HomeMy WebLinkAbout121890 CC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
Invocation
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL:
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER
DECEMBER 18, 1990 - 7:00 PM
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 90-27
Resolution: No. 90-124
Pastor Marry Edwards,
Lambs Fellowship
Councilmember Mufioz
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks
Special Achievement Award - Temecula Valley High School
Football Team
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 and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
befor/the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
2/ageride/121890 I 12/14/90
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 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
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of November 27, 1990 as mailed.
2.2 Approve the minutes of December 4, 1990 as mailed.
3
Resolution Aoorovinq 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
Statement of Revenues and Exoenditures for the Four Months Endinq October 31.
1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures.
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI. A
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO TRANSFER ~26,000
FROM FINANCE DEPARTMENT SALARIES TO CONSUL TING AND $90,000
FROM BUILDING SA~,ARIES TO CONSUL TING FEES.
2/ageride/121890 2 12114/90
5
6
7
Public Imorovements - Parcel Mao 23354
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Accept public improvements within Parcel Map 23354.
5.2 Authorize the reduction in Letter of Credit amounts and direct the City
Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
Public Improvements - Parcel Mao 21592
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Accept public improvements in Parcel Map 21592.
6.2 Authorize the reduction in Letter of Credit amounts and direct the City
Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
Final Parcel MaD No. 23496
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No.
approval.
23496 subject to the conditions of
Final Parcel Mao No. 25037
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 25037 subject to the conditions of
approval.
9
Final Tract Mao No. 23583
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Approve Final Tract Map No.
approval.
23583 subject to the conditions of
21aeertddl 21880 3 12114/90
10
Ratification of Professional Enaineering Services Contract with J.F. Davidson
Associates, Inc. to Provide Design Services for Community Facilities District 88-12.
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Approve contract as submitted.
CSD MEETING - (To be held at 8:00 PM) Please see se~a~te aoenda
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11
Extension of Time - Parcel Mao No. 23430
A 9-lot commercial subdivision located at the
Winchester Roads.
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
southwest corner of Ynez and
Approve the applicant's request for extension of time.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
12
13
Final Parcel Mao No. 23430
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 23430 subject to the conditions of
approval.
ADoointment of Alternate to WRCOG and Dis~;ussion of the Oroanizations Goals
Requested by Mayor Parks and Councilmember Birdsall
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Appoint a member of the City Council to act as the Alternate Voting
Delegate to the Western Riverside Council of Governments.
2/ageride/121890 4 12114/90
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY CGUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Special meeting: Adjourn to a meeting to be held December 19, 1990, 4:00 PM,
Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
Next regular meeting: January 8, 1991,7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816
Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21agefxIdl 21890 6 12114/90
ITEM NO.
1
ITEM NO. 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD NOVEMBER 27, 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:05 PM at the
Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks
presiding.
PRESENT 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mu~oz, Parks
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and
Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Tim Riter, Rancho Christian Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall.
PRESENTATIONS/
PRO CLA MA TIONS
Mayor Parks recognized the Library Building Foundation of Temecula for its efforts in
bringing a new library building to the City and thanked the members of the Foundation
for their continuing commitment to libraries.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bill Bopf, 41707 Winchester Road, asked the .City to take action to support the
Economic Development Corporation. He also asked what progress is being made to
complete the Ynez-Corridor Mello Roos.
Jimmy Moore, 41747 Borealis Drive, representing the Kiwanis Club, congratulated the
City on its birthday and announced a barbecue to be held on Saturday, December I st
from 11:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
Bob Hemme, 47918 Pala Road, requested that the matter of insurance for the City be
placed on the agenda as an urgency item.
City Manager Dixon requested this be referred to the City Manager, who would take
necessary steps to resolve the issue and report back to Council.
H i nut es \ 11 \27~90 - 1 - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Lindemans requested the removal of Agenda Item No. 3.
Councilmember Moore stated she would abstain from Item No. 5 to avoid the
appearance of a conflict of interest.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to
approve Items No. 1, 2 and 4 as follows:
1. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and
resolutions included in the agenda.
2. Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of October 30, 1990 as mailed.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance Permitting Change of Zone No. 5611
4.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY
IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5611, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R- 1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SERAPHINA
ROAD AND RITA WAY.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Ninutes\11\27~90 -2- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
Substitution of Bonds for Tracts No. 23371-1 and Tract 23371-2
5.1
Accept Substitute Monument, Faithful Performance, and Material
and Labor Bonds for Tracts 23371-1 and Tract 23371-2.
5.2
The motion was carried by the following vote:
Authorize the City Clerk to release existing bonds on file.
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: I
Birdsall,
Parks
None
None
Moore
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Resolution Approving Payment of Demands
Lindemans, Mu~oz,
Councilmember Lindemans asked why the City is refunding developer fees.
City Manager Dixon answered that at times projects are withdrawn and fees,
therefore, are refunded.
Councilmember Lindemans requested a list of building fees collected during the
months of July, August and September.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember
Mu~oz to adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-114
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN
EXHIBIT A
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Moore,
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Mu~oz, Parks
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
M i nut es\l 1%27%90 -:$- 12/1ZlgO
City Council Minutes November 27° 1990
COUNCIL BUSINESS
6. Election of Mayor
Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, suggested that the position of mayor be
rotated to give other members of the Council an opportunity to serve in that
capacity.
Steve Schraeder, 41235 Via Carlotta, spoke in favor of the Council reelecting
Ron Parks for another term as Mayor of Temecula.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore
to nominate Ronald J. Parks for Mayor in 1991.
Councilmember Lindemans stated that when the Council was newly elected,
a meeting was held at which a decision was made that the office of mayor
would be rotated each year, and asked that this be done. He stated he would
support Councilmember Pat Birdsall as the next mayor.
Councilmember Mu~oz stated that he also feels the office of mayor should be
rotated and further stated his concerns with Mayor Parks performance as
mayor. He stated he would favor electing Councilmember Pat Birdsall.
Councilmember Moore stated she feels Mayor Parks is the best choice for
mayor, and he has done an exemplary job during the forming of a new City.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks
NOES:
2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
H i nut es\ 11 \27\90 -/, - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
Election of Mayor Pro Tempore
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Parks to nominate
Patricia Birdsall as Mayor Pro Tempore.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Moore, Parks
Lindemans, Mu~oz
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. Plot Plan No. 20
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, stated this is a request by Medical Design
Concepts to construct an industrial building located on Business Park Drive. He
explained it would contain 128,345 square feet of warehouse, 26,850 square
feet of office space and 5,366 square feet of manufacturing area on 12.09
acres. He said the Planning Commission recommends approval.
City Manager Dixon reported this is an expansion of an existing use. He said
the company employs 200 people and staff is very supportive of this proposal.
Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:50 PM.
Craig Wulfemeyer, 43225 Business Park Drive, stated he is in agreement with
all conditions of approval.
Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 7:51 PM.
Hinutes\l 1%27"%90 -5- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to:
8.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 20.
8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-115
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI. A
APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 20 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A
160,561 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING NORTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD WEST OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 92 1-020-045
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Parcel Map No. 252 12/Change of Zone No. 5663
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, reported this is a request by Durango
Development Co. for Change of Zone No. 5663/Parcel Map No. 25212. He
explained this would divide five acres into four parcels. He stated the current
zoning is RR 2 1/2 and the request is for RR (which would allow 1/2 acre
parcels).
Mr. Thornhill stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of this
application based on the increase in density to an rural area. He stated the
Commission felt this may set a precedent and affect the rural character
intended for the area.
Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, reported that since the Planning
Commission recommendation of denial on November 5, 1990, the applicant has
worked with staff to resolve the engineering issues, Mr. Stewart presented the
Council with revisions to the conditions of approval for Parcel Map 25212.
H i nut es\ 11 \27M)0 - 6- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 8:05 PM. The
meeting was reconvened at 8:06 PM.
Councilmember Moore asked if there had been any discussion at the Planning
Commission Hearing to change this to one acre parcels. Gary Thornhill
answered there was no discussion of changing this zoning to R-1 I Acre.
Mayor Parks asked if this project is consistent with SWAP, which the City is
using as it's planning guide. Gary Thornhill answered that this project is
consistent with SWAP, however the Planning Commission does not agree
SWAP should be used in this particular case, because of the existing developed
character of the land.
Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:06 PM.
Tim Crowe, the owner of the property, stated that this project is less dense
than the SWAP guidelines, and that he feels the project is suitable for the
proposed area. He asked that the Council overturn the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and approve the project.
Steve Delamas, 23769 Five Tribes Trail, Murrieta, stated he agreed with Tim
Crowe on the zoning issues and stated he concurs with staff's conditions of
approval No. 24 and 26, for street improvements excluding sidewalks and
street lights.
Alicen Wong, P.O. Box 913, Murrieta, said she is in favor of the proposed zone
change and explaining street improvements are needed and without approval
of smaller parcels, these improvements will probably not be made. She
presented the Council with two letters in support of the zone change.
John Hoagland, 40481 Calle Fiesta, Planning Commissioner, said there were
no representatives in favor of this project at the Planning Commission hearing.
He explained the Commission felt that by allowing this zone change it would
set a precedent for smaller lot sizes in this area. He explained the applicant had
not been cooperative in working with staff on conditions of approval, and
stated the Commission wanted applicants to come to a "meeting of the minds"
with staff. He requested that concerned citizens be present at Planning
Commission hearings so that decisions could be made based on the desires of
the residents.
Edward Varela, I 443 Rainbow Valley Blvd., Fallbrook, stated he owns land in
this area and is in favor of 1/2 acre zoning.
H i nut es\ 11 \27\~0 - ?- 12/12/~0
City Council Minutes November 27° 1990
Luis Morgan, Leifer Road, stated he wanted to attend the Planning Commission
Public Hearing, but was not informed when it was occurred. He stated that the
rules of notification within 300 feet is not adequate. Mayor Parks stated the
City is working to correct this problem.
Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:20 PM.
Councilmember Mu~oz stated it appears at everything surrounding this project
is 2 1/2 lots, and he would like to hear from residents living on these 2 1/2
acre lots. He said he would be in favor of compromising for nothing lower than
1 acre parcels, with the guarantee that improvements are installed.
Councilmember Moore said she felt one acre designation in this area is more
appropriate than 1/2 acre. She stated she felt the Planning Commission was
at a disadvantage because there was no public comment given.
Councilmember Mu~oz stated he is concerned with not support the decisions
of the Planning Commission, and stated he does not want to send a signal to
applicants that they do not have to work with staff and the Council will
overturn the Planning Commission's decision.
Mayor Parks said he felt that most of the ownership will go to higher density
in the area and basically supports the applicants request. He said, however,
that he does not want to send a message to the community that the Council
does not support the Planning Commission.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz
to continue to the meeting of December 11, 1990 with direction to staff to
address conditions 23, 24 and 26, and to identify the project as a minimum
zoning of one acre, if feasible.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks
NOES: I
COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
H i nut es\ 11 \27~90 - 8 - 12/12190
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
RECESS
Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:25 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the
CSD Meeting at 8:50 PM.
Mayor Parks announced they would be taking Agenda Item No. 11 out of order, due
to the number of interested citizens.
11.
Sphere of Influence Study
City Manager Dixon introduced Bill Mecham, a member of a consultant team
which has been developing a Sphere of Influence Study. He explained that Mr.
Mecham would present the proposed sphere and Council would determine if
boundaries needed to be changed. He stated once direction has been given to
staff, this will be presented to LAFCO, whereby public hearings will be held.
Bill Mecham, Philip Anthony Inc., reported that the establishment of a Sphere
of Influence is mandated by State law. He explained it may conform to City
limits or it can be much larger. Mr. Mecham stated the proposed sphere would
quadruple the size of the City if annexation occurs. Mr. Mecham reported the
proposed sphere was established by using existing political boundaries; County
line; Murrieta School District Facilities, the Water District and the City of
Murrieta. He said it includes Skinner Lake, Vail Lake, the Santa Rosa Plateau,
the Vineyard Area and the French Valley.
Mr. Mecham said that after boundaries have been finalized the report goes to
LAFCO, who has the responsibility for making a judgement on what the City
presents. Mr. Mecham said he had been approached by several major property
owners who were interested in becoming a part of the City's Sphere.
Councilmember Lindemans asked what the Sphere will cost the City. City
Manager Dixon stated the Sphere itself will have no financial impact upon the
City. He said only with annexation would a financial commitment be made.
Mr. Dixon explained the Sphere of Influence is a future plan or blueprint for the
expansion of public facilities over the next five to 10 years.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if the City were to annex property, would
property owners have a vote? City Manager Dixon stated that on vacant land
a vote would not be taken, however if more than 11 or 12 residents are in the
area, a vote must be taken.
M i nut es\ 11%27%90 -9- 12/12190
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
The following citizens objected to be included in the Sphere of Influence:
Kenneth Barnes, 39695 Berenda Road, representing CSA 149 Area. Mr. Barnes
also presented a petition with 203 signatures.
Dennis O'Neil, French Valley Area, 18881 VonKarman, 16th Floor, Irvine
Fred Weishaupl, 29949 Willowbend Drive, Murrieta, representing the Council
Elect of Murrieta, asked that the Council not take action until discussing it with
the City of Murrieta.
Audrey Cilurzo, Cilurzo Winery, 41220 Calle Contendo, Temecula
Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 9:20 PM. The
meeting was reconvened at 9:21 PM.
Shirley Allen, Glen Oak Hills, 42200 Chaparral Drive
Joseph Phelps, Valle de Los Caballos and Palomar Ranches, 35010 Santa Rita
Road
Stephen J. Corona, 29926 Corte Tolano
Beverly Ashbrook, Temecula Valley Vintners Association, 30942 Loma Linda
Road
John Moramarco, Callaway Vineyard and Winery, 32720 Rancho California
Road
Carl Key, Valle De Los Caballos, 37338 Deportola Road
John Culbertson, Culbertson's Winery, 32575 Rancho California Road
Ben R. Drake, Piconi Vineyard and Winery, 45650 Bowery Lane
Tom Rogers, Wine Country Community, 35270 Calle Nopal
Bradley Light, Wine Country, 41825 Calle Cabrillo
Mayor Parks stated he met with representatives from the Wine Country and
explained that the City may be able to offer them better services than the
County, and had no intention of changing the rural nature of the area.
N i nut es \ 11 \27~90 - 10 - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
Councilmember Birdsall asked if the Sphere of Influence could be changed after
it is submitted to LAFCO. She also stated that she is not opposed to leaving
the wine country out of the Sphere of Influence.
Councilmember Mu~oz stated that he appreciated the concerns of the farmers
in the area. He said he had hoped to bring them into the City to provide more
guarantees and protection, however, because of the strong sentiment against,
he is not opposed to excluding them from the sphere. He suggested giving the
City of Murrieta a copy of the Sphere for their input and bringing the proposal
back in a couple of weeks.
Councilmember Lindemans stated he felt the Sphere of Influence was much too
large, and suggested the boundaries be reduced on the East and West.
City Manager Dixon suggested that to address the concerns of the large
audience, direction should be given to staff on which areas to exclude. He
suggested excluding the boundaries of CSA-149, looking at the area to the
west and holding discussions with the City of Murrieta. He said there is strong
sentiment for extending to the French Valley and the area to the South has filed
no objections.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore
to continue to the meeting of December 11, 1990 with direction to staff to
meet with the Council-Elect of the City of Murrieta to discuss their concerns
and further to remove the Wine Country Area known as "CSA 149" from the
Sphere of Influence.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz
to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
RECESS
Mayor Parks called a recess at 10:00 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 10:15 PM.
H i nut es\ 11 \27~90 - 11 - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
10.
Zone Change 5613, Vesting Tentative Tract 25082
Councilmember Lindemans stated he had a conflict of interest on this item, and
would remove himself from the discussion and vote.
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, reported this is a request from Pavillion
Homes, Inc. for approval of Vesting Tentative Map No. 25082 and Change of
Zone No. 5613. Mr. Thornhill stated this project would require extensive
grading, (40 to 50 foot cut). He said the Planning Commission felt this would
set a precedent for higher density zoning in this area and recommended denial.
Mayor Parks asked if there is a flood control problem with the project. Mr.
Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, answered the County Flood Control
Agency sent a letter stating they could not support the project, based upon
inadequate infrastructure being planned for the area.
Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 10:25 PM.
Gary Koontz, CM Engineering Associates, 41593 Winchester Road, Suite 210,
representing the applicant, stated the project before the Council has a density
of 3.1 dwelling units per acre which is in accordance with SWAP. He stated
a number of studies were required by the County which have been cleared, and
as part of this a environment assessment notes there are no significant
environmental impacts on this project.
Regarding consistency of area development, Mr. Koontz stated there are several
tracts (Hidden Hills Area), that are approved, recorded and constructed,
adjacent to this parcel. He said to the northwest, Tract 25004 was approved
with 7200 square foot lots. He said Tract 25082 is a logical extension of this
area.
Mr. Koontz said with regards to adequate infrastructure, Nicolas Road, a
planned arterial highway is being extended, with improvements being funded
by Assessment District 161. He said existing water lines are available, as well
as sewers approximately 1/4 mile away.
He objected to the suggestion of 1/2 acre lots for part of the project stating
this would not be compatible with 7200 square foot lots. He said 1/2 acre lots
do allow animals, (horses), which could cause problem with adjacent single
family homes.
H i nut es\ 11 \27~90 - 12 - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27° 1990
He stated in terms of the flood plain issue, the County wanted an assessment
district created to provide for these improvements. He said it is difficult to
create an assessment district before a project is approved and therefore
suggested adding a condition that prior to recordation of a final map, a
financing mechanism for regional improvements to the Santa Gertrudis Creek
shall be approved by the Flood Control District. He said the applicant has no
problem with going back to the Planning Commission and upgrading the design
manual, and return for final approval.
Mayor Parks declared a one minute break to change the tape at 10:40 PM. The
meeting was reconvened at 10:41 PM.
Alicen Wong, P.O. Box 913, Murrieta, stated she owns property directly across
from this project and feels a higher density zoning is appropriate for this area.
Larry Markam, 41750 Winchester Road, Ste N, stated with upcoming projects
surrounding this project, the 1-2 designation is inappropriate on this area. He
said there are a series of vacant parcels that are becoming a rural island,
completely surrounded by higher density. He said this area was originally
slated for 1-2 dwelling units, but was changed to 2-4 dwelling units. When
these changes were made, there was no opposition. He said this project will
be providing the needed infrastructure to support the density levels proposed,
with street improvements, flood control channels, and utilities to this area.
Linda Ashcraft, 40397 Calle Medusa, asked if a traffic study was performed.
She stated she is not opposed to new development, but requested the streets
be improved before these projects are approved, so that Calle Medusa will not
be further impacted by "cut-through" traffic.
Doug Stewart reported the Transportation Engineering Department has
reviewed the traffic study and have given a clearance for this tract.
Mr. Koontz stated that Assessment District 1 61, which will provide substantial
improvements on that road, has been approved and contracts have been
awarded. He also said this project does not front on Calle Medusa and traffic
should be distributed to Nicolas Road.
John Estoch, 40420 Calle Medusa, asked when this traffic study was
performed. Doug Stewart reported the traffic study was done approximately
six months ago and reviewed within the last two months.
Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 11:00 PM.
nut es\ 11 \27~90 - 1 ] - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27° 1990
City Manager Dixon asked the Planning Director to comment on whether new
material was supplied to the Council which would change his recommendation,
and he responded his recommendation is for denial. Mr. Thornhill stated this
is a vesting tentative map where design guidelines should be in order for the
project. He said the Planning Commission was not satisfied with the guidelines
submitted. He reported there are other projects in house for this area and the
Council's action tonight will give staff policy direction relative to
recommendations on other projects.
Doug Stewart stated the flood control improvements which will be done by
Assessment District 1 61 do not include improvements adjacent to this tract,
and do not protect this tract from the 1 O0 year flow. He said the position of
Riverside County Flood Control District is that this tract, and tracts adjacent to
this, need to present a realistic financing mechanism for the installation of
improvements that will protect this area. He reported this has not be
accomplished to date.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz
to extend the meeting to 11:30 PM.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1
COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans
Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 11:35 PM.
Councilmember Mu~oz stated he feels that Council should go with staff
recommendation because one, Riverside County Flood Control has not been
satisfied, two, Calle Medusa may be impacted from this project, and three,
buffering the rural community is not addressed.
Mayor Parks suggested referring this project to the Planning Commission for re-
work and re-design. He said a lot of work has already been done on this
project, but agrees that the applicant has not addressed all the issues, such as
flood control.
H i nutes\l 1 \27~90 - 1/,- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27° 1990
City Manager Dixon stated that referring this to the Planning Commission would
involve more staff time and the City would need to request time and materials
costs for this project.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz
to refer Zone Change 5613, Vesting Tentative Tract 25082 to the Planning
Commission for review at a later date, subject to the applicant paying all
appropriate time and material costs incurred as a result of this reconsideration.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1
COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans
12. Expanding Sphere of Influence
City Manager Dixon reported it is stafrs recommendation to extend the
contract to Phil Anthony and Bill Mecham to pursue the filing of the amended
sphere to LAFCO, in an amount not to exceed $24,000.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked if $48,000 for a Sphere of Influence study is too
high? City Manager Dixon answered that based upon services still required,
more funds need to be allocated. Mr. Dixon stated this is an expansion of
tasks outlined in the scope of work in the original contract. He said this scope
of work not only includes preparing the report for LAFCO but also meeting with
property owners, which has been more extensive than first planned.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to authorize a maximum of $24,000 for continued efforts by Phil
Anthony in establishing the City's Sphere of Influence.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
N i nutes\l 1 \27~90 - 15 - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Parks to extend the
meeting to 12:00 AM. The motion was unanimously carried.
13. Nuisance Abatement Ordinance
City Manager Dixon reported this ordinance gives the City a method to protect
the citizens from conditions that are offensive, annoying and detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare and allows it to enforce these provisions.
Councilmember Moore asked if private streets and easements are included in
Item (1), Page 57 City Attorney Field stated he did not have a problem adding
this.
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to introduce an ordinance, with the correction to Section 6.14.002,
Subsection (I) adding "private streets and easements", entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-24
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE NON-CODIFIED RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ORDINANCES AND ADDING CHAPTER 6.14 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NUISANCE ABATEMENT
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
City Manager Dixon reported that Items 14, 15 and 16, are all recommendations for
continuance. He said that on Agenda Item No. 15, instead of 30 days, the
recommended date should be January 8, 1991.
Mayor Parks asked that Item 16 be continued to a time certain. Councilmember
Lindemans stated he spoke with a Target representative and an answer would be
ready by December 11, 1990.
Hi nutes\l 1 \27~) - 16- 12/12/~0
City Council Minutes November 27° 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to
continue Items 14, 15 and 16 as follows:
14. Discussion of Para-legal Position for City
14.1 Continue off calendar.
15. Discussion of Developmental Fees
15.1 Continue to the meeting of January 8, 1991.
16. Traffic Signals - Target Shoppin9 Center
16.1 Continue to the meeting of December 11, 1990.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 11:40 PM. The meeting
was reconvened at 11:41 PM.
17.
Adol3tion of a City Ordinance Relating to Placement of Adult Materials Harmful
to Minors
City Attorney Field reported that as a result of the last meeting, this ordinance
was designed to require blinder racks for all adult magazines in retail stores.
Councilmember Mu~oz pointed out a typographical error reading the City of
Mission instead of the City of Temecula.
Tim Riter, Rancho Christian Church, 41768 Borealis, thanked the City Council
for being responsive to the requests of the community. He asked that the City
further explore the possibility of a moratorium on adult business and to also
require the adult magazines be placed behind the counter, as well as in a blinder
rack.
Ninutes\11\27%~O -17- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27° 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-25
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIl- OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI. A
ADDING CHAPTER 11.10 TO THE TEMECUI. A MUNICIPAl- CODE
REI. A TING TO THE PI,ACEMENT OF MATTER HARMFUl- TO MINORS
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Dixon reported that plans and specifications for Nicolas and Winchester
Road were delivered to Caltrans today.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
City Attorney Field reported that the Solid Waste Ordinance and Recycling proposals
will be on the next agenda.
CITY COUNCIl- REPORTS
Councilmember Lindemans requested the formation of a Debt Advisory or Finance
Committee.
Councilmember Mu~oz reported that the Riverside Transit Agency Board voted to
extend a bus line to Temecula, to be in place by the end of January.
Hinutes\11\27\~) -18- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes November 27, 1990
Councilmember Birdsall requested staff send an appropriate remembrance to
Supervisor Walt Abraham who is hospitalized.
Mayor Parks requested that the matter of defining the role of City Commissioners and
their interface with Council and other City Commissions be placed on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
adjourn at 11:55 PM to a meeting on December 4, 1990 at the Temecula Community
Center. The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
Ninutes\l 1\27%90 -19- 12/12/90
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECUI. A CITY COUNCIL
HELD DECEMBER 4, 1990
An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at
7:05 PM at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol, Temecula, California.
Mayor Ron Parks presiding.
PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Parks
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and
Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek.
Councilmember Lindemans announced that Councilmember Mufioz was attending a
League of California Cities meeting in Houston.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor Sean Oliver, Rancho Christian Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Lindemans.
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Karen Ortega, of the Temecula Valley Rose Society presented the City with a "token"
rosebush to represent the approximately 160 roses to be planted in the median strip
at Rancho California Road and Ynez.
Kathleen Johnson, representing Bill and Tisch Johnson, said in honor of the City of
Temecula's first birthday, Johnson + Johnson would present the City with 160 rose
bushes to be planted in the median strip at Rancho California Road and Ynez.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Lindemans noted a minor correction on Page 18 of the minutes.
Councilmember requested that Item 6 be removed from the Consent Calendar and a
"no" vote be entered on the record for Item 5, explaining he felt this is a mixed use
item. He stated he will be absent on Items 11 and 12 due to a conflict of interest.
City Attorney Field requested the removal of Items No. 11 and 12 from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to
approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1-5, 7-10, and 13 as follows:
1. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
1.1
Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and
resolutions included in the agenda.
2. Minutes
2.1
Approve the minutes of November 13, 1990, as corrected.
3. Dedication of New Jefferson Avenue Alignment
3.1
Accept the offer of dedication of Jefferson Avenue realignment
for public road, drainage and utility purposes, but not as a part of
the City maintained road system.
