bidder shall furnish all labor, supervision, materials, permits, licenses, and equipment necessary to provide refuse collection for commercial premises. Refuse will be placed in a refuse bin located on the premises. E. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING 1. SCOPE OF WORK The Bidder for residential service shall provide separate curbside collection of recyclable materials to all single-family residential units receiving refuse service. Curbside collection shall be performed weekly and shall be provided either by the Bidder, or be subcontracted by the Bidder to another subcontractor, as approved in 12 writing by the City. 2. MATERIAL TO BE RECYCLED Curbside collection shall provide a system for separation of the following designated recyclable materials from waste collected prior to transportation to the landfill: (1) Newsprint, glass, and PET and aluminum beverage containers are designated as the initial items for collection. (2) Used motor oil shall be collected from all participating customers commencing July 1, 1992. (3) Additional items may be added to the list either by amendment or resolution adopted by the City Council. (4) Additional materials may be collected for recycling purposes at the discretion or desire of the Bidder. 3. RECYCLING CONTAINERS The Bidder shall provide containers for curbside collection of recyclable materials. Containers provided shall have a minimum combined capacity of seventeen (17) gallons, be constructed of rigid, durable, recyclable materials with a minimum five (5) year life expectancy warranted by the manufacturer. The Bidder's company or subcontractor's company name and phone number shall be permanently affixed to each container. Newspaper may be bundled or bagged separately. All containers or handling methods shall be approved by the City. 4. REPORTING The Bidder shall report monthly tonnages of refuse disposed of and each recyclable material collected to include the gross ievenue for each material to the City to the best of the Bidder's ability, in a format prescribed by the City. 5. HANDLING RECYCLABLES The Bidder shall not dispose of separately collected recyclable products at County landfills without prior written approval from the City, or violate any state statute or local ordinances regarding the handling and storage of the recyclable materials. -- 13 RECYCLING REVENUE SHARING. (1) Grantee shall share equally with City gross revenues which are received from the sale of recycled materials collected by Grantee from this Recycling Program. (2) Grantee shall not begin to charge customers for residential recycling until the effective date of the recycling program. MULTI-FAMILY UNIT AND COMMERCIAL RECYCLING 1. SCOPE OF WORK The Bidder(s) for multi-family unit service and commercial service shall provide separate collection of recycable materials to all such units receiving collection and disposal service. As part of the Bidder's proposal, it shall provide a plan and associated rate to provide multi-family and commercial recycling, beginning January 1, 1992. The City may choose to revise the plan based upon its SRRE, and will establish a new recycling rate to address any increase/decrease in the work necessary to accomplish the plan, as revised. 2. MATERIAL TO BE RECYCLED Curbside collection shall provide a system for separation of the following designated recyclable materials from waste collected prior to transportation to the landfill: (1) Newsprint, glass, and PET and aluminum beverage containers are designated as the initial items for collection. (2) Used motor oil shall be collected from all participating residential customers commencing July 1, 1992. (3) Additional items may be added to the list either by amendment or resolution adopted by the City Council. 14 (4) Additional materials may be collected for recycling purposes at the discretion or desire of the Bidder. 3. REPORTING The Bidder shall report monthly tonnages of refuse disposed of and each recyclable material collected to include the gross revenue for each material to the City to the best of the Bidder's ability, in a format prescribed by the City. 4. HANDLING RECYCLABLES The Bidder shall not dispose of separately collected recyclable products at County landfills without prior written approval from the City, or violate any state statute or local ordinances regarding the handling and storage of the recyclable materials. 5. RECYCLING REVENUE SHARING. (1) Grantee agrees to share equally with City gross revenues which are received from the sale of recycled materials collected by Grantee from this Recycling Program. (2) Grantee shall not begin to charge customers for residential recycling until the effective date of the recycling program. 15 CITY OF TEMECULA Proposal For Residential and/or Commercial Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and Recycling Proposal of: Name of Firm Address City, State, Zip Code An individual - Partnership - A Corporation - duly organized under the laws of the State of California. The undersigned having carefully read and considered the terms and conditions of the contract requirements, specifications and contract documents for Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and Recycling for the City of Temecula, does hereby offer to perform such services on behalf of the City, of the type and quality and in the manner set forth in the request for proposal at the rates hereinafter set forth: ALL RATES INCLUDE LANDFILL CHARGES AND FRANCHISE FEE I. Exclusive Franchise for residential and commercial service City-wide: a. Mechanized Residential Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing: 1. dollars and cents ($ single family unit ) per month per 2. Special services per single family unit: Recyling - $ per month. 1 Used Oil - $ per month. dollars and cents ($ multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin. ) per month per Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) - $ per month. Non-mechanized Residential Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing: 1. dollars and cents ($ single family unit Special services per single family unit: Charge: ) per month per - Recyling - $ per month. - Used Oil - $ per month. 3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin. 4. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) - $ per month. Mechanized Residential Collection and Disposal Service - City Parcel 1. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per single family unit Special services per single family unit: - Recyling - $ per month. - Used Oil - $ per month. 3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin. -2- Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) - $ per month. Parcel Charge: Non-mechanized Residential Collection and Disposal Service - City 1. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per single family unit Special services per single family unit: - Recyling - $ per month. - Used Oil - $ per month. 3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) - $ per month. Special Services: 1. Bulky Waste Residential Pick-up - $ per pick-up per residential unit. 2. Hazardous Waste Round-up - $ per pick-up per residential unit. f. yard bin) - monthly Commercial Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing (3 cubic rate: 1. Pick-Up 1 x week $ 2 x week $ 3 x week $ 4 x week $ 5 x week $ 6 x week $ 7 x week $ -3- Recycling (1 x week) per month per bin. g. 40 Cubic yard h. 10 Cubic yard Exclusive Franchise only for residential service city-wide: a. Mechanized Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing: 1. dollars and cents ($ single family unit 2. Special services per single family unit: Recyling - $ per month. Used Oil - $ per month. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per ) per month per multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bid. 4. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) - $ per month. Non-mechanized Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing 1. dollars and cents ($ single family unit 2. Special services per single family unit: ) per month per multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) - $ per month. -4- Recyling - $ per month. Used Oil - $ per month. 3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per C® Mechanized Collection and Disposal Service - City Parcel Charge: 1. dollars and cents ($ single family unit 2. Special services per single family unit: ) per month per - Recyling - $ per month. - Used Oil - $ per month. 3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin. 4. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) - $ per month. Non-mechanized Collection and Disposal Service - City Parcel Charge 1. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per single family unit Special services per single family unit: Recyling - $ per month. Used Oil - $ per month. 3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) - $ per month. Special Services: Bulky Waste Residential Pick-up - $ residential unit. Hazardous Waste Round-up - $ residential unit. per pick-up per per pick-up per -5- Multiple Franchise Commercial Service City-Wide: a. Commercial Service - Bidder Billing (3 cubic yard bin) - monthly rate: 1. Pick-Up 1 x week $ 2 x week $ 3 x week $ 4 x week $ 5 x week $ 6 x week $ 7 x week $ 2. Recycling (1 x week) - $ per month per bin. b. 40 Cubic yard c. 10 Cubic yard 4. Number of vehicles to be assigned specifically to the City of Temecula 5. Number of full time staff to be assigned specifically to the City of Temecula All rates bid are fixed through June 30, 1991; subsequently, they are subject to adjustment a follows: A. Annual Consumer Price Index ("CPI") and Tipping Fee Adjustment. The maximum rates shall be automatically adjusted to reflect changes in the consumer price index and tipping fees. The CPI adjustment shall be made annually and such adjustment shall be effective as of the first day of July of each calendar year. The "CPI adjustment shall be equal to the amount derived by multiplying (a) the previous rate by (b) the percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Metropolitan Area during the prior calendar year, excluding the housing component. The comparison shall be made for each March 1st during the term hereof and shall be effective each July 1st. The first CPI adjustment shall occur July 1, 1991. Any increase in tipping fees shall be passed through on a pro rata basis, and shall be effective at the start of the first full billing period after the tipping fee increase. B. Extraordinary Costs. In addition to, and not in lieu of, the annual CPI increase or decrease described above, Bidders shall also be enti~ed to rate increases or decreases in an amount equal to their extraordinary increases or decreases in its cost of collection. Such extraordinary cost increases or decreases shall be subject to City Council approval. Such extraordinary increases or decreases in its cost of collection shall include, by way of example and not by way of limitation: (1) a change in the location of the landfill or other lawful disposal sites to which the Bidder is required to transport Solid Waste collected hereunder; (2) increase or decreases in other permit fees payable by Bidder based on its operations; and (3) changes in the local, state or federal laws governing collection, separation, transportation or disposal of Solid Waste. This is a true and complete proposal of this firm and this firm will enter into Contract at the above rates and conditions. Signed Name Position Bidder Firm Name Principal Office Address City, State. Zip Code Telephone Area Code & Number CORPORATE SEAL I certify that this proposal was signed and sealed by the above mentioned individual before me on this date. Notary Public Date ' i · e ....... ~ ........... ~ ..... 0 O0 '::'cca:accc coo:a: ccac a:acac.- - ~z~ ~r~r~r~or~c~r~r~COrJr~c~r~cJ orJ 'J,, -- :i ~ ~ o ~ ~oo~ -~'~ ITEM NO. 11 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager December 11, 1990 Sphere of Influence RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report. BACKGROUND: Over the past several days I have had the opportunity of meeting with members from the wine country, CSD-149, and the City Council Elect from Murrieta. A final report has not been prepared at this time but will be sent to you under separate cover for action either on December 11, or December 18, 1990. DFD:jsg ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT City Council City Manager December 11, 1990 Rancho California Town Center Traffic Signalization RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report. BACKGROUND: The City has ~eceived notification that the developer for the Rancho California Town Center has met with all of his major tenants and has received preliminary approval for their share of the traffic signalization program. Staff will be working with all of the parties involved to finalize a cost sharing agreement that will provide signalization on Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The cooperative agreement will be brought to the City Council for execution in the very near future. DFD:jsg ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT City Council City Manager December 11, 1990 Consideration of Establishing New Position and Classification RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the establishment of an Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services position and adopt an appropriate resolution modifying the personnel classifications. BACKGROUND: Several months ago I presented to the City Council a report which addressed the expansion of the administrative staff to include a position of Assistant City Manager. I have not approached the subject since August in hopes that the workload could be assumed by others. It has now become apparent, not only to me but to the members of the Council, that additional administrative staff is warranted. You will recall that Michael Deblieux of IEM had recommended a salary range of $6,172 - $7,685 per month and based his recommendation on a survey which he conducted. That material was sent to you several months ago. It is now appropriate to once again revisit the issue of establishing the position of Assistant City Manager. The duties of the Assistant City Manager will be targeted to the day-to-day administrative work of overseeing the business functions of the City and therefore the position, although it will be classified as Assistant City Manager, will also have a working title of Director of Administrative Services. I am also recoh~mending a change in the salary level of $5,763 - $7,176 per month. As you will note this is approximately 9% below that which the consultant recommended but it put it at approximately 10% above the existing department head salary range. I feel comfortable that I can recruit successfully within this salary range. Based upon the above information, I am recommending that the City Council, (1) authorize the position of Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services and approve the salary range of $5,763 - $7,176 per month, (2) adopt the attached resolution and (3) authorize the City Manager to start recruitment. DFD:jsg 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 ADOFrED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 1 lth day of December, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 119 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 l lth day of December, 1990, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 3/Resos 119 # of Positions Exempt/ Non-exempt CITY OF TEMECULA Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges Attachment I - Exhibit A Titl~ Minimum Maximum 2 NE 1 NE 1 E 5 NE 1 E 1 NE 1 E 2 NE 3 NE 1 E 1 E 1 NE 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 2 NE 7 NE 2 NE 2 NE 1 E 0 E 1 NE 1 E 2 NE 1 NE 2 E 49 Account Clerk Accountant Administrative Assistant Administrative Secretary Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services Assistant Planner Assistant to the City Manager Associate Planner Building Inspector Chief Accountant City Manager Code Enforcement Officer Deputy City Clerk Director of Building and Safety Director of Community Services Director of Finance Director of Planning Executive Secretary Information Systems Manager Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Worker Office Assistant Planning/Building Technician Recreation Leader Recreation Superintendent Recreation Supervisor Secretary Senior Accountant Senior Building Inspector Senior Maintenance Worker Senior Planner $1,600 $1,993 $2,498 $3,111 $2,105 $2,621 $1,702 $2,120 $5,763 $2,464 $2,807 $2,885 $2,431 $3,377 $2,193 $2,414 $5,236 $5,236 $5,236 $5,236 $2,285 $4,148 $3,331 $1,667 $1,303 $2,193 $1,424 $3,331 $2,533 $1,454 $2,788 $2,675 $1,926 $3,424 $7,176 $3,068 $3,495 $3,592 $3,027 $4,205 $2,731 $3,006 $6,519 $6,519 $6,519 $6,519 $2,846 $5,165 $4,148 $2,076 $1,624 $2,731 $1,774 $4 148 $3 154 $1.811 $3 471 $3 331 $2 398 $4 236 December 11, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS A GENDA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT A REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1990 PM Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall Introduction of Parks Development Coordinator PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD BUSINESS 1. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of November 27, 1990 as mailed. Request for Qualifications (RFQ) - Parks and Recreation Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Appoint one member from the Board to serve on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Selection Committee· Comoletion of Process for Dedication of Tract 23128, Martinique by Sunland Housing RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Accept Tract No. 23128 for Dedication to the Temecula Community Services District. Annexation to TCSD Zone B - Parcel Map 21383 - Rancho Core Associates No. 1 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Accept Annexation of parcel Map '21383, Rancho Core Associates No. I to the Temecula Community Services District, Zone B. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: January 8, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, Pujol Street, Temecula, California 28816 CSDAgenda 2./12 1190 2 12/05/90 ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD NOVEMBER 27, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:45 PM, President Birdsall presiding. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were Acting City Manger David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CSD BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to approve the minutes of November 13, 1990, as mailed. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None 4\CSDMIN\I 12790 -1- 12/06/90 CSD Minutes 2. November 27, 1990 Election of President of the Temecula Community Services Board of Directors It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to nominate Director J. Sal Mu~oz to serve as the President of the Temecula Community Services Board of Directors. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 DIRECTORS: Moore, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSTAIN: 2 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Mu~oz Election of Vice President of the Temecula Community Services Board of Directors It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by President Birdsall to nominate Director Peg Moore as serve as Vice President of the Temecula Community Services Board of Directors. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Moore, Mu~oz, Parks Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSTAIN: I DIRECTORS: Lindemans President Birdsall congratulated Director Mu~oz and Director Moore on their new appointments and stated she had very much enjoyed serving the Community Services District with its tremendous realm of work to be accomplished. 4\CSDMIN\I 12790 -2- 12/06/90 CSD Minutes November 27, 1990 4. 11 cceptance of Donated Property Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, stated this parcel contains a Metropolitan Water District Easement, and said it is north of La Serena Way, between the La Serena and Ridgeview Developments. He recommended the Board accept this donated property and hold it until completion of the City-wide master plan. He explained this property could possibly be used as a part of a City-wide bike path and trail system. It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Mu~oz to accept donation of property (3.47 acres) located off La Serena Way, containing a Metropolitan Water District Easement for possible future park development. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS None given. 4\CSDMIN\I 12790 -3- 12/06/90 CSD Minutes November 27, 1990 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:50 PM to a meeting on December 4, 1990. The motion was unanimously carried. Patricia H. Birdsall, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 4\CSDMIN\I 12790 -4- 12/06/90 ITEM NO. 2 ~o~ ~~-~ cITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER DECEMBER 11, 1990 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS RECREATION MASTER PLAN (RFQ) - PARKS AND PREPARED B~ SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Appoint one member from the Board to serve on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Selection Committee. FISCAL IMPACT.' $60,000 has been budgeted for the development of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. DISCUSSION: Requests For Qualifications (RFQ) will be submitted to the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) by several consultants aspiring to develop the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. A selection committee comprised of a member from the Board of Directors; two parks and recreation commissioners; and city staff members from Planning and the TCSD will review the proposals, and select the top consultants to make a formal presqntation and proposal to the Selection Committee. Once the final consultant is selected, the final Master Plan document will be completed in approximately six (6) months. The selected consultant will be re- quired to include a time table as part of the proposal. ITEM NO. 3 Riverside County Service Area 143 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite ~05 - Rancho California, CA 92390 [714] 699-0235 · Fax [7~4] 699-4390 DATE: December 5, 1990 TO: FROM: - City of Te ecula De uty lerk Rebecca L. Stein C~ Supervising Office Assistant I SUBJECT: Temecula Community Service District Agenda Items for December 11, 1990 URGENT - We request this ite~ be placed on the December llth agenda; therefore, enabling the CSA to take over maintenance froe the developer prior to 1991. Please find attached the CSA 143 Staff Report for Completion of the Process for Dedication for Tract 23128 Martinque by Sunland Housing. This office requests this item to be placed on the Temecula Community Service District Agenda for December 11, 1990. The Developer has been notified the CSA will assume maintenance responsibility when approved by the Temecula Community Service District Board. Riverside County Service Area 443 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite '105 - Rancho California, CA 92390 (7t4] 699-0235 · Fax (714] 699-4390 DATE: December 5, 1990 TO: FROM: SI~JECT: Temecula Community Service District Staff Report for December 22 emecula Community Service District Meeting Completion of Process for Dedication Tract 23128 Martinique by Sunland Housing The CSA 143 requests the Temecula Community Service District to accept the above tract, therefore, enabling the CSA to commence maintenance on these areas. This will complete the Process for Dedication. This dedication package has been reviewed and approved by Riverside County Counsel and Building Services and also by Dana Robie of the City Engineering Department. SENT DY:WILLDAN $,B. ;12- 5-90 ;10:46AM; WILLDAN S. 8.~ 6994390;# 2 850 RespiteIlkx Lane, Suite 400 San hrnardino, CA 92408 (714) 386-0200 TO: Riv. CO. Garyice Area Ona-lortl-Thrae 29377 Rucho California Road, Suite 105 Telsouls, CA 92390 A~R: Deborah Tharp RE: CSl 23128 S/O Micolaa Road I/0 M, Gueral harny Me are forwardin2 bl meoeaulsr the fallowinJ plans for/our usa: DATE : 12/04/90 JOB No.: 02150 ~'Deserlptioq Mo. of Lefa] Description Cheek 3 . Remarks: Dana labia L.S., St. Survey Analyst ~NT ~Y:WILLDAN 8.~, ;12- 5-90 ;10:4?AM; WILLDAN ~,~,~ EXHIBIT "A" 6994390;# 3 /z-4 .po LOTS 85 AND 86 AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 23128 IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 198, PAGES 96 THROUGH 102, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICU- LARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: T,OT .85 COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 23128 SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF DEER MEADOW ROAD AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT NO. 23128 AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE, NORTH 13' 16' 48" WEST ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT NO. 23128, 33.01 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID DEER MEADOW ROAD AND THE ~RU~ POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DEER MEADOW ROAD (33.