4. Summary Vacation of Jefferson Avenue
4.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-116
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
VA CA TING THAT PORTION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE LYING
NORTHERLY OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK BETWEEN SANBORN
AVENUE AND THE PREVIOUSLY VACATED EXTENSION OF CHERRY
S TREE T
Hinutes\12\04\~O -2- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes December 4o 1990
10.
Find Parcel Map No. 23561-2
5.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 23561-2, subject to the conditions
of approval.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
Approval of Bid for Legal Advertising
7.1 Approve the best low bid submitted by The Californian to provide
publication of the City's legal notices.
Approval of Bid for City Seal Final Art
8.1 Approve the best low bid submitted by BoGraphics to provide final
camera ready art of the City's logo.
Second Reading of Nuisance Abatement Ordinance
9.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-24
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE NON-CODIFIED RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ORDINANCES AND ADDING CHAPTER 6.14 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NUISANCE ABATEMENT
Second Reading of Ordinance Relating to Placement of Adult Materials
10.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-25
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADDING CHAPTER 11.10 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE PLACEMENT OF MATTER HARMFUL TO MINORS
H i nut es\ 12\04\90 - 3 - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes December 4, 1990
13.
Acceptance of Easement for Proposed Public Roads and Drainage Purposes for
Tract No. 23100-3, Tract No. 23101-1, Tract No. 23101-2 and Tract No.
23102
13.1
Accept the dedication of Chemin Clinet across a portion of Parcel
I of Parcel Map No. 22554 for road, drainage and utility
purposes, but not as a part of the City-maintained road system,
as an access for Tract No. 23100-3.
13.2
Accept the dedication of a drainage easement for storm drain
purposes across Metropolitan Water District's pipeline easement
per the Conditions of Approval for Tract No 23101-1 and Tract
No. 23101-02, but not as a part of the City-maintained drainage
system.
13.3
Accept the dedication of Heitz Lane, LaSerena Way, Meadows
Parkway as shown on Tract No. 23101-2, and Cabern Court as
shown on Tentative Tract No. 23102, across Metropolitan Water
District's pipeline easement, but not as a part of the City-
maintained road system.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Seven Months ended June 30,
1990.
Councilmember Lindemans stated the City has an accounts receivable with the
County of Riverside for $2.5 million, which was not included in this report.
Mary Jane Henry, Chief Finance Officer, stated the City is not able to record
the $2.5 million receivable from the County because the City is on a modified
accrual basis, which means that when recording revenues, the City must
receive those revenues within 60 days of year end and they have to be
measurable. She explained that applicants have been coming to the City's
Building and Safety Department with County of Riverside receipts for
development impact fees and RSA mitigation fees that are not recorded on the
H i nutes\ 12\04\90 - 4 - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes December 4o 1990
list making up the 2.5 million dollars. She stated the City has asked the County
to research the discrepancy.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if this amount could be increased due to this
research. Ms. Henry answered it could be more than the original figure.
Councilmember Lindemans asked when a capital improvement budget will be
started. Ms. Henry answered these packets will be put together in January.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember
Moore to receive and file Agenda Item No. 6.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz
City Attorney Field announced he would discuss Item No. 11 and 12 concurrently.
He stated Councilmember Moore brought these tracts to staff's attention because the
staff report indicated there were no Quimby Fees owing: He said upon investigation
, it was learned that these Vesting Tentative Tract Maps were approved prior to the
County's adoption of the Quimby Ordinance. He stated that they. are also covered by
Development Agreement No. 4, which provides that any subsequently adopted
regulations affecting an exaction on the properties would apply. He stated it is the
City's view that the Quimby Ordinance does apply to these two properties, the
developer has been informed and fees will be paid prior to issuance of building
permits.
H i nut es\ 12\04\90 - 5 - 12/12/90
City Council Minutes December 4, 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
approve Item No. 11 and 12 as follows:
11.
12.
Find Tract Map No. 24 132
11.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map
conditions of Approval.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24 132-1
12.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132-1
Conditions of Approval.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
No. 24132 subject to the
Birdsall, Moore, Parks
None
Lindemans, Mu~oz
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz
subject to the
COUNCIL BUSINESS
14. Western Riverside Council of Governments 1990-91 Dues Assessment
City Manager Dixon reported that Temecula is a part to the Western Riverside
Council of Governments and membership fees for Fiscal Year 1990/91 are
$9,620.25. He explained the dues are based upon 50% assessed value and
50% population and recommended approval.
Mayor Parks reported he has been attending the WRCOG meetings and would
like place on the agenda a discussion of goals and mission statements for the
organization.
nut es\ 12\04\90 - 6- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes December 4o 1990
Councilmember Birdsall requested that a new alternate to WRCOG be chosen
for the upcoming year.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore
to approve the expenditure of $9,620.25 for the 1990-91 membership dues to
Western Riverside Council of Governments.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
15. Proposals for Curb-side Recycling Program
Staff was directed by consensus to continue this matter to the meeting of
December 11, 1990.
Mayor Parks announced Item No. 16 would be postponed until after the break to allow
for maps to be posted.
17. Holiday Time-Off Policy
City Manager Dixon stated both Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve fall on
Monday. He said that when holidays fall like this, the days are not very
productive and asked that Council consider a reduced work day for both
December 24, 1990 and December 31, 1990, stating he would also like to
have employees off the highway.
Councilmember Birdsall suggested having a skeleton crew on these days since
most other City businesses will be closed. Councilmember Lindemans
supported this suggestion.
Mayor Parks stated if this is a paid holiday, it may affect the Holiday Time Off
Policy, and requested that comp-time be used if employees choose to take the
full day off.
City Manager Dixon suggested City Hall closing at 12:00 Noon, operating with
a skeleton crew, and that employees who would like to take a full day off could
use comp or flex time.
N i nut es\ 12\04 \(~0 - 7- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes December 4, 1990
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember
Birdsall to authorize the City Manager to schedule abbreviated work days with
minimal staff on December 24, 1990 and December 31, 1990, with time off
being compensated through the use of comp and flex time.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
18.
Building Department Positions/Reclassification
City Manager Dixon reported the Council adopted budget approved five Building
Inspectors, One Senior Inspector, a Director and Secretary. He explained Tony
Elmo, Director of Building and Safety, is proposing that the five inspectors be
reduced to three, that the Senior be increased from one to two, and that the
City employ a Building Technician to work the counter. He said the number of
authorized positions would be the same and the fiscal impact would be $96.
City Manager Dixon recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution
providing for these changes.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore
to adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-117
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
H i nut es\ 12\04\90 * 8- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes December 4, 1990
City Manager Dixon reported that he discussed this matter with Councilmember
Mu~oz would was in agreement.
RECESS
Mayor Parks called a recess at 7:35 PM and invited the audience to enjoy birthday
cake celebrating the City's first birthday. The meeting was reconvened following the
CSD meeting at 8:40 PM.
16. Presentation of Land Use Inventory Report (Lightfoot Group)
Planning Director Gary Thornhill introduced the report which was presented by
Mr. George Williamson representing the Lightfoot Planning Group. Mr.
Williamson reviewed the scope of the project and explained the delays
encountered by the planning firm in preparing an updated base map. He then
presented a summary of five maps developed for this study entitled: existing
land, vacant land, vacant land with a South West Area Plan overlay, approved
projects and special districts. He explained the methods used to establish the
population projection based on Lightfoot's evaluation of the approved projected
units currently being reviewed or in process.
Mayor Parks asked if this report contains a list of all projects in process and if
this information will be integrated into the City's computer system. Mr.
Williamson responded that the study contains all of the County of Riverside
approved projects and that the Lightfoot Group will continue to perform work
which will enable the data base to be utilized in conjunction with Temecula's
computerized tracking system.
In response to a question from Mayor Parks, Gary Thornhill advised the Council
that staff will look into an additional scope of work to include the areas in the
City's proposed sphere of influence for a study of this type.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager David Dixon informed the Council that interviews for consultants to
prepare the City's General Plan will be conduced on Saturday, December 8, 1990.
He also requested direction from the Council regarding their attendance of the League
of California Cities Team Building Workshop on January 30, 1991. Mayor Parks,
14 i nut es\ 12\0~\90 - 9- 12/12/90
City Council Minutes December 4, 1990
Councilmembers Moore and Lindemans indicated a desire to attend this seminar.
Councilmember Birdsall stated she would be unable to participate.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None presented.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Parks asked that the priority list, developed at the Team Building Seminar held
November 10, 1990, be made available to the Council as soon as possible.
Councilmember Lindemans requested that staff take a fresh look at the phasing of the
Mello-Roos District No. CFD 88-12. City Manager Dixon advised that he has, this
date, provided the Council with a report dealing with the matter of moving ahead
without reducing the scope of the project.
Mayor Parks questioned the current status of the utility franchises. City Attorney
Scott Field responded that meetings were held in November and the final negotiations
will be on the Council's agenda in January.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
adjourn at 9:20 PM to the next regular meeting of December 11, 1990 at 7:00 PM
in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
14 i nutes\l 2\04\90 - 10 - 12/12/90
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
$ 604,352.69.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 18th day of December, 1990.
Ronaid J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
3,rResos 122 12/11/90
ZI
I
I
1
I
i
I
f'4 (*-1 0- 0' N I'- m 03 b3 b3 h3 It3 --' ~ C'.l r'.~,:, ,2, r';, o., h'l 0-
~ ,0 r.9 i*'~ 0~ f*J 1.9 ~a*
] .L:-:'~. o o .:::.o o o o o o o o ,:3, o o o o o _ c..:, .-. c. c. X X
O 0 0 0 C, 0 O 0 C. ,3, O O 0 O 0 0 ,:, O C, ,2, .r, 0 O 0 O C. _
~ .--;' ' d d d .S d d d d d d d d d d d d d .S d d d .-~.:; d: "'
+.tl _ C' C, '-' "-'
rl
U|
ml
· ,.-, I
r.,i
tli L
U
,~.,s
I--,'r'
>--..C
E
2:'---
bI {1'3O O 'D O f'C' t-9 41 -0 41 -O m 03 0' I> O O ',;*O O e'l O ao C, C' ~ ~ ~ 85
I'- r-- o ,2, o ,2, f'.l f'4 ,-', C, ix. r.- I.-)t.".,-a 43 C. ,2, O ,2, 43 o- C. Ix KI 0' -0 ._,
C.1 r'; .*] ¢; r:, ~ ,d a~ d d ~: a: ,.';,.'; ¢; ,'; ~ ~ d d r..; 4 d K r..';j ~ ,S o:
f..iiN o, o- r-. t,- m m b3 h'3 u"l b3 ~ ~ r'4 r'..~o ,3 t..~, o.- b3 0,r-, r- --,o- ~
~ ~ -8 ..8 -,o ...8 ..-.,..--,f'4f..I~ ~.,i ,...i IxI'.~ f.,i r.4
.~ .& ,.-,,.~o: r.; ,.:7;
L
13 U
0J a
c
~ IJ
\ Ill
~ ._1 "~ n .Y Z
_1 > ,-r -r UJ - J
tg ~ ,Y W D3 rr ~ ,2.
"r LtJ m ~ WE O'
~ ~ C, 1-- s" ,'¢ mW
J $" Z I-- ~ i'- "~ I.--CkI2121M
LILtJLU~
~ ~ I ~ U1 I- ZQ J i:: ommo ~-~-
Z r., L9
C I:1: "t J ,-. <:I: ¢ ..7_1--
o m ~.~' v o ~r~ z z h oo>o
' F, ° " = '*' ""° >""
.~. ~ LI. LIJ g UJ F-, ffJ gl ,, U'J
U tO ~ I- .. W >- W ~0 -r W W ~ W .... W
I11 J ¢ W tO E~ h ¢ 13 W ~ ~ ~ Z ~ t-
a, .a: '; .', '; '; '; = '; '; ._. '; .-,-. '; ., '; ,,, '; >>.-.> '; z._
~0 O H O 0 0 r O ~ O ¢ O 0 H O x O ¢ O WW~W O ~O O h: O
~ U U U ~ U I~ U >- U U W U -r U u u ~¢>¢ u .L~
P m m mz,'r m ¢ m ~ m ~¢ m z m m m r; m ~z m raLna:~
0 r- ,-, rO I t- W r' ~-, r T' t- W r ¢ ..C r r WWWW r "~1~ r- (]: r ·
Zz f.j::l:h t.J~',.' U J L1 tj U LI f_l Lg U U CJ ,'," IOL~ _lJal
L,I L1 J CI C1.¢ U U. C.Si-
-p ~ &. (j'l O hi -0 ~' 'f h h .2, O g C, W r.'.~ ~ C, h) hI Ja'l ~11 32
,I~ L3 --~ W f"l ~ O O 0 '3 C' "~ ~ ,7. I~ '.~ -* t") ,~
~ O.x. ~r'x. Z% ~- '~ ',-. O'x %. ', ¢ O'-'x."-'- '-.'-- O'- I
f~ ~ -'~ 0 f'4 r'4 fxl ~'4 rr f"l f'-I f*4 s.. r'-t m ~-~ C, ~ ,'~
>. ¢ ¢ . t.'i2 ~ Lk LB O W
,'r' Z I-- W ~- ~ r n
t- IL I- W ¢ (I: ¢ ~ ,," ~ O '2' r jl
0 ¢ rr b, ~- Z f,3 J Z 0 0
Z i-- 'r ·¢ !Z [D O 1' t12 _1 ¢0C, "' W
.J fuJ ICL ::[ F- <J: F- 0 *:~ ~ ~ ~-~
~ I'-- ~ > Di > O Z '2' E O '10 P O I-- ~ 01 "~ '(I: '~ rr ~ C, t-5 .,-4 J
Z "-' ~ .,-, rrf'-I 3 'i'.1 Ill {',1 ~ ~'4 ~ ~4 f.L. f"4 0.. f'4 J f'4 rr, .,_, ... ,-..,_,U ,.-t
o ~ -, ~. z ; ,-- ," z z ""
Z Z --r O >' Z U ¢. W - O
O ~ ~ lfi J I-- CE >- E 'D W b. J I--
~ W ILl la CL Z Ld I-- I- L9 v
t-- '2, :> C, > O Z O E 0 D ,3 I-- ,', I-- O tO O ¢ '2' : ''¢' 5"' J
¢~. De"' ~' ,.-,0' Na- Ot> Z~' W0" OC> W0' _'3r")oF':, ¢~,..8 O O
Z 0" (.g -8 ~ t'9 3 ~' 03 ~r E -0 ~ N r,,-, 12. ':' J '2' m 0' C' &' 0 U r.')
· -, ,-, o 0 O ,3 C, O ~ ~ 0 O 0 C'
0 ,'"" 0 ,,-, ,2, r'4 0 f'4 0 ["1 ,_., r.l 0 r.4 0 c4 0 ,_, 0 q- 0 ,:I' .2, c, q' c, .2, 03 ::
O' ~ - 0' --' O' ',"q 0' .s D' ~ 13" -'q 0' ..-4 &.*-, 19" ',-q 0"' ~ 0' ,_'. ,2, '2' t")&' '2' ~ g.. ,'n rr
n - 0 ,,0 ,,;;t ,¢ Ix Ix 0 ,2, C, ff, I 83
· -, c-I ('-I c.l c'.l r'.l f'.l f'-4 c'-i r'.i
0::1 &. O' ,::;, f'.4 r.':~ '¢ b":l ..0 '~'
C, 0 1'-9 ,t ~t ,:t ',:t ~1" ~ ~ h'3 113 G3 G3
~ ..o ; -; ; -o -o ; ; ; ~
.:. .:. .:. .:. o o ':' ":' ':' ii! ':' 'i' i :'
,:. o. .5 :;: ~, 5 :;: ::
C,
o ,: c, 5 o .:, o ,:, .=, ,:,
0-
0-
J Ifi
nl -,-i
~J
I--
,'~t-
4J
C
c
0
u
Le
~J
m
E
Z\
L
O
'D U
~.' O
~ >
[::
r~
(I ,-~
--~h
,8 ~ 0- o- q) 0) m Fl "' ':' 'D "' C, C, C' C. O' 0- t") tl Lm') bl 'D C. C, .:. )"': f" ~ Z1
a' I> ('4 fi (-~ 4) .-~ ~ ~. C ..... .4) ~ 'O C. ~ ~ t'.') t.'~ r.- f.- O .". O .D ~ --
·
,~ ~ r."] y; ~..-; ~ .-,0:. .~ ,~ ,:6 c6 ,'- r.- d d .- ~ r..:lr.";- ,'.';r."; d ~ ."" ': ~ - 4 --.;
r.- ~ 0- (h ~ ~- I~ ~- ('4 [1 r'- I~- 'q' 'i' I'- I'- ~ r,- C' O fq ('4 b') b') ~' .X, -0 43 t.",t :~
- ~ ~ ~ ; K, ~,-.T
X X :~ '~ c. o c, c, c. c. ,D .:. o o o .D o o o o c. o o o o .o ,.;_:.:. ::_: :_c;
.:'. O O ,:' O O ,n, .D C, O _,D C, C, C, .D O C, O C, 'D O O "'
· , ·
I'- r-, o- oL .- ,t o- ¢ ('.I · (t r-, I-- ,~ ,t r- h h, h ,:, 0 C'4 r'.l b') II') C' ,O -0 ,,0 I-? t':,
rr LU
3 f...) r j) Z
m Lr) Z O
Car I.- ¢ O
>- o) C9.~ ,-r Z ~ ~
::) Nrr' v O J 'Y
,-., (j I- o') _l ,T, W
w WW ,'r j 'Y' >-
~ r, WU U 0 W 'r r ,-r
,'r' .-W W LU D. I- U
w ~' O) O~ , Z "' f.O ~ ~ O O J
~ ~ ~"'~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~
LLr J 0 tL ~'
*.....-
¢ Z
L'L
D'F CC
LLI :3
.C.) ,-r
,.-.., LL E:
) ¢ ,-,
0 r) rOW 0
· U Lf) U) LL
O 4j O. .P (.OQW
I-- I-- ~- "-~W¢ ~' I-- r I-- ~ I-..- Ul I-- n' t,- ,T, F" W F- I-- (0 F .7_ I-- rr, I--
<]: ... l'l ~ ,T,_IH
~ ~ ,,, ,_, z. u or, u ', '~ u u ,-. u '- "G z u ',' u : u ~ '; z T, z ,-,
~ ~J CI I~ ~¢.CI
J:: ~> r" LU .(J
O "r'UJ U ~ C) :3 r. jUW r_) ¢ O .Y U fi. r.j ~ Ur.I)¢ U ¢ C) Zn U n U
¢ U O
,-., ,.-, (r) C, C' O O
t") f4 bl ("1 r..
m h. LU t'-I N . r'.,l '.'-.
h /
LL
0" Oh3
(
O' <]: ILl
D' ""' Z s"
O r,'O O
~'
,t Jr/., I.-O s"O IJJr-
.,-, ID('.~ C~-'~ U-'~
('4['.1('4 O~
N Z
Z J
~ ~ O(~
'D
~,DO'D HO DO
>OOO WO
Z F- /
J I'-I' O . U ¢ q: /
C' :> ,, xOO.', LLI ,'r' 0 JC' WO
0" ¢t") NI)-O'Q"- x ¢ LL-"' N0' '
N I C, O C' ('.1 C,
N 09" O('41Nf"I O~) 0~ Oi":, ON O~"~
'%. \ \ \ ~, \
CO ID0 ~ m CO I~ m
r .4 C4 ('4 C.4 C'4 ("4 r.l
O) I} O 124 t'9 "¢
· 4:) -0 .,0 ,8 -8
,:, C' · 'D O
'=' ::_: .:. o ,.
_1
_J
LLIO
O ('4
['.1
-0
.,0
,:D
0
0
0
U)
W
Z
0
O-
r j) ("4
")x.
'::)
(n
tU
7C,
O0'.
('4
0--,-,
~)
1('4
41
4)
-0
LU
O
O
LL
¢
O
O
O
CgK,
J
W
¢O
O
m
('4
..0
-0
O
O
C,
O
d,:, ~,3, O
Zfq
Z~
O ~ W
~ 3 OC*
O~ 00
.5 .:,
o ,5
nj ,u. O
O'U~ U
lq
0
L
f~
r
0
r_, L U
· -.m QI In.
· 4J
Ui
j~
=_ Oa
gJ QI
I--CC
Q;
)-r'
n,
'o u
C ~
n, n
I:
=:, >.
' - rr-
~ U'l r'
,rl .,.~
· ~ h
I
aO ~ e' b') b'} b'l O' bl
',~ ~ C'4 l )
:~: 8 :~ :=~ '8 '8 :~ :~: cd o .:..:. o o o o o ,s c. .:, o c. ,s o c. o o c..=. c.
C. O0 0 O0.~ 0 O O 0 C, O O C, 0 0 0 C.,:: C,
OZ
0'- LL
.,-., LL
rr
W
,'r,
1-- W
U ,', i
0 O
... i
I- W Z
UUW W Z O
U
Z
.J
I-
f jl
h
.....,
,T,
· -.0 ~ ~ W ~ '~ ~ ¢ ~ ~
~ 0 ( 0 ~ 0 0 0 %% 0 x~ 0 0 0 W 0 Z O ~ 0 ~ 0 ~W 0
o G ~ u ~ u w u ~ u uu u ~z~ u u H u u ~ G u J~ u
Z"-
i.d'-- _J\
t.-,". r_lDl
~ ,.-,
u
0
r.O Z
C,
C,
ZO WO
LLIr'- t/:,
rrf.4 WC,
· r ,-,
n
_1
m,.~
"r'C' W
Oe' Z
'rr~ 00'.
'D.I
C, ',--, -'. '
· ,,. --,.
.':"-4
-0
~-,
0
.M
u
tn
tq
0
L
,C,
r-:,
J
,.)
ITEM NO.
4
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
December 18, 1990
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the Four Months Ending
October 31, 1990
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1) Receive and file the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the
Four Months Ending October 31, 1990.
2) Adopt a resolution to transfer $26,000 from Finance salaries to
consulting and $90,000 from Building salaries to consulting.
DISCUSSION: The attached statements reflect the activity of the City for the four
months ending October 31, 1990. They do not yet reflect the complete activity of
the Temecula Community Services District, as the CSA 143 will administer the
function of the district until January 1, 1991.
Thirty-six percent of general fund revenues were collected as of October 31, 1990.
A slump in housing sales resulted in a decline in property transfer tax collections.
City staff is continuing to pursue sales tax collections and a "clean up" of the State's
business listing for the City. To date, we have collected 27% of estimated sales tax.
In Community Development, Planning fees reflect the slow down in the development
industry at 11% of expected fees. Engineering fees exceed the estimate as a result
of a back log of projects from the Spring of 1990, an increase in fees at September
1, as well as a $200,000 collection from the County for cases transferred to the City.
General fund expenditures totalled 21% of budget. Certain negative variances result
from June 30 encumbrances paid during fiscal year 1991. There is no impact on
unreserved fund balance at October 31, as these amounts had been reserved at June
30.
In Finance, a budget amendment is necessary to transfer $26,000 from salaries and
benefits to consulting, as a result of the following:
1) Services rendered to cover the Chief Accountant's maternity leave.
2) A tax opinion concerning treatment of Council compensation and
benefits.
3) Services of McTighe and Assoc. regarding development impact fees.
In Building and Safety, a budget transfer of $90,000 from salaries to consulting is
necessary since Willdan Associates staffed the department for the first four months
of year.
Gas Tax revenues to date were transferred to the General Fund to be used for road
and traffic improvements. At June 30, 1991, any unexpended gas tax revenues will
be transferred back to the Gas Tax Fund and will be reserved for future road
improvements.
ATTACHMENTS: Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the Four Months
Ending October 31, 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO TRANSFER $26,000
FROM FINANCE DEPARTMENT SALARIES TO
CONSULTING AND $90,000 FROM BUILDING
SALARIES TO CONSULTING FEES
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
SECTION 1. That the FY 1990-91 Annual Budget of the City of Temecula is hereby
amended to transfer $26,000 from Finance Department salaries to consulting fees and $90,000
from Building Salaries to Consulting.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 18th day of December, 1990.
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
3~e~sl~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY
that the foregoing Resolution NO. 90- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the 18th day of December, 1990 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
3~e~sl~
C "'
(],) 0
E o
o i~
o
(~,
,-I
0
0
-.-.t
0
0
0
~1~>~
0~0 0~00
0~0
-~ m
m
0
-,4
u -~
~-~
~-~
m~O
I-i
,u
0
c: 0
I= o,-I
~O::s
G o
O~.c
o,-I 4J O
~ 0
+ ~
~0
· ~0 }
+
0
ooooo~o~ooooooo~oo
omooO~o~ooooooo~oo
o~~ooooo~oooo~oo
u
C
::s
~.~ m
m
0 ~
oooC
-d-,~ o 0 ~ ::s ~),-i o m-,.4-~ ~ 8 G ~1 ~ ~
-,4 G~ G G ~ O ~ G 000 04~ ,S.U C-~ ~ ~
c
0
0
0
m
0
,u
0
m
U
~o~o o
c
c:
0
I
I rl
*,..I G
~ 0
G
X 0
C *,,-i
Ii)
,-.I (l} 0
(]) 0
o,-I.i..I 0
m
(D
U
C:
rO
U
(D
I-i .,u
~1
0
~¢~r-.. 0 0
c,-I r.I t-¢
00~00 O0
00000 O0
m~~ oo
~m ~ oo
s.-i
c~l
0 0 0 ·
II
!~, II
c,,i II
m II
,,. II
u) II
~1' II
~ II
,,. II
rl II
~ II
o II
~) II
ao II
-. II
,.H II
o II
o II
,,- II
c',,iII
~ II
0
0 ~
0 i-,I
~00
mO~o
O0 000
O0 000
~m Ofo
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
0
0
r-
a~
o
o
0
0
0
0~ I~
O
O ~U
~ G ~ 0 0 G ~
0 ~~0~0 0 -~0 0 0
0
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
m
-a
m m
if)
mo~
o~o~
o~o~
o
00
o
c~00o
ff1~3o
o
o
o
II
~1' II
(N II
u"} II
- II
t'- II
f"l II
f',l II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~' II
,--I II
,-I II
- II
aO II
C~ II
II
II
II
II
II
,.-I II
~1 II
~ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
m II
0 II
t'- II
- II
I-- II
~ II
II
II
II
II
(D II
m II
~ II
- II
Lfl II
f,"l II
m II
II
II
II
+
u n
-~ 0
.p
0
,u
0
+
~)
~ 0
M
a~ m,
0 ~0
o~
r-
O~MO0
O~MO~
· ~ ~- o
~ r- o
o ,..0 m
ooooo
oooo~
o
,-.I o
,--I o
t,1 o
o o
o o
~ o
..m~
0 m
-~ 0
o
o
0
E~
II
~ II
u'l II
,--I tl
- II
~ II
fq II
II
II
II
II
.1~
II
O~ II
II
I1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
0 II
m II
,-I II
~ II
~ II
r',l II
II
II
II
II
ul II
cN It
rl II
~ II
I'~ II
I~ II
,,-4 II
II
II
II
0
e4
,.~ 0
0
0
0
r.)
~) ~ 0
O8,U..C
1.4 .P
-~
o~ur. zl
~ 0
+ -~
aJ~O
-~ 0 ~>
m
O
O
CX:)
f-I 0
~:~
0
0
0
c~
0
II
~ II
QO II
0'~ II
- II
U'I II
'~ II
~ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
(%) II
,P-I II
O II
~ II
"~ II
t~ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
00 II
~ II
0 II
~ II
~ II
u'J II
II
II
II
II
0 II
0 II
0 II
· . II
0 II
0 II
o') II
II
II
II
~ 0
U
:::J 0
0
I 0
.-I ~ ~ 0
0
EO~ ~
~ ~10
OEjaJ,.~
· .4~ ~ 0
· w 0
+
-..4
0 .--I ~
0~00~
f'l 0
00000
00000
0
0
00'~'
0 '~'
0 00
,-I 0
00'~
0 ~
0 0
0 0
P.,.
~ ,~.
~ 0
00 m
0
0
II
0 II
~fi II
~'1 II
- II
r~l tl
u'l tl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
tl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
tl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
,.-4
-P
O
X
~Or~
-.4~(~0
+
0
i
0
C::
0
m
1..I
{lJ m
0 .-I ~
00000
~ffioOm
~0~
0 0
n'J 0
(J)
II
a:) II
cq II
c'~ II
- II
0 II
,..D II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I'~ II
~ II
0 II
- II
(:]0 II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ II
~ II
('q II
~ II
0 II
.-I II
II
II
II
II
O~ II
~ II
ffl II
~ II
00 I1
P"' It
II
II
II
II
0
+
· ,4 0
0 ~
~ 0
C) ~
0
n'lm
0 0 04
c~a ~.n ~0
u~ 0 m
0
m ,,D ~0
o~omo
o~o~o
aD
0
00~
~-~
0 0
0 0
~ 0
0
0
0
II
,-I II
0 II
m II
- II
m II
~ II
r,- II
II
II
II
I1
II
II
'q" II
u'l II
~ II
- II
r'- II
0 II
m II
II
II
II
II
0 II
,.4) II
I'- II
- II
o4 II
m II
II
II
II
II
II
,u!.
II
'q' II
O~ II
~0 II
- II
~ II
1-., II
~ II
II
II
II
u'l II
t~ II
~ II
- II
0 II
c,,I II
0 II
- II
,-I II
II
+
u r~
-4 0
'0
0
0
+
u
u ~e
~ 0
~' ooo
o ooo
~ ,...t~..Do
ooo
o ooo
I~ ~
o
o
o
o
II
b. II
~ II
u"} II
,- II
co II
~) II
c,i II
II
II
II
II
II
II
r4 II
~' II
,'~ II
~ II
Cn II
U:) II
m II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
.-I II
~ II
,.-I II
~ II
~ II
~ II
m II
II
II
II
co II
m II
r.- It
- II
r- II
m II
~ II
II
II
II
I=
~u
o
+
',~ 0
O ~3
+
O
C
0
0~000
0~000
0 ~
0~000
0~000
C
0
0
00
00
00
0 ,.-I
,.-4 v
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,-.I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,-I
II
~ II
O~ II
CO II
- II
U:} II
0 II
T- II
II
II
II
II
0 II
0 II
u~ II
~ II
m II
PI II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ II
o~ II
P1 II
~ II
P"l II
o~ II
u:) II
II
II
II
["- II
,,o II
e,i II
~ II
0 II
c0 II
O~ II
· II
,'~ II
II
--4
-.-I
.-I
0
0 ~
0 CO
0
0 P1
0
0 CO
Cq
,-i
0 000
0 000
o,I Ou'lO
o,I
· .m Duo
C-~ CcC
OG~C~-~
~00~
0
.-.4
~ 0
O
~ 0
O
I 0
~ ~.~ 0
~ 0
0~
'~0
~ 0
+ ~
aJ~O
-..40~.
m
..-4 "~
E~r..)
o
+
m
u
o
u'J
0 0
0 0
Lfi 0
P',,. 0
0
0
o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o o
u'l
o
o
u
m
0
o
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
cq ,-I
oem
,-4
-~om
o
o
o
o
c~
o
o
o
o
o
,4
0
II
i.~ II
~ II
q' II
' II
Lfi II
,""l II
~0 II
- II
,-.-III
II
II
II
II
i.~ II
cD II
~ II
~ II
c~i II
~ II
II
II
II
II
II
P1 II
c,i II
~ II
~ II
00 II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ II
u) II
00 II
~ II
P'l II
,=1 II
II
II
II
II
0 II
0 II
r-. II
~. II
P- II
r~ II
00 II
~ II
,-.t II
II
m
0
o
..-4
ra
Ej
G
OEjaJ.c:
-..~.,o
rOrnrO~
O r.r-1
+
m
u
o
aJI.4.P
o ~
n~ O
0
*,-1
0
O ~
~D O
cq
CO
0~0~0
0~0~0
~ H 0
~D ~ o
~ o
o o
r-4 c'~
~ ~ o
~ r.'J 00
ooooo
ooooo
~CC 0 C
m
0
0
0000
LfiOU'~
c~ O
co ..~ m
Cr~ ~O
o u)
o o~
o ooo
o ooo
h
o.J ,-t
o o
o
h.
r~1
G
'0
m
0
.p
0
$.1
,u
"0
Lfi o
~ m
o r-I
0~00
00~00
o
~W E m
-~ ~ m
-~umO~ -~
· ~ 0
o~m~
-~OU m~O ~
~0-~e 0
0
o m
o0
o
00 o
o o
~ o
o
o
o
,.-I o
Lfl
0 0
~ U"1,
¢~ O0
o m
o
m
u
u
00000000
m
· , C
C 0
0 ~
· ~ -a
0
c,,i I
~ I
I
I
o
0
u
C
C
-,4
m
0
0
,-4
0
E~
o~o
o~mo
r-.c~o
o
o
o
ooo
ooo
ooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
C
C
0
,,u
0
E4
m
I
.iJ
r,.)
'U
'U
::s o
I~ o~
I ...I
(1)
::3
*,.I G
c: O
G
c:
G
O
OE,r:
(l) ~J
-,-I~J O
O
~10
~o~
0 C
O~
O0 m G
~00~ ~ G
· .~-~-~m ~
m~mm~
· 0 0
r~ ~
O
l>
~J
m
0
0
+
$4 -IJ
0
'U
G
.,g
0 ~
'U ::S
II
(:D II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
u") II
m II
U:) II
- II
q'" II
O~ II
c,,I II
-- II
r-t II
II
0
n
0
0
o,.-I
(0
,~
*iJ
0
0
0
W 0
0 ~
1-1 .P
~4
0
~J
ee
II
0 II
~ II
0 II
- II
~ II
O~ II
m II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
0 II
~ II
0 II
,- II
L~ II
O~ II
m II
II
II
II
0
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
I1
II
II
-~0
~0}
o
0
o
o
o
o
~>
o
o
o
,-I
o
o
o
,.-I
N
II
0 II
0 II
0 II
~ II
0 II
r- II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ II
0 II
0 II
0 II
,.- II
0 II
P- II
~ II
II
II
II
II
0
~uO
0
~J
tfl, tfi
000 ~
mmmO
0
0 0
~ I'~
0 0
0 0
I~.
0
.-I "~
aJ ~
~ u
.~ .r-.
U ft.1
+
U
rz.1
0
,u
OO~OO~OOOOOO~~O~OO~O~O
~OOOOHOOOOOO~~O~OOH~O
C'~I~.DUl
OOmOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO
~O~OOHOOOOOOOOOOOO OO
~mmmO~m~OOOO~OOO~ ~o
~omo
o.~
0
~ I::: m
etl ~
c: ~ m I:: -,-~ :>
~ 0 G--.lUl m 0 I::~
al I~1~:~.~ M G 0 -,4 ~
~-,-i m~J u I~ I .,o
~ 14 ~3 ::1 ~ O ~14J E-.4
u C
ma) O
u G
-,-4OO
O~C-~G
}...a-,-I ~}-,-I ,S ~b m G a} C-,-I
{I}~ ~>4J G 0 G G
0000~
0~00~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0000~
0000~
0
0
0
~-I
0
0
0
~-I
~ II
(",i II
m II
e,I II
- II
PJ II
~,1 II
~ II
II
II
~ II
~0 II
(}0 II
~'1 II
· ,. II
0 II
~" II
~ II
'"-' II
II
II
rn
r..) r,.}
-,=t
-,-i {D
-IJ
-,-I
0
.,-I
0
.p
0
0
..IJ
o
~
I~j, JJ..t 0
-.-i~aj 0
~)G.IJ,-I
,-I o [J ~1 o I I
I:~OOr. J~r, Ju
W 0
G
0
~ 0
,u 0
0
0
· . ~
· -4 0,~
o
-,4
0
0
-,-I
0
II
o II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ II
~1, II
u"~ II
r- II
~ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
o II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1..i
-,.4
Lo,-.I .p
~aJO
"'0 0
· ~ 0
0 E
-a$~O
D
0
0 ~
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
r,! II
~ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I.,i
,u
E
.. m
G
-d~O
~ C
0
0 ~
II
s-t tl
~ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
PI II
~ II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
· . a}
~>
~ ql 0
r..J 0
EiO4J:::s
al · 0
0 Ei-,.4,.c:
-,.4 4J 0
0
0:3
II
t",- II
r-,I II
,,-t II
II
II
II
II
I1
II
II
II
II
II
II
r", II
~-I II
~1 II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
ITEM NO. 5
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER""'~'
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Engineering Department l~v.0
December 18, 1990
Acceptance of Public Improvements in
Parcel Map No. 23354
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Albert Crisp
That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in
Tract No. 23354, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street,
sewer, and water letters of credit, and DIRECT the City
Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
On September 30, 1988, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with:
Tomond Properties,
A General Partnership
PO Box 2159
Escondido, CA 92025
for the improvement of streets and the installation of sewer
and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision
agreements were letters of credit issued by:
Torrey Pines Bank
as follows:
Letter of Credit No. 01-800371-01 in the amount of
$414,500.00 to cover street improvements.
Letter of Credit No. 01-800371-01 in the amount of
$34,000.00 to cover sewer improvements.
STAFFRPT\PM23354 1
Letter of Credit No. 55-800371-01 in the amount of
$81,000. O0 to cover water improvements.
Letter of Credit No. 01-800372-01 in the amount of
$264,750.00 to cover materials and labor.
The following items have been completed by the developer
or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans:
1. Required street, sewer, and water
improvements.
The inspection and verification process relatin9 to the
above items has been completed by the County of Riverside
Road Department and City Staff agrees with the
recommendation to reduce/release the subdivision
improvement letters of credit. Therefore, it is
appropriate to reduce/release these letters of credit as
fol lows:
Streets: $373,050. O0
Sewer: $ 30,600. O0
Water: $ 72,900. O0
The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance
letters of credit amounts are to be retained for one (1)
year guarantee period as follows:
Streets: $41,450. O0
Sewer: $ 3,400. O0
Water: $ 8, 100. O0
AC:ks
Attachment:
Vicinity Map
STAFFRPT\PM23354 2
! Pro]ecY SHe~
VIClNI T Y MAP
no scole
ITEM NO. 6
APPROVAL
ci z ATTo EY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Engineering Department ~
December 18, 1990
Acceptance of Public Improvements in
Parcel Map No. 21592
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDAT ION:
DISCUSSION:
Albert Crisp
That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in
Tract No. 21592, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street,
sewer, and water letters of credit, and DIRECT the City
Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
On May 17, 1988, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with:
Tomond Properties,
A General Partnership
PO Box 2159
Escondido, CA 92025
for the improvement of streets and the installation of sewer
and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision
agreements were letters of credit issued by:
Torrey Pines Bank
as follows:
Letter of Credit No. 55-800312-01 in the amount of
$97,500.00 to cover street improvements.
Letter of Credit No. 55-800312-01 in the amount of
$27,500.00 to cover sewer improvements.
STAFFRPT\PM21592 1
Letter of Credit No. 01-800312-01 in the amount of
$28,500.00 to cover water improvements.
Letter of Credit No. 55-800312-01 in the amount of
$76,750.00 to cover materials and labor.
The following items have been completed by the developer
or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans:
1. Required street, sewer, and water
improvements.
The inspection and verification process relating to the
above items has been completed by the County of Riverside
Road Department and City Staff agrees with the
recommendation to reduce/release the letters of credit.
Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce/ release these letters
of credit as follows:
Streets: $87,750.00
Sewer: $24,750.00
Water: $25,650.00
The remainin9 10% of the original faithful performance
letters of credit amounts are to be retained for one (1)
year guarantee period as follows:
Streets: $ 9,750.00
Sewer: $ 2,750.00
Water: $ 2,850.00
AC:ks
Attachment:
Vicinity Map
STAFFRPT\PM21592 2
PROJECT
LOCATION
· ~ PM 21592
-- ,:i '~'
\"
LOCATION MAP
ITEM NO. 7
APPROVAL .
CITY ATTORNEY/~I
FINANCE OFFICER- .....
CITY MANAGER ~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Engineering Department
December 18, 1990
Parcel Map No. 23496
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDAT ION:
Douglas M. Stewart
That the City Council approve Final Parcel Map No. 23496
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Final Parcel Map No. 23496 was originally submitted to
Riverside County Planning Department on February 18,
1988. The Parcel Map Amended No. 4 was received and
filed by the Board of Supervisors on April 4, 1989.
Parcel Map No. 23496 is a 16 commercial lot subdivision of 58.83 acres. The site is
located on the west side of Ynez Road, the east side of Interstate 15, and south of
Solana Road. The developer is Bedford Properties.
The following fees have been paid for Parcel Map No. 23496:
Signal Mitigation Fee
Area Drainage Fee
(Deferred to Building Permit)
$157,950.00
58,883.76
The following bonds have been posted for Parcel Map No. 23496:
FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE
LABOR AND
MATERIAL
Street and Drainage
Water
Sewer
Survey Monuments
$3,102,758.40
110,664.00
26,371.20
$1,551,379.20
55,332.00
13,185.60
$9,804.00
STAFFRPT\PM2 3 4 9 6 1
FISCAL IMPACT: Not Determined.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Parcel Map No.
23496 subject to the Conditions of Approval.
GH:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Development Fee Checklist
Location Map
Copy of Map
Conditions of Approval
Fees and Securities Report
STAFFRPT\PM2 3 4 9 6 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: PM 23496..
The followin9 fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
I K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
IQuimby)
Public Facility
I Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
|Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
| Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
IADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 21 (Planning)
Condition No. ~
Condition No. g
Condition No.13 (Road and
Survey)
Condition No. ~
Condition N0.12 (Planning)
Condition No. 11 (Planning)
FormslPIng-M9
//
PM 2:3,~9~
,7
I/C-P
M-SC
-SC
RANCHb
CALIFORN!A
AIR
1" 800'
iEXISTING
ZONING
R-3
,,,.,,.-- ,,/
./
C-1/C-P
C-1/C-P
App. RANCHO CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENT CO
Use 588 AC INTO 11 PARCELS
Area RANCHO CALIFORNIA Sup.D~st. 1
Sec. 1 T. 8S.FL 3W As~essor's Bk. 921 Pg. 8
~t
Rd. Bk. I~l. ~c Date 1/30/89 Drawn By BGS BGS
RIVF_RSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTIVlENT
R-1
R-3
S-P
S-P
TIF,.,RRA
'V'LSTA h
LOCATIONAL
NO SCALE
{%
I
DATE
TO:
October 18, ~89
Surveyor
Road
Building & Safety
Flood Control
Hea 1 th
Fi re Protection
:IiVE:DiDE COUllE,u
t:(IVERSIDE C()t INl",
ROAD DEPAtl I MENT
RE: TENTATIVE X~RACI~PARCEL FLAP NO. 23496, AMD.
REGIONAL TEAM NO. 5
#4
The Riverside County["] Planning Director/[~lBoard of Supervisors has taken the following
action on the above referenced tentative map:
XX APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions (no waiver request submitted).
DENIED tentative map based on the attached findings.
APPROVED tentative map subject to attached conditions and DENIED request for waiver
of the final map.
APPROVED tentative map and APPROVED request for waiver of the final map.
APPROVED . e sion of Time
Ext n to
' all previously approVed 'conditions.
APPROVED . Extension of Time to ----~--.'/t"
' all previously appnoved. conditions and the attached add1{|onal conditions.
~' - -' '- ,. .., ~' c, I .~' l )' .~ .., t
DENIED Extension of Time,"c':,.'. ..... ;}:.tL' ~' .'
~-~'~--' · ' 1~ / l'/.' I,' .~ i / ,,, ;"., ....
APPROVED withdrawal of ~t~ive map.- ......
__ APP~VED Hinor Change to re~)s~'o'~.{~inally appmved conditions as sh~n
APPROVED Hinor Change to ~vise originally approved mp (attached).
subject to
subject to
(attached).
__DENIED request for Minor Change.
APPRDVED Minor Change to waive the final map.
SC:sc
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Slavia Caric - Senior Planner
SURVEYOR - WHITE ROAD - BLUE
m~z/(me,.molm3) HEALTH - PINK
BUILDING & SAFETY - GREEN
FIRE PROTECTION - GOLDENROD
FLOOD - CANARY
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
SLIPMrlTAL TO THE 'BOAm Jm SUfERVISnRS
CO~ rY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFC 41A
FROM: Planning Department
SUBM!ITAL DATE: March 20, 1989
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23496, AMENDED NO. 4 - Rancho
California Development Co. - First Supervisorial District - Rancho
California Area - 58.83 Acres - 16 Lots - Schedule E - C-1/C-P Zoning
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
RECEIVE AND FILE the above referenced case acted on by the Planning
Commission on February 22, 198g.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32722
based on the findings incorporated in the environmental assessment and
the conclusions that the pronosed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment; and,
APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL flAP NO. 23496, AMENDED NO. 4, subject to the
conditions and based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in
the Planning Commission minutes dated February 22, 1989.
GM:bc
3/20/89
Roge~.~]'treeter, Pl anni ng%rector'
SEP IZ lgBg
,: w,isDE: COUNTY "'
~ :,>, ~:~vEV DEPARTMENT
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On motion of Supervisor Younglove, seconded by Supervisor
Abraham and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the
above report of approval is received and filed as recommended.
Ayes: Ceniceros, Abraham, Younglove and Larson
Noes: None Gerald A. oney
Date = April 4, 1989 "'~e/~"
xc: Planning, Land Use, Applicant
F(~qlvl ll-A
Prey. Agn. ref. Depts. Comments Dist.
AGENDA NO.
I '11
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 1989
(AGENDA ITEM 4-3 - Tape 1018, Side 1 - Tape 1B)
PARCEL MAP NO. 23496 - EA 32722 - Rancho Calif. Development Co. - Rancho
California Area - First Supervisorial District - on Ynez Rd, northerly of
Rancho California Plaza Shopping Center - 16 lots - 59L_acres - Schedule E
Hearing was opened at 11:08 a.m. and was closed at 11:|4 a.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 32722 and
approval of Tentative Commercial Parcel Map No. 23496, ~nended No. 4, based on
the findings andlconclusions listed in the staff report. The applicant
proposes to divide 58.83 acres into 16 lots on land located west of Ynez Road
and northerly of the Rancho California Road. The site is zoned C-1/C-P and is
generally vacant, with the exception of one 2,700 square foot con~erci~l
storage building. Surrounding zoning is C-1/C-P and C-P-S. Surrounding land
uses are the Rancho California Plaza located to the south of the property and
vacant land. The project meets the Category II requir~nents and was found to
be consistent with the General Plan. Staff added the Stephens Kangaroo Rat
condition, requiring payment of mitigation fees, as follows:
Prior to 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.
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.
A second condition was added, to read:
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to
issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of
Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall
certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally
integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited
to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geot,chnical conditions.
Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development t~ determined to exist,
appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
The Stephens Kangaroo Rat condition will be C~nditton 21, the subsidence
condition will be Condition No. 22, and the following conditions (old Condition
21 on) will be renumbered.
TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT:
Mike Mithia, NBS Lowry, Rancho California, concurred with the recommendations
of staff and the amended conditions.
Sarah Jane Jackson, Stephen Bedford Properties, spoke in support of the
application.
16
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1989
The hearing was closed at 11:14 a.m.
FINDINGS A~D CONCLUSIONS: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 58.89 acres
into 16 co~m~ercial lots in the Rancho California area; the site is generally
vacant with the exception of one 2,700 square foot ce-,-~rcial storage building;
adjacent land uses include an auto sales dealership and vacant land to the
north, vacant land to the east, the Rancho California rlaza Shopping Center to
the south and various commercial and industrial uses to the west across 1-15;
the site is zoned C-1/C-P as is the property to the north, east and south;
zoning across 1-15 to the west is C-1/C-P and C-P-S; the site lies within the
Southwest Territory land Use Planning Area and qualifies as a Category II site
and environment concerns include fault, liquefaction hazards within t~e
subsidence zone, erosion, dam inundation and flooding, highway noise, wildlife,
and paleontologtcal resources and a biological and archaeological report was
prepared and no significant findings were noted. The proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinance 460; is compatible with area
development; and, environmental concerns will be mitigated at the development
stage therefore, the proposal will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Purrlance, secondoH by Commissioner
Beadling, and unanimously carried, the Ccm~mission adol,trd the Negative
Declaration for EA 32722 and approved Tentative Commercial Parcel Map No.
23496, Amended No. 4, subject to the conditions as a,~,nded (add Conditions No.
21 and 22, renumber the following conditions), and sul,Jrct to the above
findings and conclusions.
17
Zoning Area: Rancho California
5 ~r' o~f~Di., trict: First
E F~. E~). 27~ 2
COt~(RCIAL PARCEL MAP 23496, AI~). #4
Planning Con~ntsston: 2-22-89
Agenda Item No.: 4-3
APR 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARllI-'NT
STAFF REPORT
· F~ -,, .
2. Engineer/Representative:
3. Type of Request:
4. Location: ..
5. Existing Zoning:
6. Surrounding Zoning:
7. Site Characteristics:
8. Area Characteristics:
Comprehensive General Plan
De s i gn a t i on:
Land Division Data:
Agency Recommendations:
10.
11.
12. Letters:
Rancho Ca1 i forn f a Development Co.
NB S/Lowry
Subdivide 59 a¢ ~,s into 16 parcels
West of Inez ;h~ad, northerly of the
Rancho Californi.m P|aza
C-I/C-P
C-1/C-P and C-P-S
Generally vacar, t with the exception of
one 2,700 square foot commercial
storage buildin!l
VaCant land and the Rancho California
Plaza located to the south of the
property.
Land Use: Category I I
Open Space/Cons: Not designated
Total Acreage: 58.83
Total Lots: 16
See letter dated:
Road: 1-12-89
Heal th: l 1-28-88
Flood: 11-22-88
Fire: 12-05-88
Building & Safety
Grading: 10-20-88
County Geologist: 6-13-88 Revised
6-14-88 Revised
Opposing/Supporting: None received
ANALYSIS:
Project Oescrtptton
Tentative Commercial Parcel Map No. 23496 Amended N,~. 4 is an application to
subdivide 58.83 acres into 16 lots in the Rancho Callf,unta area. The site
is located west of-Inez Road, easterly of Interstat,, 15 and northerly of the
Rancho California Shopping center.
COI~ERCIAL PARCEL RAP NO. 23496, AJ~3. ~4
Staff Report
Page 2
Land Use and Zoning
The site is currently vacant with the exception of a 2,700 square foot
comnercial storage building. Adjacent land uses include an auto sales
dealership and vacant land to the north, vacant land to the east, the Rancho
California Plaza,.shopping center to the south and various comnercial and
industrial uses to the west, across 1-15. The site is zoned C-1/C-P.
Adjacent zoning includes C-I/C-P to the north, east and south. Zoning across
1-15 to the west is C-P-S.
General Plan
The project lies within the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area. The
review 6f the policies of the land use element in the Comprehensive General
Plan indicates that the proposed project fits the requirements of Category II
land uses at this time. Category II land uses should locate within existing
communities or within cities' sphere of influence, provide for a full range
of public facilities and services including an adequate circulation system.
The pr.oposed project is consistent with the above pnlicies, and therefore is
consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan.
Environmental Assessment
The initial study conducted for environmental Assessment No. 32722 indicated
the site to be within the boundaries of the Wildo,~r Fault, subsidence and
liquefaction zone. The Riverside County Comprehensive G~neral Plan indicates
that the site is impacted by erosion, dam inundattc~n and flooding, highway
noise, wildl ife and paleontologtcal resources. A biological and
archaeological report was prepared for the site and no significant findings
were noted. However, the applicant will be required to pay a fee to mitigate
the impacts on the Stephens Kangaroo Rat, through the conditions of approval.
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 58.8~ acres into 16 commercial
lots in the Rancho California area.
The site is generally vacant with the exception of one 2,700 square foot
comnercial storage building. Adjacent -land uses include an auto sales
dealership and vacant land to the north, vacant land to the east, the
Rancho Cali fornia P1 aza Shopping Center to the south and various
commercial and industrial uses to the west across 1-15. The site is
zoned C-1/C-P as is the property to the north, east and south. Zoning
across 1-15 to the west is C-I/C-P and C-P-S.
COtt~RCIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23496
Staff Report
Page 3
3. The site lies within the Southwest Territory land Use Planning Area and
qua I i fies a s a Ca tegory I I s i re.