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE): SOUTH 75' 12' 17" WEST, 277.88 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE; THENCE, NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31' 11' 56" A RADIUS OF 267 00 FEET AND AN , , ARC LENGTH OF 145.39 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 73' 35' 47" WEST, 141.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE; THENCE, WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 64' 53' 35" A RADIUS OF 333 O0 FEET AND AN , · ARC LENGTH OF 377.16 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 41' 30' 38" WEST, 159.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE; THENCE, SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69' 11' 32" A RADIUS OF , 267.00 FEET AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 322.44 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST- ERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK ON SAID DEER MEADOW ROAD; THENCE, NORTH 22' 35' 45" WEST, ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK 33.23 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, cONCAVE TO THE WEST A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 68' 17' 22" EAST; THENCE, 1. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 26. 27. NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, AND ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (44.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE), SAID CURVE HAViNG A CENTRALANGLE OF 12° 35' 59", A RADIUS OF 1244.00 FEET AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 273.56 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF SALERNO ROAD; THENCE, NORTH 50' 22' 30" EAST ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK, 33.23 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 83' 22' 38" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SALERNO ROAD (30.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE), 33.97 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE; THENCE, EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01' 1O' 18", A RADIUS OF 1030.00 FEET AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 21.06 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 84' 32' 56" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, 29.77 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF SALERNO ROAD; THENCE, SOUTH 39° 32' 56" EAST ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK AT SALERNO ROAD, 4.00 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 89' 18' 02" WEST, 83.85 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 43' 00~ 56" WEST, 23.42 FEET; T~ENCE, SOUTH 09' 51' 06" WEST, 20.68 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 11' 20j 52" WEST, 40.21 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 14° 40' 38" WEST, 73.99 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 17' 52' 14" WEST, 127.83 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 14' 39' 48" EAST, 21.74 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 70' 55 58" EAST, 23.46 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 74' 14 24" EAST, 25.81 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 86' 42 48" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH S5' 17 12" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 79' 47 12" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 69' 10 18" EAST, 27.54 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 61' 14' 03" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE, SENT BY~WILLDAN S, 8, ;12- 5-90 ;10:48AM; WILLDAN S,B,~ 699~390;# 5 81 39, 30, 31. 32. 33. 34, 35. 37. 38. 39. 40, 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 9e NORTH 54' 14' 03" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 43' 06' 50" EAST, 85.58 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 39' 18' 52" EAST, 85.92 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 43' 32 06" EAST, 60.85 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 55' 16 56" EAST, 35.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 61' 12 08" EAST, 63.91 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 72' 12 19" EAST, 45.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 75' 53 25" EAST, 42.77 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 83' 28 18" EAST, 35.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 85' 25 Sg" EAST, 31.25 FEET: THENCE, SOUTH 87° 09 04" EAST, 46.35 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 73° 04 17" EAST, 155.94 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 75' 34 29" EAST, 77.08 FEET; THENCE,. NORTH 88' 33' 09" EAST, 45.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 49' 00' 53" EAST, 8.60 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 88' 11' 34" EAST, 28.79 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 75' 30' 14" EAST, 152.90 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 75' 28' 55" EAST, 102.95 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 76° 23' 55" EAST, 22.75 FEET~ THENCE, NORTH 01° 56' 41" EAST, 8.10 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 76' 43' 12" EAST, 10.00 FEET TO SAID EASTERLY TRACT BOUNDARY OF TRACT NO. 23128; THENCE, SOUTH 13' 16t 48" EAST ALONG SAID TRACT BOUNDARY, 12.50 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SENT BY:WILLDAN S,B. ;12- 5-90 ;10:~BAM; WILLDAN S.B,~ 6994390 ;# 6 LOT 8~ COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 23128[ THENCE, SOUTH 75° 12t 17" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT I AND THE WESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, 208.55 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF VILLA VENECIAAND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, SOUTH 75' 12' 17" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NICOLA8 ROAD (55.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE), 872.15 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE, SOUTH 40' 19' 40" WEST ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK, 26.30 FEET; THENCE, 8OUTH 05' 27I 04I' WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (44.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE), 218.94 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT- BACK OF SALERNO ROAD; THENCE, SOUTH 36' 31' 40" EAST ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK, 33.62 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 83' 22' 38" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SALERNO ROAD (30.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE), AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, 33.63 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE; THENCE, SOUTHEASTERLY ALONg SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SAID CURVE HAVINg A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1' 10' 18", A RADIUS OF 970.00 FEET ANDANARC LENGTH OF 19.84 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 84' 32' 56" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINEi 29,77 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF SAID SALERNO ROAD; THENCE, NORTH 77' 26' 14" WEST, 79.84 FEET; THENCE, 9. NORTH 31' 58 34" WEST, 25.20 FEET; THENCE, 10. NORTH 03' ~5 43" EAST, 101.13 FEET; THENCE, 11. NORTH 05' 02 28" EAST, 110.89 FEET; THENCE; 12. NORTH 36' 38 42" EAST, 23.36 FEET; THENCE, 13. NORTH 74' 02 10" EAST, 69.66 FEET; THENCE, 14. NORTH 75' 48 04" EAST, 49.62 FEET; THENCE, 15. NORTH 75' 12 17" EAST, 746.76 FEET; THENCE, $ENT BY:WILLDAN ;12- 5-90 ;10:49AM; WILLDAN 8.8.4 6994390;# SOUT}~ 72' 16' 59" EAST, 33.49 FEET TO THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF VILLA VENECIA; THENCE, NORTH 62' 10' 54" WEST (SHOWN INCORRECTLY AS NORTH 62° 10' 54" EAST ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT NO. 23128) ALONG SAID CORNER CUT'BACK, 33,97 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BFGT~3qING. SEE EXHIBIT HB,, ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF \ e~, \. .ZlG, II-/X..,: ~ #:06~t66g ~'B'g NVO~TM ' ~V6t:OL~ O6-g -aL: '~ 'g NV(1'r'ITM:Afl SENT BY:WZLLDAN &B. .-: ;12- 5-90 ;10:49AM; t k'Hil,:31T WILLDAN ~. B. ~ , 1. N ?5' 12~ 17" g B72.15~ 2. N 40' 19~ 40" E 26.30~ 3, N 05' 27' 04" E 23R.94' 4. N 36' 3~' 40" W 33.62' 5. N e3' 32e 38" ~ 33.63' 6, 01' 10~ 19" 19.B4~ 7. H B4' 32~ 56" H 39.77~ 8. H 77' 26~ 14" ~ 79.84~ 9. H 31' 58~ 34" ~ 25.20' 10. H 03' 5~s 43" ~ 101.13' 11, N 05' 02~ 18" ~ 110.B9' 12, N 36' 38~ 43" ~ 23.36' 13 · H 74 ' 02 s 10" ~ 69. 14. N 75' 48~ 04" ~ 15, N 75' 12t 17" ~ 746.76~ ~6. H 72' ~6I 59" ~ 33.49' 17, H 62' 10' 84" H 33.97~ 18. N 75' 12' 17" ~ 277.88' 19. 31' 11t 56" 145.39' 20. N 73* 35~ 47" W 141.10~ 31. 64' 53t 35" 377.16' 22, N 41' 30' 38" ~ 159.06~ 23. 69' 1~~ 32" 322.44* 34. N 22' 35I 45" W 33,53e 3~ · 12 ' 35 t 59" 273, 26. H SO* 32* 30" E 33,23' 27, H 83' 32* 38" N 33.97 28. 01' 10' 18" 21,06' 29, N 84' 32I 56" W 29.77' 30. N 39' 32I 56" W 4.00w 3~. N 89' 18~ 02' E 83.85; 32. H 43' O0t 56" E 23.42' 33. N 09' 51~ 06" E 20.68' 34. N ~1' 20' 52"E 3~. N 14' 40~ 38"E 73.99' 36, H 17' 52~ 14" E 127.83~ 3~. N 14' 39~ 48" W 21.74; 38. H 70' 55' 58" W 23.46' 39. N 74' 14~ 24" W 25,8Z' 40, N 86' 42t 48" W 4O,OOt 41, N 85' 17~ 1~"~ 40.00' 42. H 79' 47I 12" ~ 40.00' 43, H 69' 10~ 18' E 27.54' 44, N .61' 14t Q3" E 40.00~ 45. H 54' 14~ O3"~ 40.00s 46. H 43' 06~ 50" E 85.58' 47, H 39* 18~ 52" E 85,93'- 48. N 43' 32~ 06" E 60.85' 49. N 58' 16~ 86" ~ 35.00' 50, N 6~~ 12* OB"E 63.91' 51. H V3' IIt .19" E 48.O0~ ~3. N 15' 53~ 25" B 43.77' 53, N 83' 28' 18" g 35.O0~ 54, H 85' 25~ 59" E 3Z,25~ 55. H 87' 09~ 04" N 46.35' 56. N 73' 04~ 1~" N 155,94~ 87, N 7S' 3q~ 29" W 77,08~ 5e, H Be* 33! 09" ~ 45.00' 8S. N 49' 00t 53" I 8.60' 60. H 88' 11~ 34" ~ 38.79~ 61. N 7S' 301 14" ~ ~1.90I 62, N 75' 28~ 5~" E 102.g5~ 63. N ~6' 25~ 55" E 22.~5 64. H OZ' ~6~ 41" E 8.10~ 6~, H 76* 43I 12" E 10,00 66, N 13' 161 48" W 6994390;# 9 RADIUS 970,O0t 267. O0~ 333.00~ 267.00' 1,244,00' 1,030.001 "o IVIL tNliNlEfiew "' LAND IURVIYOrt$, PLAtlNIRR ITEM NO. 4 Riverside County Service Area 143 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 405 - Rancho California, CA 92390 [744] 699-0235 · Fax [744] 699-4390 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 3, 1990 June Greek - City of Temecula, Deputy Clerk Deborah M. Tharp - CSA 143 Office Assistant Temecula Community Service District Agenda Item for Dec. 11, 1990 Please find attached the CSA 143 Staff Report for Annexation to TCSD Zone B for Parcel Map 21383, Rancho Core Associates No. 1. This office request this item to be placed on the Temecula Community Service District Agenda for December 11, 1990. Should you have any questions on this matter please contact this office. Riverside County Service Area t43 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 405 - Rancho California, CA 92390 [744] 699-0235 · Fax [7t4] 699-4390 DATE: December 3, 1990 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Temecula Community Service District Riverside County Service Area 143 Jeanine R. Overson - Director ,</ Report for December 11, 1990 TCSD Meeting Annexation to TCSD Zone B Parcel Map 21383 Rancho Core Associates No. 1 The above tract has requested annexation to the TCSD for additional services. All legals have been reviewed and approved by Dana Robie of the City of Temecula, Engineering. The CSA 143 recommends annexation of this area into the TCSD. cc: Dana Robie APPT.ICATION TO THR TF. MRCU;.A COMMUNITY' SF. RVICRS DISTRICT Mail or deliver to: Temecula Community Service District c/o CSA 143 29377 Rancho California Road. Suite 105 Temecu] a. CA 92390 For office use only INTRODUCTION: The questions on this form are designed to obtain sufficient data about the proposed project and site to allow staff to assess this proposal. Submit this original. a boundary map and metes and bounds legal description of the affected area. and two ~] complete copies of all materials. No other application form wi]] be accepted. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO: Annex to TCSD Zone B (Describe proposal or action requested) APPLICANT: Rancho Core Associates No. 1 Telephone: 676-1604 ADDRESS: 29400 Rancho California Road, Temecula, Ca 92390 CONTACT PERSON: Max Harrison Telephone:(619) 549-3303 ADDRESS: 9968 Hibert Street, San Diego LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) city of Temecula West of Diaz Road/South of Winchester Road/East of Rancho California Road A. OWNERSHIP: Is the applicant a~pe~y owner in the area of the proposed project (circle) Is the applicant sole owner of this property (circle)~ NO B. AREA INFORMATION: How many acres or miles of territory are included in this proposal? 