Environmental concerns includf, fault. liquefaf Ilun hazards within the
subsidence" zone. erosion. dam Inundation an,I flooding. highway noise.
wi ldl i re. and paleontologtcal resources. A biological and
archaeological report was prepared and no '.luni ficant findings were
noted. .
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposal is consistent wi ~ the Compreh,.,~tve General Plan and
Ordinance 460.
2. The proposal is compatible with area development.
3. Environmental concerns will be mitigated at the ,l~,veloplnent stage.
RECOI, I, ENDATIONS:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32722
based on the finding that the proposed project will not have a significant
impact on the environment; and
APPROVAL of TENTATIVE COI~RCIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23496, AMENDED NO. 4 based on
the findings and conclusions incorporated in the staff report and subject to
the attached conditions of approval.
GM: aea
2-01-89
..~M 2349~.
Y
/
LI/C-P
,~EXISTING
ZC)NING [ 3
,4',, ,,
/
'v
C-1
C-P '
M-SC
RANCH1::)
CALIFORN!,A
AIRPOR
M-M
C-1/C
S-P
Use
'~.~,NCHO CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMEN l CO
58-8 AC INTO 11 PARCELS
RANCHO CALIFORNIA Sup,Dist. 1
T. 8S.,R. 3W Assessor's Bk. 921 F~. 8
ssc Date 1130/89
Rd. Bk.I~.seA
Drawn By BGS BGS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING, DEPARTMENT
TIF,,,RRA
VISTA
LOCATIONAL MAP
1" 800' ~vo SCALE
PM 234 96
' VAC
LA,.~D
DAIRY
VAC
'~' RES ._ a:
\
c ,\%'
RANCHO
CALIFORNIA
AIRPO
800'
VAC
· VAC
GRADED
iPPIr4G
lEn \
VAC
', \
App. RANCHO CALIFOnNIA DEVELOPMEN1 (:O
Use 58-8 AG INTO 11 PARCELS
T
Ares RANCHO CALIFOR_NIA Sup. IN,d. 1
Sec. !i"'T:,R: 3W ~'s Bk. 921 P,,j n
~tion
Element
SeA
I:ktte 1130/89 Drawn By BGS tlGS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
POND
/ TIERRA
APTS vtsu
VAC
LOCATIONAL MAP
NO SCALE
//VAC
~PT~, ,t
L.
I
J~
\
..\\\ : ~ / ~ ,a ,z_. z
'/!" , 0
t
RECEIVED AND FILED
APR 4 PZ))g
~ B, Y BOARD OF ~UPERVI~OR$
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARllENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE COIe(RCIAL PARCEL MAP NO 23496, A, ml). e4
1. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action,
or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers,
or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the
County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative
body concerning TENTATIVE COMMERCIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23496, AM). ~/4,
which action is brought within the time period provided .for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside
wil 1 promptly notify the Subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside and wilt cooperate fully in
the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of
any such claim, action, or proceeding or fail s to cooperate fully in the
defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside.
2. The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance
460, Schedule E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This
approved tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Board of
Supervisors approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460.
3. 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.
4. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and
shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons
such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as
approved by the County Road Conmnissioner. Street names shall be subject
to approval of the Road Commissioner.
5. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for
nonexclusive public road and utility access. All easements, offers of
dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed
by the Riverside County Surveyor.
6. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the
parcel map boundary to a County maintained road.
TENTATIVE COI~RCIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23496, AIO. ~4
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
7. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
fi na 1 map.
8. Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be
submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety.
9. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated January l~, 1989,
a copy of which is attached.
10. The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health
recon~nendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal
dated November 28, 1988, a copy of which is attached.
11. The subdivider shal 1 comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated
November 22, 1988, 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.
12. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated December 5, 1988,
a copy of which is attached.
13. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Building and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated
Octob.er 20, 1988, a copy of which is attached.
14. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
County Geologist transmittal dated June 13, 1988 and June 14, 1988,
copies of which is attached.
15. The access strip to Parcel 15, between Parcels 8 and 9 shall be 30 feet
wide and shall be shown on the final map.
DEVELOPlENT STANDARDS:
16. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the C-1/C-P zone.
TENTATZYE COle~RCZAL PARCEL RAP NO. 23496, All). #4
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
17. When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall
have a net usable area of not less than 3600 square feet, exclusive of
the utility easement.
18. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C
of Ordinance 460.
19. Corner lots shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section
3.8B of Ordinance 460.
20. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist
shall be retained by the developer for consultation and con~nent 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 excavati on and grading contractor shal 1 be arranged. When
necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority
to temporarily divert, redirect or hal t grading acti vi ty to al low
recovery of fossils.
21. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply
with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance
which i s based on the gross acreage of the parcel s proposed for
development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required
by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the
Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution. (Added at Planning Con~nission on 2-22-89)
22. This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to
issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of
Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall
certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally
integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited
to, the site specific seismic, geoldgic and geotechnical conditions.
Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to
exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. (Added at
Planning Commission on 2-22-89)
PRZOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
23. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be transmitted
to the Planning Department for review and approval.
TENTATIVE COle~RCIAL PARCEL NAP NO. 23496, AN). e4
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
ENVIRON!(NTAL CONSTRAINT SHED CONDITIONS:
24. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the
final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shal 1 be
permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the
recordation of the final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to
the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall
be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning
Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The f.ollowing
note(s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet.
25. "County Archaeological Report No. 1252 was prepared for this property on
· March 30, 1988 by Christopher E. Drover Ph.D, and is on file at the
Riverside County Planning Department.
26. "County Biological Report No. 255 was prepared for this property on
August 25, 1988 by Clint Powell, Naturalist, and is on file at the
Riverside County Planning Department."
27. "County Geological Report No. 455 was prepared for this property on
August 31, 1987 by Schaefer Dixon Associates, and is on file at the
Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the
report are as follows: within the Wildomar fault and liquefaction hazard
,,
zone.
28. "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."
29. The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the
Riverside County Surveyor. These constraints affect all parcels.'
GM: aea
2-01-89
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
ROAD AND SUR'VI:Y DTPARTM
L4zRoy D Srncxgt
ROAD CC)MMLS~K)INFbq & COUh~Tt ~L~RVEYOk[
January 12, 1989
c ()t)NT'~ ADMiNLSTP~ATIV| CJ]~IT~R
MAI(JNG AL)0~
PO EiDX i0~(3
RIV~IDL C,m, UFOKtlA 925<2
(714) 787-b554
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: Parcel Map 23496 - Amend #4
Schedule E - Team 1
Ladies and Gentlemei~:
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the
following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards {Ordinance 461}.
It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map
to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding
as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road
Commissioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by
both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map
and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the
Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance .No. 460
will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage
facilities as approved by the Road Department.
Parcel Map 23496 - AmenG ~4
January 12, 1989
Page 2
3. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Department.
4. "A" Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in
accordance with County Standard No. 111, (56'/78').
5. The landdivider shall comply with the Caltrans recommendations as
outlined in their letter dated April 22, 1988.
6. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif-
ornia Water District prior to the recordation of the final 'map.
10.
11.
12.
13.
A copy of the final n~p shall be submitted to Caltrans, District 08,
Post Office Box 231, San Bernardino, California 92403; Attention:
Project Development for review and approval prior to recordation.
The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%.
The minimum centerline radii shall be as approved by the Road
Department.
Ynez Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located
38 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving;
reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by
the Road CommissiOner within a 50 foot half width dedicated right
of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County
Standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision
in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
$2,500 per gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal impacts.
Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may
enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
Parcel Map 23496 - Amend ~4
danuary 12, 1989
Page 3
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending
a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and
alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner.
Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for
maintenance by County.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt
emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State
Standard Specifications.
A standard knuckle shall be constructed within the landdivision.
Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall
be shown on the final map and offered for dedication.
Lot access shall be restricted on Ynez Road and so noted on the
final map with the exception of 6 access openings as shown on
Amended Map #4 dated November 17, 1988 or as approved by the Road
Commissioner.
All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50'
tangent measured from flow line.
Street lighting shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460
and 461 at all intersections of roads constructed or improved
within the subdivision. The County Service Area {CSA) Administrator
determines whether the subdivision is within an existing assessment
district. If not, the land owner shall file an application with
LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in
accordance with Governmental Code Section 25210.1.
A striping plan is required for Ynez Road. The removal of the
existing striping shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with
all incurred costs borne by the applicant.
ParCel Map 23496 - Amend
January 12, 1989
Page 4
Very truly yours
EB:lh
Coulity ~,1' l{iversi~l~·,
.: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEIyI__i,__
I)A'i'I':: _Novembe~ ,', 1988
,"": _ eal ....
0/~I~ I~ .~ani JarJan. [.~virg.~e. t e !
Health Set. - s
: ?ZARCEI. FIAP P3496, AMENDED NO..__4_
Environmental Health S~rvices has revtew,,d 'I~a~'t Map 234'1'., ^mended No. 4
dated November 17, 1988. Our current comments will remail,
stated in our letter dated October 7, 1988.
SM:tac
FOIt~{ 4. {Itev. 8/87}
COUNT' ' oF RIVERSIDE
D E P,, RT >I E X T
HEALTI
JN trANNIN~ ~R$ klPA
H,C N~LK OVN,MPH
[.11 COTN[ I S
October 7, 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
RtVEkblu~ Cbu;ff'Y
Attn: Greg Neal
lf.<N GilTIll
eLfTUg
21) NORTN IROADWAY
i~YTHL. CA 12225
COIOlA
CC)R(}NA. CA 91720
HENIT
el0 NORTH STAT( 51,
NEM[I. CA 12343
IllOlO
4G-TOg OASIS
iN0iC1. CA 1220
LAKE ILIIIOtE
tAKE ELSINORE. CA I;330
tALl IPRIRGI
3?55 TAMOUtTZ,.4dcC4J. LU&a
PALM SPRINGS. CA 1225~
231 NORTH 'D' STREE1
IUllOOVe
MISSION ILVD.
RIVERSIC)(. CA IlS0l
RE; PARCEL MAP 23496 (Amended No. I & 2): Being a Division
of a Portion of Lot 1, Tract Map 3587 as shown by Map on
F1]e in Book 57 Pages 80 and 81 of Maps, Records of
Riverside County California and a portion of Rancho
Temecula, granted by the government of the United SLates to
Luls Vignes by patent dated January 18, 1860 and on file in
Book 1, Page 37 of Patents, Records of San Diego County,
California in Section 1. T.6S., R.3W., Rancho Temecula
(i1 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map
No. 23496 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specXflcation as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall
be submxtted xn triplicate, with a minxmum scale
not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with
the orxgxnal drawing Lo the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the Xnternal pXpe dXameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
.Joint specifications, and the slze of the main
at the 3unction of the new system to the
existing system, The plans shall comply In
all respects with Dlv. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of
the California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Tztle 22, Chapter 16, and General
~lverslde County PJarln:r~a Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Greg Neal
October 7. 1~i88
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California. when applicable.
The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and
water company with the following certification:
certify that the design of the water system in
Parcel Map 23496 ~s accordance wlth the water system
expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District
and that the water service,storage and distribution
system will be adequate to provide water service to
such tract. This certification does not constitute
guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel at
any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose" This certification
shall be signed by a responsible official of th~ water
company. The plans must be submitted to the County
~[y~or s Office to review at least two weeks prior
to the r~est for the recordatlon of the final map.
This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water
District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every
lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory
financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider.
It w~ll be necessary for the f~nanclal arrangements to be
made prior to the recordatlon of the final map.
This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water DIstrict agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the sewers of the District. The
sewer system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate,
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the'internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles. pipe and 3olnt specifications
and the size of the sewers at the 3unction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicating location
of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer and the sewer district with the
following certification: "I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Parcel Map 2349~ is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
Dxstrxct and that the waste disposal system Is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
parcel."
~iverside County F'lannino Dept.
Pane Three
ATTN: Ore9 Neal
October 7, 1988
The_plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor s Office
to review at least two weeks ~rlor to the request for the
E~erdation of the final ma~.
It will be necessary for annexation proceedings to be
completely prior to recordation of the final map.
S~ncerely,
~'~mM~r. Sanl tar
Environmental Health Services
SM:tac
KENNETH L EDWARDS
CHIEF ENGINEER
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 12502
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Area: ~"C~.~v~,~bA VALbt~~'~A
we have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
HoweVer, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rilesArea
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 NOV C~,IC~ is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
CC:
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Chief Engineer
jOHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
DATE:
KENNETH L. EDWARD5
CHiIrF ENr~INEER
BOX 1033
TLLEPHONE (7143 787-ZQIg
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502
November 9, 1988
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention:
Regional Team No. 1
C-tog Ncal ~ .....
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
Parcel Map 23496
Amended Map No. 3
This is a proposal to divide about 59 acres in the Temecula
Valley area. The site is between Ynez Road and Interstate ~5
about 1800 feet north of Rancho California Road.
Three major offsite flows are tributary to the site's east bound-
ary. Their watershed are, from north to south, 42 acres, 82
acres and 5.86 square miles (Empire Creek), respectively.' The
southwest portion of this property is within the flood plain cau-
sed by the above tributary flows. No indication was shown on the
map how these tributary flows would be handled.
Following are the District's recommendations:
t. This parcel is located within the limits of the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage
fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of
the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit or building permit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be first obtained after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3
year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that p~-ce] which remain actjvp.
Riverside County
Plannin~ Department
Re: Parcel Map 23496
Amended Map No. 3
-2-
November 9, 1988
®
Arrangements should be made to collect and safely convey
alt the tributary flows to adequate outlets. The flows
should be collected at the east side of Ynez Road without
significantly raising the upstream water surfaces.
Facilities used to convey the flows in Empire Creek
should be constructed to the District standards.
Calculations demonstrating the freeway culverts a~equacy
to carry tributary flows should be submitted for review.
If the culverts do not have capacity, ponding areas cau-
sed by the backwater should be delineated and labeled on
the final map. A note should be adde~ to the final map
stating, "Ponding area shall be kept free of buildings
and obstructions".
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions".
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation of the final map.
The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the
curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained
within the street right of way. When either of these
criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities
should be installed.
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows.
Additional emergency escape should also be provided.
The property's street and lot grading should be designed
in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural
drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage
area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a
drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prior to the recordation of the final map.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Map 23496
Amended Map No. 2
-3-
November 9, 1988
Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented
immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition
of debris onto downstream properties or drainage
facilities.
10.
Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be sub-
mitted to the District and County for review and approval
prior to recordation of the final map.
]1.
A portion of the proposed project is in a major waterway
and may affect "waters of the United States", "wetlands"
or "juriSdictional streambeds", therefore:
A flood study consisting of HEC-2 calculations, cross
sections, maps and other data should be prepared.
The study should meet the requirements of the
District and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) in case FEMA prepares flood plain mapping of
this area in the future.
A copy of appropriate correspondence and necessary
permits from those government agencies from which
approval is required by Federal or State law (such as
Corps of Engineers 404 permit or Department of Fish
and Game 1603 agreement) should be provided to the
District prior to the final District approval of the
project.
12.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to
recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be
approved prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang
of this office at 714/787'2333-
Very truly yours,
cc: NBS/Lowry
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Chief Engineer
JOHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
RC:bab
Ri\.'ERSII)E COt~NTY
FIRE I)EItARTMF, NT
IN COOPERAI'ION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPAR'I'MENT OF FORESTRY
RAY IIEBRARi)
FIRE CHIEF
12-5-88
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN:
TEAM I, GREG NEAL
RE:
PM 23496 - AMENDED ~4
Planning & Engineering Office
4080 I,cmon Sireel, ,¢;uile 11
Rive.idc, CA 92501
(714) 787-6606
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures b; provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 5000 GPM
and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 2500 GPM-for
hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure.
Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2-2½") shall be located at each street
intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with
no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant.
The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the appropriate
water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or that
financial arrangements have been made to provide them.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall
be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system
is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Dept."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual lot.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By
George Tatum, Deputy Fire Marshal
ml
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Department of Building and Safety
TO: Planning - File DATE: 10/20/88
FROM: Grading Section INITIAL: ,72i6/'
RE: PM 23496 ~ ~t~
X Please make the following a condition of approval:
x a. Prior to commencing any grading exceeding 50 cubic yards,
the owner of that property shall obtain a grading permit
from the Department of Building and Safety
___b. Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading
permit and approval of the rough grading shall be
obtained from the Building and Safety Department.
_~_c. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property
o~ner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to
construct from the Building and Safety Department.
___d. Constructing
of material
permit.
a road, where greater than 50 cubic yards
is placed or moved, requires a grading
..... The Grading Section has no comment on this site
e84-134 (5/88)
::IiVE::IMDE COUrEu
PLA rlirl( DEPA::I[ITIErI:
January 28, 1988 (Revised June 13, 1988)
Schaefer Dixon Associates
2168 South Hathaway Street
Santa Ana, California 92705
Attention: r4r. Paul Davis:
SUBJECT:
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
Project: 70-250
APN: 921-080-014, 017 '
Tentative Parcel Map 23496
County Geologic Report No. 455
Rancho California Area
Dear Paul:
We have reviewed your report entitled "Report on Geotechnical Investigation of
the Wildomar Fault, North Plaza Area, Rancho California, Riverside County, CA,"
dated August 31, 1987; the Second Party review for the subject project by Roy
j. Shlemon and Associates, dated October, 1987; and your addendum report dated
December 10, 1987.
Your report determined that:
The surface trace of the Wildomar fault extends northwest-southeast
across the site. Holocene-age displacement along the Wildomar fault at
the site is indicated by {1} disruption of probable Holocene-age soil
horizons, (2} alluvium and pond deposits faulted against Pauba
sediments, and (3} offsets within Holocene-age pond deposit.
The small displacements and discontinuity of the faults encountered in
excavations easterly of the Wildomar fault suggest that these faults
are relatively minor, non-reoccurring pre-Holocene features in
Pleistocene-age Pauba formation sediments.
3. The potential for landsliding is considered remote.
4. The potential for earthquake-induced.flooding, tsunamis and seiches can
be precluded.
5. The potential for sympathetic movement on adjacent faults is considered
to be extremely low.
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
Schaefer Dixon Associates
- 2 - June 13, 1988
The potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlement
and differential compaction is considered low based on your Preliminary
Soils and Foundation Investigation report dated August 31, 1987. It
should be noted that this report has not been reviewed and approved by
this office.
Your report recommended that:
No habitable structures be placed along the trace of the actiove
Wildomar fault zone shown as "Fault Setback Zone" on Plate 1,
Geotechnical Map of your report, and described in your report.
The boundaries'of the fault setback zone established by this report
supersede those recommended by Pioneer Consultants, 1980 (County
Geologic Report No. 199}.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner consistent
with the present "state-of-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and the associated Riverside County
Ordinance No. 547. Final approval of this report is hereby given.
We recommend that the following conditions be satisfied before issuance of any
County permits associated with this project:
The "Fault Setback Zone" shown on Plate 1, Geotechnical Map of your
report shall be delineated on the Environmental Constraints Sheet
{E.C.S.), and the area in between the setback zone shall be labeled
"Fault Hazard Area."
2. A note shall be placed on the E.C.S. stating:
"This property is affected by earthquake faulting, Structures for
human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault Hazard Area. This
constraint affects parcels 2 through 8, and 11."
3. Notes shall be placed on the final land division map stating:
"County Geologic Report No. 455-was prepared for this property on
August 31, 1987, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning
Department. Specific Item of concern in this report are as
follows: active earthquake faulting and uncompacted trench
backfill.'
(b)
'This property is affected by earthquake faulting. Structures for
human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault Hazard Area.
The constraint affects parcels 2 through B, and 11, as shown on
the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of
which is on file at the office of the Riverside County Surveyor.
Schaefer Dixon Associates
- 3 - June 13, 1988
A copy of the final map and Environmental Constraints Sheet shall be
submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist for review
and approval.
It should be noted that the areas covered by these reports now supersede the
same areas previously covered by County Geologic Report 199; therefore, the
Restricted Use and Fault Hazard zones in County Geologic Report 199 in this
area are no longer applicable. '
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING ~EPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter - Planni
Steven A-" Kupferman /
Engineering Geologist/'
CEG-1205
SAK:rd
c.c. Csaba Ko - Rancho Calif. Dev. Co.
Roy J. Shelmon - Consultant
Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety {2)
Earl Hart - CDMG
Greg Neal - Planning Team 1
:IiVE:i iDE COUil u
PLArlrlirlG DEPA: ITIE!I
March 17, 1988 (Revised June 14, 1988)
Schaefer Dixon Associates
2168 South Hathaway Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Attention: Mr. Scott Hardman
Mr. Dennis V. Long
SUBJECT:
Liquefaction Hazard
Project 70-250 A
'APN 921-080~014, 017
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23496
County Geologic Report No. 455L
Rancho California Area
Gen t] emen:
We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled "Preliminary
Soils and Foundation Investigation, North Plaza Area, Rancho California,
Riverside County, CA," dated October 13, 1987.
Your report determined that the main effect of liquefaction at this site would
be the differential settlement which might occur after. the ground shaking. The
liquefaction induced settlement would, be ~oq~.lized. The liquefaction induced
damage to structures or underground 'utili~i'e~ ~ld be minor during or
following an earthquake event of the magnitude considered.
Your report indicated that surficial soils in the area, of B-3 and B-4, with a
potential for liquefaction will probably be removed and recompacted during site
development, thus eliminating the potential in those layers.
Your report did not make recommendations that seismic liquefaction be
considered in design of foundations for the proposed structure.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and
satisfies the requirement for a geologic report assessing liquefaction hazards
as required in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval
of your report is hereby given.
We recommend that the following note be placed on the Parcel Map prior to its
recordation: 'County Geologic Report No. 455L was prepared for this property
on October 13, 1987 by Schaefer Dixon Associates and is on file at the
Riverside County Planning Department. The specific item of interest is
liquefaction.'
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
tNt'llr) CALIFORNIA 922,r,~
Schaefer Dixon Associates
-2-
March 17, 1988
(Revised June 14, 1988
We recommend that the recommendations made in your report be adhered in the
design and construction of this project.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTM NT
Streeter - P1 '
Geolo Dlr tor
Steven A. Kupferma
Engineering
CEG-1205
SAK:rd
c.c. Rancho Calif. Dev. Co. - Csaba Ko Roy Shelmon and Assoc.
Building & Safety - Norm Lostbom (2)
Greg Neal - Team I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (714) 383-4609
December 26, 1989
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gearnor
Development Review
08-Riv-15-5.2/5.5
Your Reference:
PM 23496
Road Department
County of Riverside
Attention Mr. Reggy Menke
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Mr. Menke:
Thank you for the opportunity to review a check print of Parcel
Map No. 23496 located easterly of 1-15 and westerly of Ynez Road
between Rancho California Road and Solana Way in Rancho
California.
We have no comments on this map.
We would also like an opportunity to review any proposals to
further develop property in the vicinity of the highway when they
become available.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J.
Neville at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
Att
1990
i ItvEPSIDE COUNTY ROAE
.:~ ~t 'q~_rV DEPARTMEN1
'Eastern ] 2un ic ipal ' /rat r District
General Manager
Donald C. Stewart
Legd Counsel
Redwine and Sherrill
Director o[ The Metropolitan
Distract 4 Southern California
Doyle F. Boen
Treasurer
Rogers M. Cox
Board o/Directors
Richard C. KeLley, President
Rodger D. Slums, Vice President
Win. G. Aidridge
John M. Coudures
Chester C. Gilbert
Secretary
Juanira L_ Machek
September 28, 1989
First American Title Insurance Company
Attn: Hal Thomas
3625 Fourteenth Street
P.O. Box 986
Riverside, CA 92502-0986
RE: Parcel Map 23496
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to your letter dated July 25, 1989 relative to an easement
which the District holds as they relate to the above referenced parcel map.
Please be advised the District has approximately a 20' easement east of
Interstate 215, south of Solana Way in Parcel Map 23496. The facilities within
these easements will have to be protected during any grading or construction
work and no permanent type facilities can be constructed over the easement.
Upon the satisfaction of the conditions as outlined above, the division and
development of Parcel Map 23496 will not unreasonably interfere with the free
and complete exercise of any easements held by the Eastern Municipal Water
District within the boundaries of said parcel map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the District's right,
title and interest in and to said easement; nor should this letter be construed
as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement.
Very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Robert N. Spradl in
Manager of New Business
DEOO51cJ89
RNS:lf
89-2989
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ~OAD
.~ ~1 IRVEY OEPARTMENT
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 u San Jacinto, California 92383-1300 · Telephone (714)925-7676 · Fax (714)929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. SanJacinto Street, SanJacinro u Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet,
RECEWEO NOV 19 !990
WESTERN REGION
LAND SERVICES DIVISION
REAL PROPERTIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Southern Ca/iforn/a Edison Company
P. 0. BOX 410
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801
10O LONG BEACH BOULEVARD
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802
TELEPHONE
(213) 491-2946
FAX (213)491-2675
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula CA 92390
Attention: Doug Stewart
SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 23496
November 9, 1990
Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Parcel Map No.
23496 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise
of any easements held by Southern California Edison Company within the
boundaries of said Parcel map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's
rights, title and interest in and to said easements, nor should this letter be
construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easements or
a waiver of costs for relocation of any affected facilities.
In the event that the development requires relocation of facilities, on the
subject property, which facilities exist by right of easement or otherwise,
the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation
and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and
replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation.
If additional information is required in connection with the above
mentioned subject, please call Dennis C. Bazant at (213) 491-2644.
Sincerely,
DCB/bp/1
S. R. SHERMOEN
,-/ Real Propert. ies Agent
cc: Bedford Properties
D. Meeker
R,gn: o' Wa,~, Department
3839 Eas; Cor3~aco S::ee: Secon: Floor
Anane!m. Canforna ~2807
PACIFICIIIBELL®
A Pacific Tetesls Company
August 31, 1989
First American Title Insuranc Company
P. O. Box 986
Riverside, California 92502-0986
RE: Tentative Tract No. 23496
Gentlemen:
Pacific Bell approves the recordation of. Tentative Parcel Map
No. 23496. We have reviewed the map with regard to our
easements recorded September 21, 1917, in Book 470. at Page 14,
Official Records of Riverside County.
We wish to have our easement designated and delineated on the
Parcel Map showing our recording data in order to serve notice
that we have existing facilities on this property.
Our approval (per Section 66436(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Subdivision
Map Act) does not in any manner waive any prior rights. Nor
does it relieve the subdivision owner or others from
responsibility for reimbursing our Company for any possible
relocations of our facilities, either vertical or horizontal,
which may be required during development of property.
May we thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Yours truly,
Right of Way Agent
714-666-5716
vs b
DE0051989
RiV2RSIDE COUNTY'
~ ~1 t~NEY DEPARTMEN'I'
:
"RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
EA No
NE~TIVE DECLA~TION
Based on ~he Initial Study, it has been detemined that the proposed proj~'~ not have a
s i gni fi cant envi ronmenCal effect, APR 2 J 7989
PROJECT DESCRIP. TION AND LOCATION: See
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
COMPLETED
Case No. (Mod) prpt ~3~q ~ Land Div Sch
Appl/Rep~tO ~li~r ~q ~.v~e~- Developable Lots Dev. Ac
Date Subrotted q-13-. ~ Open Space Lots O.Sp. Ac
Exi sting Zones ~ -I
Changes of ProPosed/- ~
Zones Only Zoning
Acreage
ADOPTED
[Z) Board of Supervisors
~Plannin9 Commission
'~ Area Planning Council
J~ning Director
(Other)
~-~-, ~,~ .~
Title (~(~/ty~t/er' ' Cmlifornia
Person verifying adoption
HEARING BODY DR OFFICER
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
C/.Board of Supervisors
G)~Planning Commission
[3 Area Planning Council
D ~ni ng Di rector
123 (Other)
ACTION ON PROjECT
,Approval
Disapproval _
Date c~-~ '~<~
Developable Lots/(~ Dev,Ac~8.~S Open S~ace Lots O.Sp. Ac
Changes of Approved
Zones Only Zones
Acreage
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration
has been adopted and may be examined at the Planning Department at the address below.
Person verifying action lor, G,H o'et
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4080 LEMON STREET, gTH FLOOR
-~IVERSIDE, CA 92501
1st White Original - County Clerk
2mi Canary - Case File
3rd Pink - Scheduling
295-31 (Rev. 10/83)
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP / TRACT NO. 23496
DATE 12/12/90
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
IMPROVEMENTS
Streets and Drainage $ 3,102,758.40
Water $ 110,664.00
Sewer $ 26,371.20
TOTAL $ 3,239,793.60
*Maintenance Retention (10% for one year)
*(or Bonds if work is completed)
Monument Security
City Traffic Signin9 and Striping Costs
RCFC Draina9e Fee Due
Signalization Miti9ation Fee - SMD #
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
Other Developer Fees
Plan Check Fee Due
Inspection Fee Due
Monument Inspection Fee
Fee Paid To Date (Credit)
Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due
MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY
$ 1,551,379.20
$ 55,332.00
$ 13,185.60
$ 1,619,896.80
$ 55,541.82
$ 9,460.00
$ -0-
$ 58,883.76
$ 157,950.00
$ -0-
$ -0-
$
$
$
$
$
48,808.00
39,712.71
-0-
48,808.00
39,712.71
STAFFRPT\ PM2 3 4 9 6
ITEM NO. 8
APPROVAL /~ ..... - ~,~
CITY ATTORNEY ~ ~ /
FINANCE OFFICER/~,,
CITY MANAGER ~
TO:
F R OM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Engineering Department
December 18, 1990
Parcel Map No. 25037
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDAT ION:
Douglas M. Stewart
That the City Council approve Final Parcel Map No. 25037
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Parcel Map No. 25037 was originally submitted to Riverside
County Planning Department on July 17, 1989. The Parcel
Map, Amended No. 1, was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on March 14, 1990.
Parcel Map No. 25037 is one common industrial condominium lot creating seven
condominium parcels within 2.48 acres. The Parcel Map is located south of Rancho
California Road and at the west side of Ridge Park Drive (formerly Kathleen Way).
This Parcel Map is part of Parcel Map No. 23968. The applicant is Preferred Equities
and Sunergy Development.
The following fees have been paid for Parcel Map No. 25037:
Signal Mitigation Fee
Area Drainage Fee
Fire Mitigation Fee
Temecula Unified School District
$ 1,200.00
5,023.50
10,372.50
10. 787.40
Ridge Park Drive was improved as a Condition of the underlying map. The following
security has been posted:
Survey Monument Security
$ 924.00
STAFFRPT\ FPM2 5 0 3 7 1
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not Determined.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final
Parcel Map No. 25037 subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
GH:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Development Fee Checklist
Location Map
Copy of Map
Conditions of Approval
Fees and Securities Report
STAFFRPT\FPM25037 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: P.M. 250.3.7
The followin9 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. 47 (Planning)
Condition No. 0
Condition No. 0
Condition No. 12
Condition No. g
(Road & Survey
Department)
Condition No.13 (Planning)
Condition No.12 (Planning)
Forms/PIng-M9
;tl
'" llml. PREFERRED EQUIT. IES 8 SL1NERGY
· ,,,j,.. PLANI4/I&"D INDUSTRIAL l~V. ' ' '
/' ~ ~ T~:MECULA "' ...............
IlL II T. 8 S.,R.SW. Jlleeeer'l 81t.940
*: ",~,.m,mB i~^z RD.----MA.O4 ....~oo'
l,S~ 'Imm, m,m~ CALF. RD,---- SECOel3ARY --
-. ~,.-a~ ............. ' .................
MINUTE ACTXON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
TOS
MEETING OFz
A~ENDA ITEM
NO.S
SUBJECT:
May 23, 1990
County of Riverside Planning Department
May 22, 1990
Item 6
Received and filed Tentative Parcel Map 25037
Southerly of Rancho California Road, westerly
Xathleen Way.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by
Councilmember Lindemans to approve Agenda Item No. 6.
The motion was unanimously carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: I
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemane,
Moore, Mufioz
None
Parks
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula,
California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, the
forgoing to be the official action taken by the City Council at the
above meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 23rd
day of May, 1990.
JU~]jGR~EK, DEPUTY CITY 'CLERK
SEAL]
SUBMITTAL TO THE CZTY COUNCTL
CITY OF TENECULA
COU!fTY OF RXVERSXDE, STATE OF CALZFORNZA
FRI3M: Slavia Cartc
Principal Planner
SUBHITTAL DATE: 4-11-90
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037, Amd. No. I
RECI31elENDED MOTION:
RECEIVE AND FILE the above referenced case acted on by the Planning Conmntssion
on March 14, 1990.
THE PLANNING COe4MISSION
ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 34157 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
APPROVE/) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037, Amd. No. I subject to the attached
conditions and based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the
Planning Ccmmission minutes dated March 14, 1990.
PR(X1ECT LOCATION:
Way.
Southerly of Rancho California Road, westerly of Kathleen
BACKGROURO:
See attached Staff Report.
~R:JC:lt
Planning Director
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHMXSSION MXNUTES
March 14, 1990
(AGENOA ITEM 7-1 - Tape
PARCEL MAP NO. 25037 - EA 34157 - Preferred Equtttes& Sunergy Development
Temecula Area - FIrst Supervlsortal Dtstrtct- southerly of Rancho California
Rd, westerly of Kqthleen Way - 7 condomtntum lots, 1 connon lot - 2.55t acres -
SCHEOULE E - PROJECT: Planned Industrial Oevelopment (7 condomtntum style
Industrial buildings)
The heartrig opened at 1:45 p.m. and closed at 2:15 p.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Negattve Declaration for E.A. 34157
based on the ftndtng that the project wtll not have a significant effect on the
environment and approval of Parcel Map No. 25037, ~mended No. I based on the
findings and conclusions tn the staff report. The applicant ts proposing a
planned industrial development with seven condomtntums parcels and one co,anon
area parcel on 2.55 acres. The stte in questton ts located southerly of
Kathleen May and westerly of Rancho California Road tn the ctty of Temecula.
Currently the stte ts vacant and has been ~aded. Surrounding parcels consist
of Industrial uses and bustness parks to t north and east and vacant and
graded land to the south and west. Presently the site is zoned Z-P as well as
to the north and east, and R-A-20 to the south and west. The proposed project
site 11as wtthtn the Southwest Area Community Plan where the land use
and , Industries and
land use designation it would allow research ·
offtces tn an Industrial and bustness park setting. The proposed pr6Ject Is
consistent with the zontng and land use designation of the Southwest Area
Community Plan and ts compatible with area development. All environmental
concerns wtll be mitigated through the conditions of appreval.
Mr. Rtchards explained the plan to the Coantsston and said this plan ts a
planned Industrial development that Is tn a way an Industrial condomtntum. He
referred to the stte plan and explained what ts betrig done on the plan tn
question. He stated that the proposed project would be shartng parking,
landscaping that surrounds the property and parktrig that ls wtthtn the consnon
TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT
Anthony Polo, (Markham & Assoc.), 41750 Winchester Road, Suite 'N', Temecula,
said the reason they have designed the project the way they have is for general
efficiency. Mr. Polo pointed out that in addition to the benefit of parking
and landscaptngo he said that there is a access idea that would be brought up
by the Road Department. He noted if they develop a parcel for each of these
buildings, each parcel would be required to contain .its own parking and have
adequate access to It.
In answer to Commt o e t concern, Hr. Polo stated thts parcel ts
the tmtldtng footprint on which the foundation would be butlt and he noted that
they are required to Ixatld to thts point.
At this point. Nr. Polo referred to the conditions of approv~':',~' ''/''''"
~...,
F.'t..-.. .... .'.,'
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COlqMISSION MINUTES
March 14, 1990
Hts ftrst concern was Condition t22 tn the staff report that would requtre him
to obtatn clearance and/or permtts from certatn agencies; hts concern was why
would he be required to obtatn a clearance from Envlronmenta*l Heal'th. He noted
that the clearanc~ letter he has recetved from Environmental Health did not ask
for anythtng prtor to butldtng permtts. Hr. Polo's request was to have
Environmental Health deleted from the 11st of agencies.
Condition #22 - Conditions of Approval - DELETE the word
· Environmental Health"
Mr. Polo's next concern was Condition t23 tn the staff report that would
require him to put tn setbacks. He referred to the exhlbtt of the proposed
project and noted that on this exhtblt there ts a slope that is 7 ft. high and
this property currently ts zoned residential. According to the ordinance this
slope would be a 50 foot setback. At thts point Mr. Polo explained the reason
why this particular slope would not have any structure on tt even tf ttts
graded. He noted that the area to the south ts Restricted LIght Industrial
according to SWAP. Mr. Polo expressed that he has talked to staff regarding
the setback concern and they have reached an agreement with staff regarding the
setback. Staff explained that what was agreed upon ms that Mr. Polo would
take the setback to 7~ feet. What Mr. Polo ts asking for tn this condition ts
to have tt changed so that tt would reflect the stte plan as approved.
Staff noted that they have considered the request of the applicant. Mr. Chtu
said that they feel that a 7~ ft. setback would be to small so they agreed that
10 ft. would be acceptable. However, on the south stde where the applicant ts
proposing a setback at a minimum of 5 feet, staff felt that this would not be a
sufficient setback from the property line. Staff felt that a minimum of 15
feet would be an adequate requirement.
After staff's consaents, Nr. Polo stated that 15 ft. ts the minimum requirement
by ordinance. He stated that he ms told by staff tf he want to 7~ ft. tt
would be adequate.
Mr. Rtchards questioned Mr. Polo by asking htm what ts tn the area to the
south, ts It a slope. Mr. Polo satd this area ts a continuation of the pad tn
questton and ttts owned by the same developer with no grade differential. Mr.
Polo explained that the owner ts planntng to take care of this Issue when a
planned Industrial development ts done on the back portion of this area.
After the above discussion, staff amended Condition 123.
Condition t23 ADD to the. end of this condition the following wording
The rear setbac'E'sha11*not be less than 7.5 feet.
Mr. Polo's next concern was Condition 130 tn the conditions of approval that
would requtre them to submit to the Planntng Department seven coptes of the
parking, landscaping, Irrigation, signage and shadIn plan.' Mr. Polo's desire
was to have this condition to read "prior to the building permtt".
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION MINUTES March 14, 1990
Condition 130 AMENDED to read: Prtor to the butldlng permtt, seven
(7) coptes of a parking ....
Mr. Polo referred to Condition t39 In the conditions of approval that would
require him to construct a block wall along the southerly propert~ line. He
noted that this p~operty 11ne is the one that has the large slope and he felt
that by plactng a block wall at this location would serve no purpose.
Mr. Goldman commented that the pad In question ts lower than the adjacent
property so he ts asktng that the slope be the depth separation. At this potnt
staff deleted Condition 139.
Condition of Approval t39 - DELETED
Mr. Polo*s next concern was Condition #40 tn the staff report that ts a
requirement to place trash enclosures on the stte. He explained why tt ~ould
not be a good 1dee to have seven trash enclosures scattered throughout the
stte. Mr. Polo noted they would 11ke to follow the destgn of the plot plan
instead of the condition.
After the above discussion staff amended condition 140.
Condition of Approval 140 - AMENDED to read: Tvo (2) trash enclosures
whtch Is adequate to enclose a total of two (2) btns shall be
distributed throughout the project, and shall be constructed prior to
the tssuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be stx feet
in hetght and shall be made wtth masonry block and an opaque gate wtth
a self-latchlng devtce whtch screens the btns from external view.
Mr. Polo's next ttem of concern was condition t45 tn the staff report and what
he ts asking for is could he get clearance from the Geologist. He noted that
the project in question ts not tn the Subsidence Zone. After a brief
discussion staff dectded to leave this condition as is.
Mr. Polo ~s next 1tam was CondiS'Ion of Approval t46; he wanted clarification of
what thts condition meant. Stiff explained briefly.
The next 1tam of concern was Condition of Approval 151a. Mr. Polo explained
that they have turned tn to the Planntng Department a archaeological report so
he felt thts condition hid already been met.
Condition 51a - DELETED
Lastly, Mr. Polo questioned the paleontologtcal resources which'conditions for
clearance by the museum and also a paleontologist td come on site. He noted
that the stte tn question was ruff graded and ts flat and has a II grade on It
and what they are gotng to do with this area ts place a parktng lot on it and
excavate the footings.' Mith this being done he wondered tf this condition
would still be appropriate.
29
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 1990
Mr. Chtu explained that they have contacted the San Bernardino County Museum
and have explained to then that the lot has been graded. The museum feels even
though the lot had been graded, tt does not necessarily mean that there are no
further arttracts. still present on the stte. So what they request'of the
applicant ts when' he ts ready to grade that they be extremely sure that there
are no arttracts present.
There was no one present tn opposition.
Ms. LInd noted that an additional flndtng would have to be added.
AOD- Finding #6 - The proposal project is consistent with the General
Plan that will be formulated by the City of Temecula.
Mr. Johnson questioned Condition #26 tn the condition of approval that refers
to street lighting. He explained that the Road Department ts currently In
charge of street light requirements. He noted that he would 11ke to add
Condition 121 to the Road letter that would relate to street 11ghttng and
delete condition 126 from the conditions of approval.
AODED to Road Letter Condition t21 to read: Street lights shall be
r~"~'~Tred In accordance wtth Ordinance 460.
DELETE Condition of Approval #26.
Hearing closed at 2:15 p.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicant ts proposing a planned industrial
development with seven (7) condomfnium parcels and one (1) camnon area parcel
on 2.55 acres; the site is vacant and has been graded. Surrounding land uses
consist of industrial developments, business parks, and vacant parcels; the
site is presently zoned I-P, and the surrounding zoning tnclude I-P, R-A-20 and
N-SC; the Southwest Area Community Plan designates the site .as Restricted Light
Industrial; environmental concerns Include fault hazard subsidence Stephens
Kangaroo Rat habitat, paleontological resources and lighting on Mt. Palomar
Observatory and the proposed proJept is consistent with the General Plan that
w111 be formulated by the City of Temecula. The proposed project is consistent
with the polictes of the Southwest Area Co,~nuntty Plan and the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan; the proposed project is consistent with I-P zoning
and environmental concerns wtll be mitigated through the conditions of
approval.
NOTION: Upon motion by Co,,ntssloner Turner, seconded by Co,,,tssioner Smith,
and unanimously ~arrted, the Cam!sston recommended to the Temecula City
Council adoptton of the Negative Oeclaratlon for EA 34157 end approval of
Parcel Flap 25037, Amended No. I subject to the conditions of approval as
amended and based on the above findings and conclusions as ended.
Zontng Area: Temecula TENTATIVE PARCEL NO. 25037
Supervtsortal DIstrict: Ftrst AMENDED NO, 1
E.A. Number: 34157 Planntng Commission: 3/14/90
Regional Team No.: 5 Agenda Ztem No.: 7-1
RIVERSXDE COUNTY PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
1. Appl i cant:
2. Engineer/Pep.:
3. Type of Request:
4. Location:
5. Extsttng Zoning:
6. Surrounding Zontng:
7. Site Characteristics:
8. Area Characteristics:
10. Land Division Data:
11. Agency Recomnendattons:
12. Letters:
13. Municipality:
Preferred Equities & Sunergy
Development -
Markham and Associates
Planned industrial development with
seven condantnium style industrial
parcels and one camnon area parcel.
Southerly of Rancho California Road,
westerly of Kathleen Way
I-P
I-P, R-A-2O, M-SC
Graded vacant parcel
Vacant parcels, Industrial development
and business parks.
Southwest Area Canmunt ty Pl an
Land Use: Restricted Light Industrial
Total Acreage: 2.55
Total Lots: Seven condantnium style
industrial parcels and one canmon area
parcel.
Proposed Mtn. Lot Size: 2557 Sq. Ft.
See letters dated:
Road: t~-3Q-Bg3-14-90 (Amd.
at the Planning Canmission on 3-14-90
Health: 12-15-89
Flood: 11-2B-Bg
Fi re: 12-05-8g
Bldg. & Safety Land Use: 12-12-89
Bldg. & Safety Grading: 12-12-Bg
County Engineering Geologist: 3-1-90
S.B. County Museum: 8-24-89
U.S. Postal Service: 8-23-89
So. Caltf. Edison: 8-18-89
Opposing/Supporting: None' received
City of Temecula'
ANALYSIS
PRO,.1ECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing a planned industrial development with seven
condaniniums parcels and one canmon area parcel on 2.55 acres. The project
site is located at the southerly of Rancho California Road and westerly of
Kathleen Way in the City of Temecula.
TEMTATZVE PARCEL MAP RO. 25037
AMENDED eO. 1
Staff Report
Page 2
Land Use and Zmtnq:
The site is currently vacant and has been graded. Surrounding land uses
include industrial uses and business parks to the north and east, vacant and
graded land to the south and west. -
The site is zoned I-P. Surrounding zoning includes I-P to the immediate north
and east, R-A-20 to the south and west, and M-SC to the further north and east.
~eneral Plan Consistancy/Land Use Canpattbtltty:
The project site lies within the Southwest Area Canmuntty Plan. Land use
designation for this area is Restricted Light Industrial. This land use
category allows research and development, industries, and offices in an
industrial and business park setting.
The proposed planned industrial cond~minium subdivision is zoned I-P and has
adequate access and the necessary community services. Also, the area is in
intransition of transforming into a major industrial and business park center
of the City of Temecula.
Since the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and land use
designation of the Southwest Area C~nmnunity Plan, and it is compatible with the
area development. Therefore, staff determines the proposed project to be
consistent with the policies within Riverside County Comprehensive General
Plan.
Env t rormnenta 1 Assessment:
The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 34157 indicated that the
site is subject to fault hazard and 'subsidence. Other environmental concerns
which may impact the site or be impacted by the project are: Stephens Kangaroo
Rat habitat, paleontol ogical resources, and 1 tghting on the Mr. Pal omar
Observatory. Nevertheless, al 1 environmental concerns wtl 1 be mitigated
through the conditions of approval. The archaeological report on file at the
Archaeological Research Unit at UCR was previously conducted for the underlined
Parcel Map No. 19626-1 and no cultural resources were found.
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant is proposing a planned industrial development with seven (7)
condomtntum parcels and one (1) camnon area parcel on 2.55 acres.
2. The site is vacant and has been graded. Surrounding iand uses consist of
Industrial developments, business parks, and vacant parcels.
TENTATZVE PARCEL MAP II0. 25037
AREMI)IED NO. 1
Staff Report
Page 3
The stte Is presently zoned z-p, and the surrounding zontng
R-A-20, and H-SC.
include I-P,
4. The Southwest Area Community Plan designates the site as Restricted Light
Industrial. .
Environmental concerns include fault hazard
Rat habitat, paleontological resources,
Observatory.
subsidence Stephens Kangaroo
and lighting on Ht. Palmar
6. The proposed project is consistent with
formulated by the City of Temecula.
3-14-90).
CONCLUSIONS:
the general plan that will be
(Added at Planning Canmission on
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the Southwest Area
Cemmuntty Plan and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with I-P zoning.
Environmental concerns will be mitigated through the conditions of
approval.
RECOI~ENDATIONS:
AIJOPTION of the Negative Declaration for'Environmental Assessment No. 34157,
based on the findings that the project wtll not have s significant effect on
the environment; and
APPROVAL of PARCEL ~ RO. 25037, NERI)ED NO. 1, subject to the conditions of
approval, based on the findings' and conclusions Incorporated In thts staff
report.
JC:gs:sc
PLANNING C(MqlSSION HEARING DATE: MARCH 14, 1990
~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037,/tlqEXDED NO. 1
e
The following conditions of approval are for a planned inaustrial
development with seven condomtnium style industrial parcel and one common
area parcel on 2.55 acres.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037, AMENDED NO. I and EXHIBIT A,
AMEMDED MO. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for
in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside
will promptly notify the subdivider of any such clatm, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the
defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any
such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold hamless the County of Riverside.
The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance
460, Schedule E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This
approved tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Board of
Supervisors approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Hap Act, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the overning body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shaV1 be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the County Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to
approval of the Road Cemmtsstoner.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for
nonexclusive public road and utility access. All easements, offers of
dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by
the Riverside County Surveyor.
TEIfFATZVE PARCEL RAP IN). 25037
AIRENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
09
19¸
2.
39
4.
59
7.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the
parcel map boundary to a County maintained road.
A11 de1 t nquent property taxes shal 1 be paid pri or to recordati o~ of the
final map.
Prior to any gradt_n9, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Untfom
0
Building Code~d~pter 7 , as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted
to the County Department of Building and Safety.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated ii-3Q-GGv 3-14-90, a
copy of which is attached.(Added at Planning Canmission 3-14-90).
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 12-15-89, 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
11-28-89, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within
an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of
Riverside County Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the
construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road
Commissioner prior to recordatton of the final map or waiver of parcel
map.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 12-5-B9, a copy of
which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Butldtni and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmtttal dated
12-12-B , a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations oUtlined in the
Building and Safety Department: Grading Sectt on's transmtttal dated
12-12-89, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
County Engineering Geologlsts's transmittal dated 3-1-90, a copy of which
i s attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recanmendations outlined in the San
Bernardtno County Huseum's transmtttal dated 8-24-89, a copy of which is
attached.
TEXTATZVE PARCEL MAP g0. 25037
NEX!)EI)N0. 1
CondftfQns oF Approval
Page 3
A paleontologist shall be'on site for the entire grading operation.
The paleontologist wtll be authorized to dtvert and direct grading
operations to facilitate the evaluation and, if necessary the salva e
of exposed fosstls. The project proponent wtll pay for the analys?s
of any fossil finds and subsequent report preparation and curatton.
The subdivider shall comply with the recanmendattons outlined in the U.S.
Postal Service's transmittal dated 8-23-89, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Southern California Edison Company's transmittal dated 8-18-89, a copy of
which is attached.
GRADING:
20..Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should
Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat
Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
21. Grading plans shall conform to the Hillside Development Standards as
presented in the Comprehensive General Plan. All cut and/or fill slopes,
or individual canbinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical
height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special
ratio e.g. ,
terracing (benching)plan, increased slope I 3X)) retaining
walls, and/or slope planting combined with trrigat on. driveways
shall not exceed a 15% grade.
DEVELOPRENT STANDARDS:
22. Prior to the issuance of buildin. pe~mtts, the applicant shall obtain
clearance and/or permits frm the folVowing agencies:
3e
Building & Safety
Road Department
Fire Department.
Env4Feemen(a) Hemilk
San Bernardtno County Museum
Riverside'County Flood Control
County Engineering Geologist
(Deleted at the Planntn
Commission on 3-14-I0).
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division
of the Department of Building and Safety.
shall not be than 15'. Also, a minimum of 10' setback may be
TENTATZVE PARCEL I~P nO. 25037
AI~ERDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
provided in lieu of 50' along the southerly property line and shall be
landscaped. The waiver of 40' of the required 50' setback is due to the
existing slope constraint adjacent to the property line. The rear setback
shall not be less than 7.5 feet. (Amended at the Planning Canmiss)on on
3-14-90)·
25.
Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the I-P zone.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in this subdivision in accordance
with the standards of Ordinance 461.
tl slveet ;49kt4n9 4s prepused te be 4nsta;;ed 4n this ebueivis4enm 4~
ska~l be 4Msta~;ed 4n aeee~danee with ike SlaRdavds el O~dinaRse 46& and
aT
Geeduvvenlly w4tk the ~4;4R9 ef SubdlvlSiee 4mpvevemeRt p~ans with the
Read Depavtueent, the deve~epev skal~ sevuFe appreval ef the prepused
street ;ayeel ~vem ~4vst the Geethere ga;4dewela Edisen G~pany and
,hem ~ke Red ~eap~(men~s (~a((ie engineer,
bT
;e-1;ev4ng appveva] ef the stvee.t ;4ght4ng ;ayeel by the Read
i)epavt~eent~s l~a~ie engineer, abe deve;~e~ ska~; a;ae ~4;e an
app~4eal4ee w4lk kAFGO fay the feemal4ee of a slyeel 14gh14ng
dislv4et~ ew annuMalien le an eMiat4ng ;4ght4ng dielv4etv
PPie~ te lhe veee~dat4ee e~ the final mapv tie deve;eFeP sha;; seeeve
eeed414eea; a ,eva~ ef tle el~ee~ ;4gkl4ng a p;4aat4ee ~AFGQ,
(Deleted at t~e Planning C.anmtsston on 3-14-90~. ~em
PRIOR TO RECORDATIOII OF THE FINAL nAP
g ·
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, Amended No. 1, or as amended by these
conditions.