168-14%%~a~J re 2. Specifically describe how the property will be improved or developed (e.g. number of dwelling units mobilehomes, etc.) 130 lots with industrial buidlings on each ~ot Specifically describe how the property is presently used (e.g., vacant, groves, single family residences, etc.) vacant Population within the area at the present time? N/A Industrial Number of registered voters within the boundaries? None Expected change in population which will result from this proposal? None 7. Area assessed value? $ 7,000,000.00 Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries Assessor's Parcel Number Assessor's parcel number wiF~ be assigned after map records Current zoning? MSC DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN: where necessary) 1. (attach additional sheets Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. (Note: Refer to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.): Parcel map 21383 Outline the full range of services which will be extended to the property as a result of this proposal, and the cost of these services to the landowner and/or future residents. street lights If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). ~ attach street ]~ghting layout prepared bY the responsible public utility. and approved by the County Traffic Rng~neer. 71-22,000 LPSV If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level of service to be provided. Street lights PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up the total ownership of the project area? one How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project one 3. How many landowners are in favor of the project? (attach letters of consent from landowners) one 4. How many landowners are not in favor of the project? none NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and address of people to whom notices and communications should be directed. NAME: Max Harrison ADDRESS: 9968 Hibert Street TELEPHONE:(619) 549-3303 CITY & ZIP: San Diego, Ca 92131 NAME: Mike Kinney TELEPHONE ~76-1604 · APPLICANT'S SIGN E , TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: Dean Allen TITLE: President ~ Johnson & Johnson Development General Partner Rancho Core Associates No. 1 Date: 9/25/90 APPT.ICATION TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY' SERVICES DISTRICT Mail or deliver to: FOr office use only Temecula Community Service District c/o CSA 143 " 29377 Rancho Cal~forn4a Road. Suite 105 Temecu]a. CA 92390 INTRODUCTION: The questions on this form are designed to obtain sufficient data about the proposed project and site to allow staff to assess this proposal. Submit this original· a bQundary map and metes and bounds legal description of the affected area· and two (2) complete copies of all materials, No other a~lication form will be accepted. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO: Annex to TCSD Zone B (Describe proposal or action requested) APPLIC~NT: Rancho Core Associates No. 1 Telephone: 676-1604 ADDRESS: 29400 Rancho California Road, Temecula, Ca 92390 CONTACT PERSON: Max Harrison Telephone:(619) 549-3303 ADDRESS: 9968 Hibert Street, San Diego LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) City of Temecula f West of Diaz Road/South o Winchester Road/East of Rancho California Road A. OWNERSHIP: 1. Is the applicant a~pe~y owner in the area of the proposed project (circle) 2. Is the applicant sole owner of this property (circle)e NO B. AREA INFORMATION: How many acres or miles of territory are included in this ro osal ?4 Specifically describe how the property will be improved or developed (e.g. number of dwelling units mobilehomes, etc.) 130 lots with industrial buidlings on each ~ot Specifically describe how the property is presently used (e.g., vacant, groves, single family residences, etc.) vacant Population within the area at the present time? N/A Industrial Number of registered voters within the boundaries? None Expected change in population which will result from this proposal? None 7. Area assessed value? $ 7,000,000.00 Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries FF Assessor's Parcel Number Assessor's parcel number wi be assigned after map records Current zoning? MSC .~ DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN: (attach additional sheets where necessary) Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. (Note: Refer to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.): Parcel map 21383 Outline the full range of services which will be extended to the property as a result of this proposal, and the cost of these services to the landowner and/or future residents. street lights If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). Ai~ attach street ]~ghting layout prepared bY the responsible public utility. and approved by the County Traffic Rngineer. 71-22,000 LPSV If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level of service to be provided. Street lights PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up the total ownership of the project area? one How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project one 3. How many landowners are in favor of the project? (attach letters of consent from landowners) one 4. How many landowners are not in favor of the project? none NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and address of people to whom notices and communications should be directed. NAME: Max Harrison ADDRESS: 9968 Hibert Street TELEPHONE:(619) 549-3303 CITY & ZIP: San Diego, Ca 92131 NAME: Mike Kinney TELEpHONE~76-1604 ADDRESS: 29400 Rancho California Road ~ITT~Y : ., 2390 TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: Dean Allen TITLE: President D~ Johnson & Johnson Development General Partner Rancho Core Associates No· 1 Date: 9/25/90 EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT LAFCO NO. PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN BY PARCEL HAP NO. 4646 ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL HAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, IN THE TEMECULA RANCHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4, SAID POINT BEING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 39° 48' 32" EAST, 2816.61 FEET FROM CORNER NO. 5 OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO. THENCE: NORTH 39° 48' 32" WEST, ALONG SAID RANCHO LINE, 2333.93 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE: NORTH 38~ 50' 27" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, 1532.84 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE: SOUTH 19~ 50' 46" EAST, 798.73 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 850.00 FEET; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04~ 39' 03", 69.00 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL THERETO BEARS NORTH 65~ 30' 11" EAST; THENCE: NORTH 65° 30' 11" EAST, 259.85 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET; THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF 12° 16' 14", 107.08 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS SOUTH 12~ 13' 35" EAST; THENCE: NORTH 77° 46' 25" EAST, 651.63 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET; THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF 28~ 39' 45", 400.20 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS NORTH 40~ 53' 20" WEST; THENCE: NORTH 49~ 06' 40" EAST, 1571.26 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET; THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21~ 05' 03", 294.39 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS NORTH 61~ 58' 23" WEST; THENCE: NORTH 28~ 01' 37" EAST, 277.47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE: SOUTH 61° 58' 23" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, 1170.71 FEET; THENCE: SOUTH 45° 22' 27" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, 5096.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. A CALCULATED AREA OF 168.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. October 17, 1990 WILLIAM G. RYDEN L.S. 5589 EXP. 12/31/93 II II II II "// II II II II tt/la/90 K Rz~/ EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT LAFCO NO. PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP NO. 4646 ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, IN THE TEMECULA RANCHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4, SAID POINT BEING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 39° 48' 32" EAST, 2816.61 FEET FROM CORNER NO. 5 OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO. THENCE: NORTH 39 ° 48 ' 32" WEST, ALONG SAID RANCHO LINE, 2333 . 93 FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE: NORTH 38~ 50' 27" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, 1532.84 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE: SOUTH 19~ 50' 46" EAST, 798.73 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 850.00 FEET; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF 04° 39' 03", 69.00 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL THERETO BEARS NORTH 65~ 30' 11" EAST; THENCE: NORTH 65~ 30' 11" EAST, 259.85 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET; THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF 12° 16' 14", 107.08 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS SOUTH 12° 13' 35" EAST; THENCE: NORTH 77~ 46' 25" EAST, 651.63 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET; THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF 28~ 39' 45", 400.20 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS NORTH 40~ 53' 20" WEST; THENCE: NORTH 49~ 06' 40" EAST, 1571.26 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET; THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF 21~ 05' 03", 294.39 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS NORTH 61~ 58' 23" WEST; THENCE: NORTH 28~ 01' 37" EAST, 277.47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4; THENCE: SOUTH 61° 58' 23" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, 1170.71 FEET; THENCE: SOUTH 45° 22' 27" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 4, 5096.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. A CALCULATED AREA OF 168.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. October 17, 1990 WILLIAM G. RYDEN L.S. 5589 EXP. 12/31/93 [-- (~ * ,~.~.j, II II II II :1 DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 7 1° -it-y.,2 Jv'efr WESTSIDE ASSOCIATIONS COUNCIL P .O . Box 1788 , Temecula , CA 92390 December 10, 1990 City Council City of Temecula Temecula , CA 92390 Honorable Councilmen : The Westside Associations Council is comprised of the presidents of the five property owners associations on the west side of Rancho California . Those associations are : DeLuz Ranchos Association , Sandia Ranchos Property Owners Association , Santa Margarita Association , Santa Margarita Rancho Property Owners Association , and the Santa Rosa Groves Association . On December 8th , the Westside Associations Council met and voted unanimously to oppose the incluson of our area in the Sphere of Influence being requested by the City of Temecula . By ouT area" , we mean the area included within the boundaries of the Santa Rosa Community Services District , an established public agency. Our area is a hilly , rural area in which no development will occur which will have any impact on the City of Temecula or a City of Murietta if one is formed . We wish to keep ours a rural area not under the sphere of influence of either city . Our Santa Rosa Comunity Services District provides us with adequate local control of our road maintenance , police protection and trash collection. Most of our area is restricted by CC&R ' s from undesireable development . If need be , we can apply for expansion of the authority of our existing community services district . If the purpose of your current proposal is to include our area so that it would at some day be included in Temecula rather than Murietta and thus add to Murietta ' s growth at the expense of your potential , rest assured that we shall be equally opposed to such a Murietta relationship also . For the foregoing reasons , we would greatly appreciate it if you would take action at this time to remove our area from inclusion in your proposed Sphere of Influence . Cordially , THE WESTSIDE ASSOCIATIONS COUNCIL Michael P. Huebner Chairman