In the event the use hereby pemt tted ceases opera~ton for a period of one
(1) year or more, this approval shall becane null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
dtrectly upon adjoining property or publtc rights-of-way, and shall canply
with Ordinance No. 655.
TENTATIVE PARCEL RAP NO. 25037
AMENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 5
30. Prto~the 4ss,ame, ef eJ,adJm9 e~ butldtng pemi~ ~seven C7) coptes of a
genus, spectes, and container stzed the plants sha}~ be sh~n.
shall met all requtr~ents of Ordinance No. 348, Sectton, 18.12, and
shall be accmpanted by a ftltng fee as set forth in Sectton 18.37 of
Ordinance No. 348. (~ended at the Planntng C~mdtsslon on 3-14-90).
31. tster tmprovemnt plans presented on Exhtbtt "A", ~nded. No. 1 shall be
coordinated with the master tmprovment plans for Parcel Hap 25037,
~nded. No. 1, on ftle wtth the Planntng Depar~nt. Said plans shall
tnclude the use of nattve spectmen trees and shrubs.
32. A mtntmum of 125 parktng spaces shall be provided tn accordance wtth
Sectton 18.12, RIverside County Ordinance No. 348. 130 parktng spaces
shall be provided as sh~ on the Approved Exhlbtt A, ~ended. No. ~. The
parktng area shall be surfaced wtth asphalttc concrete pavtng to a mintmum
depth of 3 Inches on 4 tnches of Class II base.
33. A mtnlmum of ftve (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each
parktng space reserved for the handicapped shall be 1dentSfled by a
s tee ,
pemanently afftxed reflectortzed stgn constructed of porcelain on 1
beaded text or equal, dt s~l ayt ng the %nternatt onal S~bol of
Accessibility. The stgn sha 1 not be smaller than 70 square tnches tn
area and shall be centered at the tntertor end of the parking space at a
mtntmum hetght of 80 tnches frm the bottm of the stgn to the parling
space ftntshed grade, or centered at a mtntmum hetght of 36 Inches frm
the parktrig space ftntshed grade, gr~nd, or sidewalk. A s~gn shall also
be posted ~n a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street
parktng facility, not less than 17 tnches by 22 tnches tn stze wJth
lettering not less than I tnch tn hetght, ~tch clearly and conspicuously
states the foilwing:
4e
"Unauthorized vehtcles not dJsplaytng distinguishing placards or
11cense plates tssued for ph stcally handicapped persons may be towed
away at owner's expense. ~owed vehtcles may-be reclaimed at ,
or by telephoning ·
Zn addttJon to the above requirements, the surface of each parktrig p~ace
shall have a surface Identification stgn duplicating the symbol of
accessibility tn blue patnt of at ~east 3 square feet tn stze.
Parktrig 3or landscaping shall tnclude a benned and landscaped setback frem
adjacent streets. An additional three percent (3%) of the parking area
shall be landscaped (exclusive of the setback) w~th a mtntmum of one (1)
spectmen tree per eight (8) parktng spaces.
TENTATZVE PARCEL RAP NO. 25037
AleENDED !10. 1
Cmdtttms of Approval
Page 6
;
51
6e
7e
Loading spaces shall be provtded in accordance wtth Sectton 18,13,
RIverside County Ordinance 348. .
Butldtng elevations and floor plans shall be tn substantial conromance
wtth that shown on Exhtbtts B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, and B-7.
Materials used tn the construction of a11 buildings
substantial confonnance wtth that shown on Exhlbtts M-1-1,
(Color Elevations) and Exhibit M-2 (Iqaterlals .Board).
fol 1 ows:
shal 1 be I n
M-1-2, M-1-3
These are as
Material color
iRoof Mtsston Ttle ~
Trtm Stone GuadelaJara
3) Wall Stucco Santa Fe
81
0.
18
44.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded frem ground vtew.
matertal shall be subject to Planntng Department approval.
Screening
Pv4ew te the
depaptmenh a s4K ~ee~ k4gh desePat4ve b~eek wall shall be seestrusted
a~eq§ the seutke~y pwepeFty 14Re where abuts the R-A-~O ,eRe, The
,equ4,ed wall skal~ be subS,at te the aFpPeval e~ the .D4veeteP e~ the
the Planntng Commission on
ieveM (3~Two (2) trash enclosures whtch ts adequate to enclose a total of
sever ~;~two (2) btns shall be distributed throughout the project, and
shall be constructed prt or to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts. Each
enclosure shall be stx feet tn hetght and shall be made wtth masonry block
and an opaque gate wtth a self-latchtng devtce whtch screens the btns fran
external vtew. (Amended at the Planntng Cmmtsston on 3-14-90).
Landscape screening shall be destgned to be opqque up to a mtntmum hetght
of stx (6) feet at maturity..
Landscaping shall be Installed prtor to the tssuance of occupancy pem~ts.
Trash btns, loadtng areas and Incidental storage areas shall be located
away and vtsually screened frm Industrial streets and-open space areas.
All street lights and other outdoor 1t httng shall be show. on electrical
d the Oepartment of Bu~ldtng and Safety for plan check
plans submttte to
approval and shall comply with the requirements of .RIverside County
Ordinance No. 655 and the RIverside County Canprehenstve General Plan.
TENTATIVE PARCEL RAP NO. 25037
AMENDED NO. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 7
45.
t nyl~~ a ~t~tn' a Subsidence Report Zone:/ Prior to
Thts project s loc ted'
issuance of a butldtn~g'~perm4t--by. the-RIverside County Department of
Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall
certify that the intended structure or building is safe and stru6turally
integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited
to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions.
Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist,
appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated.
69
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall prepare and
submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of
Riverside demonstrating compliance with all conditions of approval and
mitt art measures
3415V. on of Parcel Map No. 25037, Amended. No. I and E.A.
47.
Prior to the/+s uance of grading parfaits, the applicant shall comply with
drdinance No.~by/paythg the fe equtred by that ordinance which is
h
based on t e gross acreage ot the parcels proposed for development.
Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat
Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required b Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under t~e Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
48. Five Class I bicycle lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided
in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
4g. All utilities except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be
installed underground.
50.
One center-identification monument sign, in accordance with Ordinance 348,
shall be allowed for the industrial area. Other signage shall be allowed
in conformonce with Ordinance 348. No billboards shall be permitted for
the industrial area.
51. Prior to the recordatton of the Final Nap, the following conditions shall
be complied with:
PP4ee, lethe peeewdal4en e4r lhe f4nal map, The swbd4v4deP sh~l~
pPev4de aM apehaee.Tqiea~ vepeP~ ~eP P~ann4ng DepaF4nnen~ oFFFever,
The PeFe4,l eha~ be peF;e~ned by · qwa~4~4ed aFehaee;eg4si ws4ng
S~andaFd 6e4en~i~4e melkede~egy, Any mi~4ga~4en meaawves pvepesed
ska~ be 4nee4,Fewaled 4hie tke des4gn e~ lke f4na~ map as d4Feeied by
~he Plann4ng PepaF4ment, (Deleted at the Planning Canmission on
3-14-90).
TENTATIVE PARCEL RAP NO. 25037
AIRENDED ND. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 8
be
Prtor to recordatton of the ftnal subdivision map, the applicant shall
submtt to the Department the following documents which shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that the total
project wtll be developed and maintained in accordance with the tntent
and purposes of the approval:
a. The document to convey tttle
b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded
c. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered Into wtth the
owners of the project
The approved documents shall be recorded at the same time that the
subdivision map is recorded.
A property owner's association with the unqualified right to assess
the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs
shall be established and continuously maintained. The association
shall have the right to lien the property, of the owners who default
in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be
subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust
provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is
of record prior to the lien of the association.
EIIVIROtIENTAL CONSTRAINt SHEET COleITIONS
52. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be transmitted
to the Planntng Oepartment for review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET COMD ITIONS:
53.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be
permanently filed with the Office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the
recordation of the final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to
the Planning Oepartment for review and approval. The approved ECS shall
be forwarded with copies of the recorded ftnal. map to the Planntng
Department and the Oepartment of Butldtng and Safety. The following
note(s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet.
"County Geological Report No. 681 was prepared for this property on
February 16, 1990 by Sotl Tech and is on file at the Riverside County
Planntng Department."
"This property is located with thirty (30) miles of Mount Palmar
Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the
observatory. Outdoor ltghttng shall be fran low pressure sodium lamps
TENTATTVE PARCEL RAP NO. 25037
N4ENDED M0. 1
Conditions of Approval
Page 9
54.
that are oftented and shtelded to prevent direct Illumination above
the horizontal plane passtng through the lumtnare."
The following note shall be placed on the final map: "ConStraints
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the
Riverside County Surveyor."
Prior to any use allowed by this Plot Plan, the applicant shall obtain
clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section
that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with
Ordinance No. 348.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy
or any use allowed by this permit.
OC:gs:sc
2/06/90
0
W~A.p.'" ' -C
J.L ,
o ~ :I~
/\
t
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
March 14, 1990
ROAD COHINISSIONtR · ~ ~RVt'Y~
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
RIverside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
COUNTY A/:)MD~ISTRATIV~E CLNTT. R
MAIUNG
P.O. BOX
IUVFalRIX. CAUIDRN~A
(714) 275-6740
RE: PM 25037 - Amend tl
Exhibit A
Schedule E - Team 5 - SMD 19
AP t111-111-111-9
*As amended at P.C. 3-14-90
With respect to the conditions of approval for the
referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department
recommends that the landdivider provide the following street
improvements, street improvement plans and/or road dedications in
accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road
Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the
tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations,
all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may
require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration.
These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts
and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though
occurring in a11. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement.
All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall
be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from
damages caused by alte~ation of the drainage patterns,
I.e., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection
shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage
facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/
or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage
easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as
followsz "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions,
or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The
protection shall be as approved by the' Road Department·
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of
offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the
event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for
drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed
the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for
drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate
drainage facilities as Qpproved by the Road Department·
COUNT!' ADNfi~ILSTRAT!~ CENTLIt, 4080 LENON STREET · il/VDtSIDE, CALffO~J~!A 92~Ot
PM 25037 - Amend #1 - Exhibit A
NevembeF-aert989- March 14, 1990
Page 2
Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road D{partment.
Kathleen Way shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 111.
(28'/39')
Zmprovement plans shall be based upon a centerline p~oftZe
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road
Improvements does not Imply acceptance for maintenance by
County.
The developer/owner shall submit a detailed soils Investi-
gation report addressing the construction requirements
within the road right of way.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less
than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt
surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per
square yard· Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37,
39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho
California Water District prior to the recordatlon of the
final map.
The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline
radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of
Ordinance 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Camtno Real
in accordance with Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalks)·
11.
The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient
public offsite rights of way to provide for primary/
secondary access road(s) to a paved and maintained road.
Said access road(s) shall be constructed in accordance with
County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60') at a grade
and alignment approved,by the Road Commissioner.
12. Prior to the recordatton of the final map, the develop&r
shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a
cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic
---) signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the
time of payment, a written agreement may be entered into
with the County deferring said payment to the time of
issuance of a building permit.
PH 25037 - Amend #l -Exhtbtt A
NevembeP-a8,-tg89- Hatch 14, ~990
Page 3
4e
5.
6e
17.
8.
9.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
;
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the
streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance
control and slope easements as approved by the Road
Department.
The street design and improvement concept of this pkoject
shall be coordinated with PM 23968.
All private and public entrances and/or intersections
opposite this project shall be coordinated with this
project and shown on the street improvement plans.
A striping plan is required for Xathleen Way. The removal
of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of
applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by
County forces with all incurred costs borne by the
applicant.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Department standards and require approval
by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape
plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict only
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit
district, the applican~ shall prior to recordation make
application for and pay for their reapportionment of the
assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district
unless said fees are deferred to building permit.
The applicant shall provide CC & R's to insure.access to
all parcels.
PH ~5037 - Amend #1 -Exhtbtt A
Nevembev-a9~-t989 Hatch 14, 1990
Page 4
*21.
ga: jw
Street lighting shall be required in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The
County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether
this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment
district or not. If not, the land owner shall file, after
receiving tentative approval, for an application with LAFCO
for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment
District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section
56000. ·
*As amended at P.C. 3-14-90
**
~(:C' 19 '89 1~:16 MARKHAM ~ ASSOCIAT~SxRIVEZRSI!:(
COUNTY OF RIVE RSI DE
DEPARTMENT
~ecember 16. 1969
HIVIRSIDI COUNTY PLANNINO DEPT,
4000 Lemon Street
Riverlids, CA 93502
ATTNI John Chiu
lie&kill lilYill
lh'."J,,.
II,.VINi. CA III15
eevlq;Ot. Ca ellis
Illlilt
lit lO4lld I?Alf
~lll, Ca Illel
miss
kill fallgill
°il. ld IIIINI , {:& I tO
lfi'".?.,- 'o' o,..o,
lellee~l, CA
,",",,'.%"/,.
!qls PAlqCiCL MAP 36037t Portion st Percol I of PM 19626-1
CO Lots)
Gentlemini
The Department or Public Hoelib has reviewed TenfillY, Kip
No. 35037 &nd recommends thstl
A water system ,h, LL be instilled according to
p/&n, ,nd e;)ectfication ,s ,;)proved by the v&ter
company and the HesLth Department, Permanen~
~rinte or the pl,ne or the water system shell
be submitted in triRlickte, with · minimum ,cole
not less than one inch equals 200 test, along with
the ori~ln&l drawing to the County Surveyor,
The ;)rants shell Ihow the internal Ripe diameter,
lociteen o~ viiyes and tire hydrantsl ;)ipe and
Aoint specifications, and the size of the main
st the .~unction or the new system to the
existing system. The glens shall comply in all
respects with Day. 6, Part 1, Chester ? o~ the
Callremit Health and Solely Code, Csllfornie
Administrative Code. Tills ~3, ChaRter 16, and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Coat,zion or the
Irate of C, lifornie. when &;)pLtckblo. The Plknl lhell
be eL;ned by'a rlqiltlred eneinelr and water company
with the teLLoving certification: "Z certl/Y thit the
design o[ the water system in PareeL Nap ~5037 le
accordance with the water system ex;)enston plans ot
the ~ancho C<tornia Water District and that
the water service. stories and distribution system
viII be adequate to ;)roY/de water service to such tract
map.
H[C 19 '89 13:i7 "~ARKFI11 & ASSOCIRT[S/RIVERSID~
P,3
~lveretde County PAinnini Deer.
Piqo Tvo
ATTN; John Chtu
December 16, 1989
This certificition does not constitute s Quirtnags
thit it viii supply viter to such trlct mip kt Iny
s~eclflc quirttitles, fl~vs or pros.urea for fire
protection or lny other purpose". This certification
shill be signed by i responsible offtrial of the vk~er
rompshy,
~.cegums~_~o~....th, recQ£dl~IQO_Q[_~bt_[iOli_llQ,
~his Depirtment his i stilemeAt trom Sancho Cilifornil Witmr
District igreetn~ to serve domestic viter to eich end every
lot in the subdivision on demsnd providing s&tllf&ctory
f/nincill &fringemenlo &re completed wlth the subdivider.
Zt will be necessity for finincl&l arrangements to be mide
prior to the recordirish of the final map.
This Depsrtment his I stilemint from the Eistern MuniciDkl
Water District luremini to Illov the subdivision sew&go
system to be connected to the severe of the District. The
sewer eyetom shill be instilled according to pleas
specifications le ·pproved by the District, the County
Surveyor ind the Heilth Dipstamina. Perminent prints of the
plans of the sewer system snail be submitted in triplittle,
ilonQ with the original driving, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shill show the antemil pipe diimoter, locilion
minholes, complete profiles, pipe Ind ~otnt speciticitionl
ind the size st the severs it the dunelion of the new system
to the existing system. A single past tndiciting location
of sewer lines ind water lines shill be s portion or the
sewage pl·ns Ind profiles.
The plans until be signed by · registered engineer ·rid the
sewer district with the following cer~lficstion: "! certify
thit the design of the sewer lyetom in Pitcol Nip 2503?
in iccordince with the sewer system expiation pitAs of the
Itstern MUniclpil Witor District ind that the waste dlipos&/
system to ldequite &t this time to treat the anticSpited
viitee from the proposed trict map,"
tuh LLed..La_Lhe...CountY,gg£XlXe
~Vq..yteSl,i£ie£_lg_~ht~£t~Utlh,~mC-.~bt-£t;~Lil~kgU-aL-hUt
.. :.
[6,: 19 'e9 12:17 rIRRK~ & RSSOCIRTES/RIVER~ID~:
P&ae Three
ATTN~ John ChSu
December 15, zeee
l~ will be neeeslkry for tin&ncZll &rr&naemen~s to be
comDle~ely [lnsltsed prior to record&L~on of ~hs f~nkl
SLncerely,
8 t, ronment,&Z He&l',h Spec/&l/et, XV
Environment.&1 He&Zt, h BeryLcoo
KENNETH L EDWARDS
CHIEF IN(~INIER
1995 MARKET SI"REET
P.O. BOX 1023
T[L.EPHONE~ (?$a) 787-2015
FAX NO. (714) 788'9965
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
lINERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 9280~
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Planner~,Ay
Area:
Re:
We have reviewed thts case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project ts considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area conststs of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses 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 tn 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
]8 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the tL//~ //:77~Q,e/lF~//~ ~uz,fi~a~enf,~. Area
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 Distrtct's report dated
is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of /°H/~-~,'/' The project will be
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~ave been constructe~ in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours
OOH" ". KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
DATE: '~/c~. o~//
PLANNING ~ ENGINEERIN~
46-209 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342*8886
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTHENT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT 0 6
IN COOPERATION WITH TH~~
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION .
GLEN J. NEW~
FIRE CH!~' ~ ,
12-S-8~ "~"
DE C 7~ ~NNING ~ ENGINEERING
37~ IITH ~REET
ATTN: JOHN CHIU
PM 25037 ANENDED I1 - REVISED LETTER
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced
parcel map, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure
established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPH
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,
e
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6"x4"x2½x2i), 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.
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 ~ith the following certification:
"I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
5. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
6. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-IOBC.
Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Prior to issuance of building p~rmits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $~13.00 to
the Riverside County Pire Dspartment for plan check fees.
Subject: Parcel Hap 25037 Page 2
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shell deposit
with the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling
the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire pr~tection impacts.
This amount m~st be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a
fire flow of 1500 GPH 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.
10.
Instsll a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
11. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the
Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYNOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Hichael E. Gray,
Deputy Fire Department Planner
ama
:
December 12, 1989
Administrative Center, 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA~92507
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: John Chiu
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Parcel Hap 25037, Amended #1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
Where no specific uses for proposed structures are indicated,
Building and Safety may require additional Planning Department
approvals.
If the proposed project is to be "phased," an approved exhibit
indicating which structures and on-site improvements are
required for each "phase" should be required.
An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site
signage will be required.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, written clearance
is required from the following:
° Temecula Valley Unified School District
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
conform with an approved fl-oor plan indicating the maximum
number of tenants allowed. Each space shall be labeled with'
a number or a letter.
If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department
the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division
concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review.
Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety
review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning
Department must be attached.
Administration (7141 682-8840 · (71 41 787-2020
Planning Department
PM 25037
December 12, 1989
Page 2
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
provide the Land Use Division with evidence of recordation
of a Certificate of Parcel Merger.
Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must
be in conformance with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B,
per Ordinance 655.
may be required. Consult your Conditions of Approval. -" ~..
Very truly yours,
Rober~inares ~
Senior Land Use Technician
/sn
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DKP~
GRADING SECTION
TO: JOHN CHUI PLANNING
FRO~: TONY HARNON
DATE: 12/12/89
RE: P.N. 25037 AND, 1
The information provided on this pro~ect did
conceptual SeadinS plan. However, sufficient
supplied for us to recommend approval with
conditions.
not include a
information was
the ~ollowing
Prior to commencing any SeadinS in excess of 59 cubic yards,
the applicant shall obtain a Seeding permit and approval
to construct from the Building and Safety-department.
Prior to issuance of any buildinS permit, the property owner
shall obtain a SeadinS permit and approval to construct from
the BuildinS and Safety Department.
Plant and irrigate fill slopes Seeater than or equal to ~'
and/or cut elopes ~reater than or equal to 5' in vertical
height with Seass or Seound cover. Slopes that exceed 15° in
vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or tree8
per count ordinance 457, see form 284-47.
Grading in excess
performance security
Safety department.
of 199 cubic yards will require
to be posted with the Building and
In instances where a BradinS plan involves import or export,
prior to obtaininS a ~radinS permit, the applicant shall
have obtained approval for the import/export location from
the Building and Safety department- this my require a
written clearance from the PlanninS Department.
NOTE: For the final Seadins plan, please provide the applicable
information from Building and Safety Department grading forms:
284-120, 284-21, 284-86, and 284-46. Thank you.
:iiVE:DiDE counc
t nnin DEi A:I "InEnC
March 1, 1990
Soil Tech, Inc.
41607 Enterprise Circle North
P.O. Box 1568
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention:
David L. Jones
Michael K. Mason
John T. Reinhart
Anthony B. Brown
SUBJECT:
Seismic/Geologic Hazard
Project No.z 3074-P-89
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25037
A.P.N.: 940-310-026
County Geologic Report No. 681
Rancho California Area
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the seismic/geologic aspects of your reports
relative to the Willard fault on this site. These reports are
entitled 1) "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Parcel 22 of
Parcel Map 18254," dated May 1, 19891 2) Geotechnical
Testing/Grading Report, Parcels I through 3 of Parcel Map 19626-
1, Parcel I of Parcel H~p 19626-2, dated A~ril 12, 19891
Geotechnical Testing/Grading Report, Parcel Map 19626-2, dated
October 2, 19891 and your response to County review dated February
16, 1990.
Your reports determined that=
There are no active faults related to the Willard fault on the
subject site.
2. There is no significant hazard of surface fault rupture on the
subject site.
No mitigation measures relative to surface'fault rupture were made
in your report. ~
4080 LEMON STREET, gTH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. SUITE E
BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-.8277
Soil Tech, Inc.
Narch 6, 1990
Page -2-
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent
manner and satisfies the additional information requested under the
California Environmental Quality &ct review and the Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval of the report
is hereby given. '
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DE ARTMENT
Joseph A. Rlchar~ning irector
SAK: bam
c.c. Markham & Assoc. - Anthony Polo
Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2)
Planning Team 5 - John Chiu
iVE >EDE COUntY
, .. -.. PLAnnine DEPArtmEnt
T0: Assessor ~Jsstoner Dave Tu~er
Butldtng and Safety - Land Use Te~cu]~ ChaSer of Coerce
Building and ~fety - Grading UCR - Archaeological Unit
Surveyor - Ken Tetch ATTN: Dan McCathy
Road Depar~nt ; San Bernardino County Museum
Health - Ralph Luchs A~N: Bob Reynolds
Flood Control District
Ftsh & Ga~
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Da ~UG ~ ~ '1~ .
u.S. Fish & Wildlife ~rvtces
County Superintendent of $ch~l s
Rancho Ca 1 i forni a Water PLA~Ir~;~O
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Temecula Union School District
Lake Elsinore Unified School District PARCEL ~ 25037 - (Tin-5) - E.A. 34157 -
~untatnvtw Assoc. ~d Preferred,
Equities & Sunergy Dev. - Harkham &
Assoc. - Temecu 1 a Area - Ftrst
f
Supervtsortal District - S o Rancho
California Rd., W of Kathleen Way - I-P
Zone - 2.55 Acres - Schedule E- No
Waiver - RELATED: PH 23968 - REQUEST
Planned Industrial Development (T
condominium style industrial bldgs. ) -
Nod 119 - A.P. ~J40-310-026
Please review the case described above. along with
Division Conmntttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled
clears, it will then go to public hearing.
the attached case map. A Land
for August '31, 1989. If it
Your coments and recommendations are requested prior to August 31, 1989 tn order that we
may tnclude them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questl0ns regarding t~ls item, please do not hesitate to contact
John Chtu at 787-1363.
Planner
COft(ENTS:
The site 16 located on the fosslllferous Pauba Formation. ConstructiOn excavation w111
result In impacts to nonrenewable vertebrate fossils.
The applicant must employ 8 qualified' vertebrate paleontoXoglst to develop a p. lan of
mitigation which should Include but not be limited to (1) monitoring and salvage during
excavation; (2) preparation of specimens, including processing of adequate samples of
sediments for recovery of microvertebrate fossils; (3) Identification of specimens and
repository ~ a report of findings, including
curation Into an appropriate museum ~~~
an itemized inventory of recovered pecimens.
qATE: 6/2,/89 SIeNATURE ~~~ D '
PLEASE print name and title an . Grie , Director
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342'8277
13:45 MARKHAM & ASSOC
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM
2024 O,ange Tree Lane · RedlMdl, CA 92374 · (714) 798-8670 · 422-1610
September 11, 1990
P.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDtNO
GENERAL SERVICES AQENCY
Markham and Associates
4 1750 Winchester Road. Suite N
Temecula, CA 92390
re: PM 5.037, PALEONTOLOGIC MITIGATION CONDITIONS
We are in receipt of additional information rqprding the proposed development of the above-
referenced parcel. This data indicates that rough ~rading has been completed and that
conditions regarding paleontoloF~c mitigation w~e satisfied at that time.
No recommendations for further paleontologic mitigation relative to fate grading or subsequent
construction on the parcel are offered.
Sincerely,
Dr. Allan D. Griesemer
Museums Direaor
Sout/~ern Ca//Forn/a Lrdison Company
P. O. BOX 410
100 LONG IrAell BOUL[VARO
LONG BE~AC:N. CALIFORNIA 00801
W(ITI:IIN RIGION
LAND les~vecz s DIVII, ION
pI!OleEIITl[I ANT} ADIdlINIITIIA'rlV(
1113) 4et-sl41
FAX 13~131 all-titS
Riverside County
Road Department
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
Attention: Subdivision Section
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25037
August 18, 1989
Please be advised that the division of the property shown on
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25037 will not unreasonably interfere
with the free and'c0mplet~'exerCise of any easement(s) held by
Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said
tentative parcel map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the
Company's rights, title and interest in and to said easement(s),
nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the
provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for
relocation of any affected facilities.
In the event that the development requires relocation of facil-
ities, on the subject property, which facilities exist by right
of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested
to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with
suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights
are required prior to the pe[formance of the relocation.
If additional information is required in connection with
the above mentioned subject, please call Dennis Bazant at
(213) 491-2644.
Very truly yours,
S. R. SHERMOEN
Z,iona-.. ~~
~r~'P~A~gjnt
N P ~ i
19956(7)pmh
cc: Riverside County Planning Dept., Attn: John Chiu
Markham & Associates
:IiVER)iDE COUnff
--PLAnnine DEPA:KmEnC
INVIRONMENTAL AIIEIIMENT FORM: ITANDARD IVALUATION
ENVIRONMINTAL ~NT (I,A,,) IlllllR: 34157 MODUI/
PROJICT CAll TYP!(I) AND ~l): Parr,.,1 Nap !'.h,-, 25037
~ i: PrPfprrpfi FqJli f. tP~ And ~mmnPrO/IJ/
I~ CW ImEIm-14:)N(m) ImREIm~IN0 ~ John Chi,
L PlliOJICT tilIORMATION
A,
119
IXc, iCRtmTiONgnekem~nmd~lmmtsewNlumemMNmtk:W~) Planned industrial
development with 7 condominum parc~l~ ~nd nn~ pnnm~n ar)) parcel.
l. TOTAl. ImlROJECT AREA: ACRES 2.55
C. A,I, SEIIOR$ IMRCEL NO4m): 940-310-026-3
;eBQUAREFEET
D. ~ ZONING:
PROPOSED ZI;)NING:
ITREET REFERENCES:
T-P t TI~ PRI:)PC)~L IN I:X:~ORI~? Yes
NJA t ll4E PRO/%tV~ IN C~C~MA~t "
Southerly of Rancho California Road, Westerly Of Kathleen W~y
~ IICTION, TO~P, RANGE DEICRIPTION OR ATTACH A lEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 11
T8S, R3W
The site is currently vacant and has been qraded under Parcel Map No 2396R.
Anmnended No. 1. Surrounding 1add uses include industrial, business parks.and
vacant Darcel ~,
IL BNVIIONMENTAJ,. HAZARD1 AND REBOURCll Allill. MINT
1-y ~-PddoleecimmlNemmorMFmu~ li._U, AkpceNoim(l~e. Lll, S, L1L11
HMard Zoom ~ V1.1) NCXJZ fiepod, M.A,F,B.)
u eqeo
(NA) PI n (&NAV~'IBA&li~4 C D 0re, V 1.11)
~ LJci~efi-k~nPme~tJeJ~arjO. Vl.1) l~,,g_ RknrOOdN0iooOrIO. VLlS-Vt.16)
NA $ (PB) U : Oqe. vl,4) (HA) A · C D Or~ m.11)
~ Ofou~dehekb~gZafm(IrlOVL1) Zone 2 14. N leghwuyNmmtlriO. Vl.l?-VLi9)
4y' uA · (Ps) u eqe. vLs) (Kk) A · C D
N
8eeee(n~.Cc~eOOi:eoSmpeMeps) gentle 1L__
I,B_ Id~etikZomOmv. CkkeOOkWe (HA) A · .C D Or~ VLll)
(leA) · P8 U M
IN__ Redden Haard(Qn-mMk, mpmcion)
bess ks ~)
iN__ WhdEmmk~&·lsssd(W~VL1,
~ N Dem~Ame(Iri~VLfi
11,.N,, Flledllki~VLfi
(M U R
ll.,JL. PrmdectQsnm.'&tmdNoimeNmece~
Iki01m~k~rig. Vl.11)
17._U_ No~~lkKdect(rq;.Vl.11)
wmw Oamy wneecu From
Im~Benm~mVwmammGummy
H~ Mines mm Wemm
I:-,-iodmFbeAm(F~Vl,lO-Vt31)
Ommu~ubstdence Zone
MerNeefmmA~.r,M-~.'mmm~
REBOUIIm
WammFII. Vi~*g?) K-ra~ mitigation
~leelke~~-~fee area
~.80~tmnmdRmm:~,ill~Ldl-Vl~
~ OmhmMtro. Palomar l toht n~
Definltk~ for ~ Ueo lultablgty and Noise Aooeptabalty bungs
IM - NmAmmmmm~ · · (ImmalyW II -
U-OennayUmunl~ R-Ikaotamd
l-CbedamdvAmeab~ C:-Oenn~Unemm, el D-LandUND4Koum~
$
W.
1. {)elNIMM:IAND~2NI!3qVATIONMNmDIIKINATION(my. Not designated as ol)en
~, LJIJI~DIJ~E~AiRrr)~ (:;nufhwp~,f Tnrrtfnry
space
& (X:)iANMI'YlmtN~IrANy: Southwest Area
& iX)~&f, jNffyi~Olla(iNAII(X~XImN~: Restricted Light Industrial ·
{RLI)
/. It~yOFimOtj~N~FiC/ffilm~Restricted Light Industrail allows
research and development industries, and offices,in an industrail or business
park settinq. Additional landscapina and buffer tr~afm~nf m~yhp r~jired fn
create the desired industrial park enviroment.
l. Iroralm. lnk:lcateMtham(Y)ornoP, I) whethefanyPubactacmUesend/oreeedces iekes my~gnr~=nWa~m~
· erbeeffecle, dbythe),..pQmmt. AJfrmfm.'eNmdllOvmkeooelalnedlnlheC. oeXxerm, ra.k, eQ, erkemJPian. Foranyluae
FUIUC FAClLITlll AND IIRVIC!8
1.=.Y_ (~rcUaam(W~g. lV. IW.11. Dioaeln IO..B_
kVlamef~Pvwmd&~i)
lie Tmlb ire. IV.1I - W.1.1)
Fife levion (Pie. w. ll · w. ll)
Ihsd~ lsrvis II~ IV.l? · Iv. tl)
leook IF~ IV.l? - IV. II)
k M (Re. w.l? - Iv. ll)
· s N
11J_
· ~m-m it ~ 1tile F~ N.1I · N241
Iiv.~(LlOOImmmr~m_~TmlMm~)
glkm Or~ W21 · N26)
~ (IqB. tll, I · 1.11.4,
ElM · I.l&l O l W.t'/· IV.,le)
I)i:eeler~
Caylphemef~Temecula
I- llesdon ltil kill lkey, klhe i~;=li'omdllnl wllh lM~Imllslgnliom oll~e sOIm}pdm momsm.
D. ldwpeetelhPmNctnlmk'mnotDemignmmeMOpmnlpm~'.mm~flmnollnm~~,.~ua
~l.l,&tendT. CemIamT_TmeaM4, l. lendTlllmlnar,,mmnmm~lmmmn.
1. Lmnd m mime) m:mmv~ I~ ~ Ibm r~;=mmd I~ i InQmmm mmn~ m IV~m
e~ mm~ ~,,~. m.,~m~ el~) Category 2- Industrial
Cgn~mlmnd m m~)b N mam immmdmem~~
e~Ydmi'~emwnn~elr,) Catego~ 2- Industrail
I D.1 mann mereram D.,t. wl the ~ bm mmmi, ed at the ~
4. ~ ~ dem~,mrden(m): Restricted Light Industrail
S. Im N peap:~mmcf Imeolect eenmatmt t the immic~ end dem~nmU~ ef ~ r.,oevnuney 14an?
Ifmm&.emkmn:
0. Im the p,4:l:gmm' omm4alaNe wee exlmenO end p~Qpommd mmfn:u'mml'mO land
Ime&, empmin: Yes
7. lend an this Inlee/muey. l the I~CE~" oofe~erd dh Im Coneram Oeerad Plea?
I eel. mlemee by lecemifdleeaNuneerlenbesmlde ~JS,eh~'altmalN: Yes
l.. ~em~m~heimm~e~mi~m~m~p~:~mmd~am4~mwd~~g~m`~mthm~k~:
1. Ilmlelaelgndm~ . ,.
· & Imhmemmmmd~wmhthidmmaemeemSQifmmm&emmmkc
& lemed en gem Inlmf mlu~. Im h ~a~ov' wm% m ,ml mmlh N C~,..$..V'e.m~ Oeeeeml Iralima?
I mirare&. ~ by lemamm end m Nueeew h:me U Idmm'Q~,k(m k,w,~,mnm'Umo'mm'
f
IIC'rION/
IIIUI NO.
3B-.1
3B-34
3B-35
IIFORMATION 'OURCII, IqNDINGt OF FAC~.._AND MITIGATION .MF,.AIURE8
ADDITIONAL NeORMATION RE{~RIm2,D BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE~,~,qENT CAN BE COMFq_rTED:
· ORMATON
RIOUIRED MC2U~STED
Geologtc Report 9-28-89
Anchaeoloaical Report 9-2R-Rq
Paleentological Report 9-28-89
DATE ADEOUACY
INIFORMATION I~,,L- t&S~ON
RECEIVED ~,DAT[1
I. FOr each issue marked y~ (Y) urgler ~ect~qm IILB ~ NJ, ~n~ ~ ~t~ ~ ~ humor ~d ~ ~
~~, ~ ~ t~t u ~ ~:
3. 8~te ~ m~t~ ~s~, H ~ntff~M ~ ~ui~O ~ ~v~~l ~ m~ (E.LR.)
~ ~ m~l ~ Ire ~ ~ repute ~M ~, ~k ~ ~= mt N ~ of ~ ~ mn~ ~ch
~ nlEIIIt~ M~. ..
lEe'lION/
1~51J~NO. 6OURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, M~IGATION MEASURES:
3B-H3 Earthquake h~zard will be mitigated at the development staqe and in
accordance with mitigattnn mPR~lirp~ rnnf~q tn CO,,nty Seelogic Report No.
3B-4 Slope has been graded in accordance with proper enqineerina design.
3B-24 Subsidence ha?ardq w~ll ha m{ftg~ted ~t the devglc~ment ctm,gO and in
4B-28
3B-35
accordance with the reconmnendattons contains in the County GpnlnOtral
RePort Nn_ KR1
Impacts on K-Rat will be mitigated thrnml~h p~,ympnt nf fee~
Impacts on paleontologtcal resources will be mitigated at the development
ill.
"staqe and accordanr-e with the ~an Rnrnarrll nn Primrarity Mmm~pmmm r. rnnmlindatiOnE.
V. INFORMATION IOUR~EI. FINDINGI
llGqlON/
INNO.
3B-36
4B-1
4B-5
6,13,15
4B-16
3B-34
IOURC!I, AGEG0 I~)iI~JI,IIC), ~ OF PACT, MITIOATION MEASURES:
Impacts on the Mtro Paloeer Lighting will be mitig~f~, thrnU[}~
655.
Traffic impacts will be mitigated in accordanc~ '-'~*h the
Road Department. Conditions of approval.
Impacts on fire , sheriff. health an~ d4.~c+er
will h. m4f(0at-d thro~v3h cenditten3 of app, uv=l and Tot payment ot tees.
The City Of Temecula will h~w ~. o4~pertgni~ ta r~vi~. Lh~ p, uJ~uL
print tO the i~Mr~noe of the Dutldi,,v I~n. lc.
Anchaeoloaical ~pnPf nn ~(10 ~t the ' ' Anchaeoloqi ca1Reasearch Unit
at U.C.R was previously conducted for t~e underlined PHI 9626-1 and
no cultural resources were found.
lie minemot mine met lureram · dgnlkam ellme on the ;m~k~,-~,ent'end · lageve DeeWmNm. we tm
OmenmS
line) '
JClxlle Imimm add lave a mienarrant afire on me m~d~,w~ to~-&._r, gum mdi nora me a reignmold
i)m Immlm=l mm~ lmmm · ~ mama m ms ,m~..~m 4 mini m Intk~.,msW Imlmm Mintre'
R I VERS I DE COUNTY PLANN I NG~ DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTZCE OF DETERMZNATION
Case No.
EA No.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Based on the Initial Study, tt has been determined that the proposed project wtll not have a
significant environmental effect·
PROJECT DESCRIRTION AND;LOCATION: Eee a~f~zohed Zn(~a~ E~t~y
Roger S. Streeter, Planntng Dtrector
COMPLETED
Case No.(Mod)/y~/~-/~T/~./~f/c///5;·) Land Div Sch
Developabl Lots ?/~--.D~/.~Dev. Ac
Appl/rep~ ~D x~]/~/~/~~,~ e
~t, Su,mltte~ ~- 3 --~ Open Space Lots ,,( l~O.Sp. Ac
Existing Zones ~-p
Changes of Proposed
Zones Only Zoning
Acreage
ADOPTED
O Board of Supervisors Person verifying adoption
B Planning C~ismion
O Area Planning Council Date J~/ /~/
O~ning Director
O (Other)
HEARING BODY OR OFFICER
[3 Board of Supervisors
D Planning Commission
C3 Area Planning Council
rl~ning Director
I'1 (Other)
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
ACTION ON PROJECT
D Approval
rl Disapproval
Date
Developable Lots
Changes of Approved
Zones Only Zones
Acreage
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration
has been adopted and may be examined at the. Planning Department at the address below·
Person verifying action Title ,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
Dev. Ac Open Space Lots O.Sp. Ac
let White Or~2inal - County Cle~k
2nd Canary- Case F~Io
Z)x~l P~nk - Schedul~n~
i-)l (Rew. 10/83)
J COUNTY STAMP
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP / TRACT NO. 25037
DATE 12/10/90
IMPROVRMRNTB"
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SEC1JRITY
MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY
Streets
Water
~ewer
IOTAI,
924.00
$
$
$
$
5023.00
1200.00
10,787.40
10,372.50
,Maintenance Retention (10% for one year)
*(or Bonds if work is completed)
Monument Security $
Inspection Fee: (Offsite Improvements)
Fee paid to date (Credit)
Inspection Fee Due
Monument Inspection Fee
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
Total Inspection Fees Due
RCFC Drainage Fee Due
Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD ~
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
SCHOOL DISTRICT FEES
FIRE MITIGATION FEE
46.00
ITEM NO. 9
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER ~'~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Engineering Department
December 18, 1990
Final Vesting Tract Map No. 23583
PREPARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewart
R ECOMMEN DAT I ON:
That the City Council approve Final Vesting Tract Map No.
23583, Amended No. 1, subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Vesting Tract No. 23583 was originally submitted to Riverside
County Planning Department on March 15, 1988. The Tentative
Tract Map Amended No. 1 was approved by the County Planning
Commission on June 22, 1988 and by the Board of Supervisors on
October 11, 1988.
Vesting Tract Map No. 23583 contains 23 residential lots within 26.9 acres. The tract
is located southerly of Santa Gertrudis, northerly of Via Norte and easterly of Valle
Olvera. This tract is to be part of the Meadowview Homeowners Association and is
part of Variance No. 1518.The developer is Bedford Properties. The following fees
have been paid for Vesting Tract Map No. 23583:
Signal Mitigation Fee (Deferred to Buildin9 Permit)
Area Drainage Fee (Deferred to Gradin9 Permit)
Public Library Development Fee
$ 3,450.00
44,364.00
2,300.00
This Tract Map is not part of a Specific Plan nor is it governed by a Development
Agreement. Requirement of Quimby fees ( Park and Recreation ) were not historically
Conditions of Approval by the County of Riverside until some time on or after June,
1988. A Condition of Approval requiring Quimby fees was not adopted as a Condition
of Approval.
STAFFRPT\FVT23583 1
The following bonds have been posted for Final Tract Map No. 23583:
Faithful
Performance
Street and Drainage
Water
Sewer
Survey Monuments
Traffic Signal
$ 725,500.00
212,000.00
96,000.00
$ 15,312.00
3,450.00
Labor and
Material
$ 362,750.00
106,000.00
48,000.00
FISCALIMPACT:
SUMMARY:
GH:ks
Attachments:
Not Determined.
Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final
Vesting Tract Map No. 23583 subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
1. Development Checklist
2. Location Map
3. Copy of Map
4. Conditions of Approval
5. Fees & Securities Report
STAFFRPT\ FVT2 3 5 8 3 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Final Vesting Tract Map No. 23583
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
Condition No. 13
(Road and Survey)
Condition No. 21 .a. (Planning)
Condition No. 15 (Planning)
Condition No. 1~ (Plannin9)
STAFFRPT\FVT23583
V?R 2358~
tlilllllll]
i
. ::":"':
//
J App. KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. ,z:A':,'~;4',.~.'-~.'-",-.
, Use 26 LOTS.
, Areo RANCHO CALIFORNIA. Ist. Sup. Dist. ~ "~
Sec. 25 T. 7 S..R. 2W. Assessor's Bk. 919 Pg. :~5 (~)
'~' Circuhition NICOLAS RD. ART I10' "" 2~E~w
Element , ~{~L
~ Rd. Bk. Pg. 55CD.te 6/2/88 I~own By Vn
= I"- 600' RtV~'RSIO~' COUNTY P~A. NNIN~ OEPARTMENT
/~
=IiVE=IMDE counc,u
PLAnninG DEPARCITIEnC
DATE:
November 7, 1988
NOV :-> 988
VARIANCE 1518
R E: Vr~l~k~i VE TRACT MAP NO.
E. A. NLHBER: 32532
REGIONAL TEAM NO. One
23583, Amd. #1
Dear Applicant:
The Riverside County Board of ~upervisors has taken the following action on the above
referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of October 11. 1988 ·
xx APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions.
DENIED tentative map based on attached findings.
APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map.
The'tract map has been found to be consistent with all pertinent elements of the
Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970. ~ne pruject will not have a significant effect on the environment
and a Negative Declara i~.s ~e~_dopted.
A conditionally appro~lsd tenta:fv~'~ract map shall expire _~_A_--months after the approval at
Prior to the expiration d~t~;;i;/~'.l~h~'~iv(d&tL~i)Yi'alPPl]..':~"'~r.!~..'(ng for an extension o
time. Application shall"} l)e: .... ~'~he Planning ..O:i~id'~r.','jU~iYty (30} days prior to the
expiration date of the tenl~),_~_~':~ }rHlr)B~ )lt~.le~/,i~s~)nay extend the period for
one year and upon further ap ~'Cation a sccond and a .tj~ird )car~ '
~~. :Very truly ~ours,
· ~C~~~ rf
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter. Planning Director.
Ric~~~~ncipal Planner
FILE- WHITE
APPLICANT- CANARY
ENGINEER- PINK
29~.3m) (1mew.
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
3.33
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The application of Kaiser Development Co., for Vesting
Tentative Tract 23583, Amendment No. 1, a Schedule A subdivision
located in the Rancho California area, came before the Board. The
hearing on said matter had been closed on September 27, 1988 and the
matter was continued to this date for Board decision.
On motion of Supervisor Abraham, seconded by Supervisor
Younglove and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the
Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32532 is
adopted, and
IT WAS FURTHER ORDERED that Vesting Tentative Tract 23583,
Amendment No. 1, a Schedule A subdivision located in the Rancho
California area is approved as recommended with the following
addition:
Condition #26 - "Prior to the recordation of any phase, the
property owner, which is Bedford Properties, shall enter into a
written agreement to pay in any future assessment district for
construction of North General Kearny Road".
fORM 11 D{683)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of an order made and entered on
October ll, 1988 of Supervisors Minutes.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervisors
(seal)
xc:
Dated: October 11, 1988
Gerald A. Maloney, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in and
for the County of Riverside. Sta'e of California.
AGENDA NO.
3.33
Planning, Land Use, Subd~., Survey, Applicant
Deputy
-flea "~ R!t ER~IOt
__ ~", ' · ,m,, · L,,a
OFFICE OF ROAD CO*4MISSIO%ER ~. CO{ % TY ~t R~ E'FOR
October 11, 1988
auRe-8~-ig88-
UPDATED LETTER
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Tract Map 23583 - Amend ~1
Schedule B - Team 1
As Amended by Planning Commission 6-22-8~
** As Amended by Board of Supervisors 10-11-88
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative lano
division map, the Road Department recomn~nds that the landdivider provio~ time
following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accoraance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461).
It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, and that their mission or unacceptability may require the map
to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential Darts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding
as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary ano to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Noaa
Commissioner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of t~e drainage patterns, i.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by
both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final n~ap
and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachmints by land fills are allowed". Tne
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the
Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460
will apply. -Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for draina~je
purposes, the subdivider s~all provide adequate drainage
facilities as approved by the Road Department.
Tract ~ap 235a3 - ~men~ =L
a~e-B~-igBB- -J~rrm-~i-~- October 11, 1988
"Page 2
As Amended by Planning Conmlission 6-22-88
UPDATED LETTER
**As Amended by Board of Supervisors 10-11-88
M~jor drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Department.
North General Kearney Road shall be improved within the dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, (64'/88').
"A" Street and "~" Street shall De improved within the dedicated
right of way in accordance .with County Standard No. 105, Section
(36'/60').
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif.
Water District prior to the recordation of t~e final map.
7. The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the
Department.
Calle Madero and Via Norte shall be improved with asphalt concrete
dikes located 18 feet from centerllne and match up asphalt concrete
paving; reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as
determined by the Road Commissioner within a 30 foot half width
dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105,
Section B.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Ri.~.erside County
Standards.
11. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
of curb.
* ~;~--Generete-s+dewa~ks-sha~-be-eens~Pueted-a~eng-Nerth-Genera~-KeaPny-
iR-aeeePdanee-w~h-Geuety-S~aedawd-Ne~-4Gg-and-4G~-~euPb-s+dewa~k~.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
$150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should
the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter
into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to
the time of issuance of a building permit.
*Deleted by Planning Commission 6-22-88
Tract ~aD Z3S33 :menc =L
~~r-l~i,-~-~r-~!~ October 11, 1988
Page 3
As ~menued by Planning Commission 6-22-&8
-, UPDATED LETTER
**As Amended by Board of Supervisors 10-11-88
14.
15.
16.
17.
19.
20.
21.
22.
*23.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extenaing
a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and
alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner.
Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for
maintenance by County.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt
emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 3g and 94 of the State
Standard Specifications.
Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the land
division or as approved by the Road Commissioner.
Corner cutbacks in conformante with County Standard No. 805 shall
be shown on the final map and offered for dedication.
Lot access shall be restricted on North General Kearny Road and so
noted on the final. map.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent-to the streets
shall provide erosion control, sight distance conl:r. ol and slope
easements as approved by the Road Department.
All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 35' tangent
measured from flow line'or as approved by the Road Commissioner.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated with TR 3883 and P/P 788-U.
All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this
project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the
street improvement plans.
*Deleted by Planning Commission 6-22-88
4
Tract'~ap 23583 -Amen~ ~1
~~r-1-9~-'~'~'~ October 11, 1988
Page 4 d by Planning Commission 6-22-88
As Amen ed
UPDATED LETTER
**As Amended by Board of Supervisors 10-11-88
25.
A striping plan is required for North General Kearny Road.
signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all
incurred costs borne by the appl icant.
Traffic
**26.
Prior to recordation of any phase, the property owner (Bedford
Properties) shall enter into a written agreement with the County
to provide for a commitment to participate in any future Assessment
District for construction of North General Kearny Road, is pe~
£~r~ul~tAe~ El~men~ ef th~ &erienil P13~ The Meadowview Homeowners
Association has made a conmnitment to dedicate the. right-of-way.
GH:lh
Very truly yours,
Gu~Hughes~/f'~'''~
Road Division Engineer
*23.
Street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460
and 461 at all intersections of roads constructed or improved within
the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines
whether the subdivision is within an existing assessment district.
If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for
annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in accordance
with Governmental Code Section 25210.1.
*As Amended by Planning Commission 6-22-88
**As Amended by Board of Supervisors 10-11-88
Zoning Area: Rancho California
Supervtsorial District: First
E.A. Number 32532
Regtonaa Team No. I
VESTZNG TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23583
AI(NDED NO. 1
VARZANCE NO. 1518
Planntng Con~tsston: 6-22=88
Agenda ]ten No,: 1-4
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARllENT
STAFF REPORT
1. Applicant:
2. Engineer/Representative:
3. Type of Request:
4. Location:
5. Existing Zoning:
6. Surrounding Zoning:
7. Site Characteristics:
8. Area Characteristics:
9. Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
lO. Land Division Data:
11. Agency Recon~nendations:
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Influence:
Kaiser Development Corporation
Robert Bein, William Frost and Assoc.
To subdivide 26.9 acres into 23 lots
Generally southerly of Santa Gertrudis
Road and northerly of Via Norte and
easterly of Valle O1vera
R-A-l/2
R-A-l/2, R-3, R-4, R-5, A-l-lO, R-R,
A-l-20, R-1
Low natural grasses and occasional
brush or small tree. Gently rolling
hills cover the site.
Currently vacant with dry grass
covering the site.
Land Use: Category III
Density: 0.2 to 2.0 Du Per Acre
Total Acreage: 26'.9
Total Lots: 23
Proposed Hin. Lot Size: 1/2 Acre
See letter dated:
Road: 5-04-88
Health: 5-16-88
Flood: 4-25-88
Fire: 5-02-88
Bldg. & Safety: 4-22-88
Ht. Palomar: 2-29-88
Opposing/Supporting: None received
Not within a city sphere
ANALYSIS:
Project Description
"Vesting" Tentative Tract No. 23583, Amended No. 1 is a Schedule "A"
subdivision in the Rancho California zoning area proposing to subdivide 26.9
acres into 21 residential lots, and 2 open space lots. Variance No. 1518 is
a request for a waiver of the 150' minimum lot depth requirement (Ordinance
348, Section 6.52) for Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10.
The project is located southerly
orte and easterly of Valle Olvera.
of Santa Gertrudis Road, northerly of Via
'¥ESTZNG' TENTATZYE TRACT I10. 23583
¥ARZANCE NO. 1518
Staff Report
Page 2
Land Use and Zontng
The subject site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses are large lot
single family residential homes and vacant land. The property is zoned
R-A-l/2 as are adjacent properties surrounding the project. Other zoning in
the general area include R-3, R-4, R-5, A-l-lO, A-l-20, R-1 and R-R.
The proposed large lot single family residential development is compatible
with similar existing and approved subdivisions adjacent to the subject
property.
Comprehensive General Plan Consistency
The Comprehensive General Plan's Open Space and Conservation Element shows
this site in 'Areas not designated as Open Space." The Land Use Element of
the Comprehensive General Plan shows the site in the Southwest Territory Land
Use Planning Area, the Rancho Cali fornia/Temecula Subarea and the Mount
Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area.
The policies of the Rancho California/Temecula subarea state that "future
land uses within this area should generally be Category I and Category II
land uses, with the outer portion of the area being Category III. Category
III land uses include residential development with a building intensity of
one dwelling unit per half acre to one dwelling unit per five acres, and
requires adequate access and community water, compatibility with existing
area developments and a rural and small town identity.
Currently~ the existing land uses in this area fit the Category III
requirements. This proposal can adequately be classified as a Category III
project due to the availability of water and sewer services to the site,
adequate access and compatibility with area.
The County Environmental Health Department
Rancho California Water District agreeing
subdivision.
b~s a written statement from
to serve domestic water to this
Design Considerations
The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards
of the R-A-l/2 zone (Residential-Agriculture with a 1/2 acre minimum lot
size). The circulation pattern uses North General Kearney Road as the
project's main access and provides a curvtltnear street and cul-de-sacs into
the project. In addition the project provides for 2 open space lots (No. 22
and 23). The applicant has requested a variance from the 150' minimum lot
depth requirement (Ordinance 6.32) for Lot Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 due to
the existing lot configuration and constraints. Staff feels the request is
reasonable and reconmnends approval. Due to the tracts "vesting" status a
development design manual was submitted. The design manual was found to be
adequate and will be Implemented through the conditions of approval.
&
"YESTZNG" TENTATXYE TRACT NO. 23583
VARZANCE NO. 1518
Staff Report
Page 3
Environmental Assessment
The tnttial study conducted for Environmental Assessment No. 32532 Indicated
erosion potential, cumulative air quality impacts, loss of agriculture lands
and wtldltfe (Stephens Kangaroo Rat). AddtUonally impacts to Archaeological
and Paleontologtcal resources were noted. The project will have school and
library impacts due to overcrowding. The project ts also within the Hount
Palomar Special Lighting Area.
Eroston potential falls between s11ght and high. Ntttgatton measures will be
implemented during the gradtng phase. Air quality impacts will be cumulative
tn nature but thts project will not significantly contribute to that
cumulative impact. A loss of local Important farmland was indicated.
However, development has already taken place around the project site and this
ts more or less inft111ng between two tracts. No mitigation ts necessary as
tt has been urbantzed. A biological report was requested and since then
staff has received a letter from Davtd C. Hawks, a consulting biologist
stattng the stte in question had been significantly degraded tn the past by
grading and off-road vehtcle use, and a full blown biological report was not
necessary.
An archaeological report was requested and found no cultural resources or
constraints. The project will be conditioned to have a paleontologist on
hand during grading. School and library fees will be paid prior to the
issuance of building permits to mitigate impacts to overcrowding of schools.
The project will be conditioned for adherence to the Mount Palomar
Observatory Special Lighting policies as the project is within their 30 mile
radius sphere. Low pressure sodium lighting and appropriate shielding will
be implemented.
A Fiscal Impact Report for this project has been submitted to the County
Administrative Office. The Administrative Office has reviewed the Fiscal
Impact Report and determined that, based upon a selling price of $215,000.00,
the proposed project will provide the County $6,342.00 at buildout and
$1,075.00 annually after buildout.
"VESTING" TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23583
VARZANCE NO. 1518
Staff Report
Page 4
FINDINGS:
'Vesting" Tentative Tract No. 23583 is an R-A-l/2 subdivision of 26.9
acres tn the Rancho California area into 21 residential lots and 2 open
space lots.
2. The subject stte Is currently vacant and zoned R-A-l/2.
Surrounding land uses include large lot single family residential homes
and zoning includes R-R, and R-A-l/g, R-3, R-4, R-S, A-l-lO, A-l-gO and
R-1.
Review of the policies of the Land Use Element in the Comprehensive
General Plan indicates that the subject property meets the requirements
of Category III at this time.
5. Variance No. 1518 is a request for a waiver of the 150' minimum lot
depth requirement for Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and lO.
The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 32532 has indicated
that the project will create no significant adverse impacts upon the
environment.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposal is consistent with Ordinance 348 and 460.
2. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive
General Plan.
3. The proposal is compatible with area development.
RECOleqENDATIONS:
Based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated in this staff report,
Staff reconmnends:
AJ)OPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32532,
based upon the findings incorporated in the initial study, and the conclusion
that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect upon the
environment; and,
APPROVAL of VARIANCE NO. 1518 and,
APPROVAL of "VESTING" TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23583, AIO. NO. 1, subject to the
attached conditions of approval.
GM:aea
6-7-88
VAC ~\~__
VTR
~ t" = 6001/iYI/£/FJ/Z~ C(X4YTY t:[.ANNIN6~ OEPAti'TMENT
:i::'.'~!:i~///!i:': VhC ...":
.:.!.iiiii...?i?i!:'!:.:::":-:'/", '/® ·_,,,,
~~ :~ /
/~: m// vAc
~~ s~ ·VACo
~ H LOTS.
~~ ~e RA~ CALIFORNIA, Ist, ~.~. ' e'coc4e
i hc. ~ T. 7 $.,R. 2W. ~es~'s ~. 919
~c'ul~l~ NIOOL~S RD. ART I10"
--__ · Rd. lk.~.55C Oote 6/2/88 ~own B
VAC
GRADED
SOlO
GREEN HOUSE
Nu~r, li,T,,
VTR 23583 EXISTING 3NING I 3
A-1-10
RI
RelllS
2SIll CZ ~O10
RImR
RIll
R-A-112
R-A-l/2
- /
L ~ 7,~ ' ft-A-1/2
K/elSER [i)EVELOPMENT COMPANY.
LOTS.
RANCHO CA,LIFO;t~N4A. tst. Sup O i st.
\1/11\
R-A-l/2
C
L, DCAT~ONAt. MAP
elCOL41 ID
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23583
DATE:
AHENDED NO. I
EXPIRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County
of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23583, Amd. #1 which action is
brought about within the time period provided for in California Government
Code Section 6649g.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the
subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of
Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
B, unless modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside
County $urveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and
Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of
comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The
plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended
by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23583 Amd. ~1
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety prior to conmnencement of any grading outside of county maintained
road right of way.
8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map.
go
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 6-22-88,
a copy of which is attached. {Amended per Planning Commission on June
22, 1988.)
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
Road Co~mnissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the
Road Commissioner.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated 5-16-88, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated
4~25-88, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an
adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance
460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall
be collected by the Road Commissioner.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 5-2-88, a copy of which
is attached,
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety letter dated 4-22-88, a copy of which is attached.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improve-
ment phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots
in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of
the subdivision approval.
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23583 Anx). #1
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
18. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
19.
a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 21,780 square feet.
b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C
of Ordinance 460.
Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional
area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain
less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through
lots.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-A-½ zone, except as permitted by Variance
No. 1518. {Amended per Planning Commission on June 22, 1988)
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall
have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of
the utility easement.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition
and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with
other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building
and Safety.
Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied.
a. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters
from the following agencies have been met:
County Fire Department County Health Department
County Flood Control COUnty Planniong Department
b. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall apply for
annexation of the subject property, as divided, into the Meadowview
Property Owners Association and shall provide evidence to the Planning
Department of the approval or rejection of' said application for
annexation. If the application for annexation is rejected, the subject
property shall be annexed into County Service Area 143.
c. The con~on open space shall be shown as a numbered lot on the final map
and shall be deeded to and managed by the Meadowview Property
VESTLRG TE!rFAT~VE TRACT MO. 23583 ~md. 11
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
Owners Association or if maintenance of the common open space is
rejected by the Meadowview Property Owners Association, the common
open space shall be deeded to and managed by County Service Area 143.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to
the County title to all common or common open space areas, if the
Headowview Property Owners Association rejects an application to annex
the subject property, as divided. As a condition precedent to the
County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall submit the
following documents to the Planning Department for review, which
documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the
Office of the County Counsel:
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2)
A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an
individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by
reference;
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted
for review shall (a} provide for a term of 60 years, {b) provide for
the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit and {c} contain the following
provisions verbatim:
'Notwithstanding any provisions in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
The property owners' association established herein shall, if
dormant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the
request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners'
association shall unconditionally accept from the County of
Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of
the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit 'A'
attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the
property owners' association and the decision to require that the
association unconditionally accept title to the 'common area'
shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside.
In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is
conveyed to the property owners' association, the association,
thereafter shall own such 'common area', shall manage and
continuously maintain such 'common area' and shall not sell or
transfer such 'common area' or any part thereof, absent the prior
written consent of the Planning Director of the County of
Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property
owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of
VESTING TEXTATZVE TRACT NO. 23583/kK!. tl
Conditions of Approval
Page S
each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of
maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once established,
shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first
trust deed or first mortgage, made in good faith and for value
and of record prior to the assessment lien.
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended
or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent
of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the
County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the Association Rules
and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation system until such time as those
operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the
Planning Director.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet {ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the 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 Hount
Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall be
shielded and oriented so as not to shine above the horizontal plane
passing through the luminare. Outdoor lighting for roadways,
walkways, equipment yards, parking lots, security, and other similar
applications shall be from low pressure sodium vapor lighting
systems."
All other outdoor lighting that is not from low pressure sodium vapor
lighting systems shall be turned off at 11:00 p.m. or earlier.
VESTZIIG TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23583 Amd. #1
Conditions of Approval
Page 6
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERNITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
All approved grading and building plans shall reflect the utilization
of ost and beam foundations or the appropriate combination of split
leve~ pads and post and beam foundations when
development is
proposed
on natural slopes of fifteen percent or greater measured over a
horizontal distance of thirty (30) feet.
bo
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline
for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of
development and shall include the following:
1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
2)
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of
January through Hatch
3} Preliminary pad and roadway elevations
4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase
c. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent
grade.
d. Natural features such as water courses, specimen trees and significant
rock outcrops shall be protected in the siting of individual building
pads on final grading plans.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERNITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside 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 Riverside
County Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public
library development.
be
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
VESTTNG TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23583 And. #1
Conditions of Approval
Page 7
Prior to the issuance of building permits, a plot plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot
plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
and is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the
Riverside County Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the
conformance of the final site development with the tract's approved
Design Nanual (Exhibit N), and shall contain the following elements:
A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all
setbacks, and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual
lots.
One {1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of B X 13
inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and
material swatches or photographs {which may be from suppliers'
brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers
where possible {trade names also acceptable}.
One (1} copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color
and materials board. The written color and material descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
Six (6) copies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size B
X 10 inches} of both color and materials board and colored
architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review
and agency distribution. All writing must be legible.
Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director
prior to the issuance of any building permits for lots included within
the plot plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of
building permits may be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing
fees.
Each individual plot plan shall
Director prior to the issuance of
included within that plot plan.
be approved by the Planning
building permits for lots
GN:bc
6-08-88
\
/
L, Roy D. S,,,oot
m,o.m0 C~mwM,$$,Om,,fl m. :=~,,rv
OFFICE OF RO.~D CO~IvlISSIO%ER Z. COl, %7)' ~ R~ E,rjR
June 22, 1988
auRe-8~-ig88-
UPDATED LETTER
IPIL-IImONI 't'mm 'll-,¢j'14
Riverside County Planning Conmission
4080 Lenon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Tract Map 23583 - Amend #1
Schedule B - Team 1
As Amended by Planning Comisston 6-22-8~
With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider proviaw time
following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvenent Standards (Ordinance 461);
It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map
to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as Oindiny
as though occurring in 811. They are intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall De refifrecl to the Road
Commissioner's Office. '.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by
both. All drainage easements shall be sho~ on the final n~p
and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroac)ents by land fills are allowed'. The
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the
Road Co~nissioner permits the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the proviSionS Of Article X! of Ordinance No. 460
will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposeS, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage
facilities as approved by the Road Oepartment.
Tract Hap 23583 - ;:enG ,!
dNRe-81-i98~- June 22, 1986
~age 2
As Amended by Planning Com~ission 6-22-88
UPDATED LETTER
3. ~jor drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution
snell be as approved by the Road Department.
· 4. ~rth General Kearney Road shall be improved within the dedicatea
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, t64'/88').
"A" Street and "S" Street shall De improved within the dedicated
right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section
(36'/60').
6. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif.
Water District prior to the recordorion of the final map.
7. The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%.
8. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the
Department.
ge
Calle Madero and Via Norte shall be improved with asphalt concrete
dikes located 18 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete
paving; reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as
determined by the Road Commissioner within a 30 foot half width
dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105,
Section B.
10. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Rtverside County
Standards.
11. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
of curb.
* t~:--Generete-s~dewa~ks-sha~-be-eens~rueted-ahng-Ner~h-Ge~era~-Kea~nV-
in-aeeerdanee-w~tk-Geunty-~tandawd-Nh-4gg-and-4g~-~eawb-sidewa~k~.
Prior to the recordorion of thm~ final map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
$t50.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should
the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter
into · written agreement with the County deferring said payment to
the time of issuance of a building permit.
*Deleted by Planning Conmnission 6-22-88
;'rac~. ~4a5 Z."583 - '-,.-.e:c .1
,~Vne-~-,--1;~)6-- June 22, 1988
Page 3
As ~,,e :ued by Planning Commission G-~2-b~;
UPDATED LETTER
14.
15.
81
.21.
2.
*23.
41
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extendin~j
a .~inimum of 300 feet beyond the Project boundaries at a grade and
alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner.
Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for
maintenance by County.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817.
Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and snell
be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard· Asphalt
emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State
Standard Specifications.
Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the land
division or as approved by the Road Con~nissioner.
Corner cutbacks in conformante with County Standard No. 805 shall
be shown on the final map and offered for dedication.
Lot access shall be restricted on North General Kearny Road and so
noted on the final. map.
Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent.to the streets
shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope
easements as approved by the Road Oepartment,
All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 35' tangent
measured from flow line'or as approved by the Road Con~nissioner.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be
coordinated with-TR 3883 and PIP 788-U,
All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this
project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the
street improvement plans,
*Deleted by Planning Commission 6-22-88
Tract'Map 23583 - Amen~ ,1
-uhn~e-~r-l'g~- june 22, 1968
Page 4
As Aunended by Planning Commission 6-22-88
UPDATED LETTER
A striping plan is required for ~rth ~neral Kaarny Road. Traffic
signing and striping shall ~ done by County forces with all ,/
incurred costs borne by the appl icant.
GH:Ih
Very truly yours,
Gus Hughes
Road Division Engineer
*23.
Street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460
and 461 at all intersections of roads constructed or improved within
the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines
whether the subdivision is within an existing assessment district.
If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for
annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in accordance
with Governmental Code Section 25210.1.
Cc nty of Riversi~ ~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
TO:
FROM: Sam ~t~nez, S~anitarian,
TRACT FAP 23583
RE:
DATE:
Kay 16, 1988
Environmental Health Services
Environmental Health Services has reviewed the Amended Kap No. 1
and would require prior to any flnal approvals, an upda=ed sewage
dlsposal revlew by the Solls Engineer of Record (Leighton & Associa~es)
RIVEt~otuc c;uunlTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~a'~,~l~s~m.i~.E~ Aorll 7, 1988
eqk'elme~ ~al.'ns
Riverside Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
RIverside. CA 92502
RE; TRACT MAP 23583: Bezno a Division of Lot 540 of Tra:t
3883 as recorded in Book 63. Page 2 of MEDs. on Fz!e in the
Office of the County Recorder. ~lversade California
(26 Lots)
ATTN: Gloria Maczel
'% ssea~v IVe~Lrl'
,j I10lT¢¢ 810ADI'AV
ta'4C: ua~elT&
QliVIRIQll. ~
~eee41l
souTee
IllIf
elllET.
sitel
LSll ILlllell
I0~11, Pill!It DII.
IsaLI IllIS
ell, el IRImGI. C:& IINI
ll, a~o kinell Illlrl
less ~
I~vl:lilalL C~
Gentlemen:
The De.Dartment of Public Health has reviewed Tentative .~.ar
Tract MaD 23583 as recommends that:
A water system shall be :natalled acccrd:n9 to
plans and specifications as apDroved by the water
company and the Health DeDartment. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted an triplicate. with a minimum scaie not
less than one Inch equals 200 feet. along with
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the Internal pipe diameter.
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
3olnt specifications. and the size of the main
at the 3unction of the new System to the existing
system. The plans shall comply In all respects w~th
Dxv. ~. Part 1. Cha~ter 7 of the California Health and
Safety Code. California AdminIstrative Code. TItle
Chapter 18. and ~eneral Order No. 103 of the
UtZlzt~e$ Commission of the State of California when
applicable. The plans shall be signed b.v a registered
engineer and water company with the followln~
certification: "l certify that the design of the
water system In Tract M&p No. Z3583 is In
accordance with the water system expansion plans
of the Rancho California Water DIstrict and that the
water service. storage and dmstrlbutlon system will be
adequate to provide water service to such tract. This
certification does not constitute a ~uarantee that it
will suppay water to such tract at any specific
Riverside County Planning Commission
Pa~e Tvo
ATTN: Gloria Macxel
April 7. 1988
quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or
any other purpose."
This certification shall be signed by a responsible
official of the water company. 2b~_~ians must be
!g~mxtt~ to the County Survey~[i~_Q£[~ ~Q_[~y~w at
A~st two weeks Drlor to the request for the
recordataon of the final mao.
This Department has a statement from the ~ancho Ca3:fornia
Water District aareelng ~o serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand. providing
satisfactory financial arranaements are comc, le~ed
subdavmder. It wall be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made pr~or to the re,zordatAor~ cf tr, e
fxnal map.
This Department will permit domestic sewace disposal from
the individual lots in this subdlvas:on as per a uerco/at:or!
report submitted by Leaohton and Associates dat. ec.
March 2. 1958 (Addendum March 25. 1988, for each 1C!0 aailons
of sentic tank capacity as follows:
TABLE I
(LEACH LINE)
SO. IFT./0F
APPLICATION LEACHING AREA
PE~COLATION RATE REQUIRED
LOT RATE (NIN. (SOlFTI100 GAL (INCLUDES 100%
~Q= ~X~CH) /DAY) EXPANSION)*
1 30.0 65 1560
2 26.6 60 1440
3 See Table II
4 33.0 80 1920
5 2.5 20 480
6 48.0 100 2400
7 60.0 120 2880
8 See Table XI
9 See Table IX
10 20.0 45 1080
11 60.0 120 2880
12 60.0 120 2880
Rzverszde County Plannzng Comm:ssxon
Page Three
ATTN: Glorxa MacXel
Apral 7. 1988
PERCOLATION
LOT RATE (MIN.
~g= /INCH)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
30 O
34 3
60 O
109
30 O
30 O
15 O
60 O
TABLE I
LEACH L I NE >
APPL I CAT I ON
RATE
(SO/l:'r'll0O GAL
I DAY )
SO./FT./OF
LEACHING AREA
REQUIRED
(INCLUDES 100%
EXPANSION)*
65 1560
80 1920
120 2880
25 6C, 0
65 1560
65 1560
35 840
120 2880
* NOTE:
The areas and depths have been calculated uszng
a 1200 gallon septxc tank. For areas. see
Geotechnzcal Map.
RIverside County Planning Commission
Page Four
ATTN: Gloria Maclel
April 7. 1988
TABLE II
(Seepage P~t)
DEPTM
PERCOLATION OF
LOT RATE (SO/ 5' DIAMETER
MQ= P'T/DAY ~__EE?AGE PIT*
1.3
1-40.5'TD ~Total De~,th}
2-35.0 BI (Below In/eL)
2-30.0 BI (Below lnlet~
-NOTE: These areas and depths have been calculated using a
1200 gallon septic tank. For areas. see Geotechnxcal
Map.
These results (leach l~nes and seepage pits) are
based on the type and depth of the earth materials
Indicated in the preliminary report, dated
March 2. 1988
The above Informat:on is an lndlcat=on of the type of sewace
disposal systems based on existing ground elevations at the
time the tests were conducted. ]f any ~radInc coma, action.
cuttIno. etc.. 2s accompl~shed and ~s in excess of two feet.
addltlonai sewage disposal ~nformat~on shall be reculre~
przor to fznalzng of the map.
It is our opxnaon that extens;ve gradznO is So;no to be
necessary for thZs subdivision. Przqf_~_E~orda~!~D of the
final map. we waX.~_E!g~E~ an evaluation and update
preXlmlnary grading map by the soils engzneer of record.
Add~tzonal testing ~s to be performed to zncorporate system
designs for each ~ Zncorporatzng all the
recommendat~ons/conc~uszons lzsted ~n the sozls report
referenced above. A copy of the revised gradzng map s~ned
by the solXs engineer. shall be provided prior to
recordatlon of the f~nal map. lndzcatlng areas of intended
subsurface sewaqe disposal placement to znclude 100%
expans3on area.
~vers~de County Planning Commission
Page F~ve
ATTN: Gloria Hac~el
Aprzl 7. 1988
~nzs Department wzll permzt domestzc sewage dzsposal from
the znd~vzdual lots ~n th~s subdzv~s~on by means of se~tzc
t&nks vzth mznzmum szze Jeachzng/znes or seepage p~ts based
on the occupancy of each zndzv~dual Jot there shalJ be an
unoccupied area on each lot where sewage d~sposal as
requzred &bore. may be znstalled Zn conformante wzth the
current On~form Plumbing Code. There shall be an addztzonal
unoccupzed are& equal to 100% exp&nszon of the &bore
required sewage dzsposal systems for sewage d~sposaJ
znsta/latzon zn case of fazlure. However. zt should be
noted that this type of sewage disposal system ~s conszdered
temporary and zf sewer lines of a sewer district become
avazlable. connectzon to the system should be made.
it wzll be necessary for the fznanc:al arranuements to be
made przor to the recorda~=c,n of the fznal map.
Sincerely.
!~J]~.artlnez. Senior Sandtartan
Env=ronmental Health Servzces
SM: tac
KEIklNLPTH I_ EDWARDI
GNalJr INe:NU3t
tell Id&RKrF ITWart?
P-0. BOX 101t
TELEPHONE (714) 787-9011
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RlVlrRIIDI. CALIFORNIA IIIOl
April 25, 1988
RIverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention:
Regional Team No. 1
Gloria Maciel
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
Vesting Tract 23583
Amended Hap No. 1
This is a proposal to divide about 27 acres in Temecula Valley
area. The site is along the southeast side of Margarlta Road
about 1000 feet south of Nicolas Road.
The topography of the site consists of well defined ridges and
natural watercourses which traverse this property. Storm runoff
from a watershed of about 20 acres meanders along the south por-
tion of the property; applicant proposes to convey the flows with
natural open spaces and culverts under North General Kearny Road.
Onsite flows and local offsite flows would be handled by the com-
bination of streets, open spaces and culverts.
Following are the Dtstrtct's recommendations:
This tract' is located within the limits of the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley and Santa Gertrudts Valley Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted
by the Board· Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth
under the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for
Administration of Area Drainage Plans", amended February
16m 1988:
a e,
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waiwed, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
Riverside County
PZanntng Department
Re: Vesting Tract 23583
Amended Nap No. 1
- 2 -
April 25, 1988
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting dererment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time or issuance or a grading
permit or building -'~-mit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be fXrs, .btained after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3
year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that parcel which remain active·
Care should be taken to protect the proposed building
pads from any potential flooding or erosion hazards·
Appropriate brow ditches and down drains should be pro-
vided to the lots adjacent to steep slopes.
The 100 year tributary storm runoff should be accepted
and safely conveyed to adequate outlets.
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions"·
All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street
or an adequate outlet.
The 10 year storm flow should ~e contained within the
curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained
within the street right or way. When either or these
criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities
should be installed.
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows.
Additional emergency escape should also be provided·
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Vesting Tract 23S83
Amended Map No. 1
-3-
April 25, 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 dt-
vetted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review
prior to the recordation of the final map.
The natural watercourse that traverse Lot 22 should be
delineated and labeled on the environmental constraint
sheet. A note should be placed on the environmental con-
attaint sheet stating that the watercourses must be kept
free of all buildings and obstructions.
11.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and en-
vironmental constraint sheet along with supporting hydro-
logic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to
the District for review and approval prior to the is-
suance of grading or building permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang
of this office at T1q/787-2333.
Very truly yours,
K NNETH L. EDWARDS
't E~gineU7
~OHN 'H. kASHUBA
' r Civil Engineer
RBF & Associates
RC:bJp
vt23583
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
RAY HEBRARD
FIRE CHIEF
5-2-88
T0:
PLANNING DEPARTRENT
PlanninI &k EnlineerinI Office
4080 Lemon S~reet. SMite 1
River, ide, CA 92S01
(114)
ATTN: TEAH !
RE:
TR 23583Amended tl
With respect to the conditions of approvai for the above referenced land division,
the Fire Department reconTnends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection·
FZRE PROTECTION
Schedule A fire protection approve standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2~")
located one at each street intersection and'spaced no more than 330 feet
apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than
165 feet from a hydrant· Rinimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPN for 2 hours
duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types,
location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local
water company with the following certification: "I certify that the desiqn
of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by
the Riverside County Fire Department."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
material being placed on an individual lot.
HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA
All buildings shall be constructed with 'fire retardant roofing material
as described in section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood
shingles or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved
by the Fire Dept. prior to installation.
Prior to final tmspectton of any building,.the applicant shall prepare and
submit to.the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required
fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
George iatum, ~ire Department Planner
Jhw
April 22, 1988
County AaminisT~stive Cemer · 4080 Lemon Slreet R~versiae. California g250'1-3661
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention.- Gloria Maciel
County Administrative Center
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: (V) Tentative Tract 23583, Amended #1
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditionsz
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-
site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant
to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348.
Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard
setback.
Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5'
side yard setback.
Very. truly yours,
Thomas M. Ingram, Director
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
Norman A. Lo~tbom, Deput~irector
Land n~eADivision
Building Inspection (714) 787-6146 · Administrmion (714) 787-6155
Use Code Enforcement (714) 787-2011 · Engineering PIIn Service (714) 787-2954
RiVERSiDE coun -,
PLAnnine DEPAR rRE E
DARE: Februaz7 29, 1988
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Dude
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Gut
LAFCO, S Paisley
I!AR I l l BB
RIVERSIC)_= COUNTY
PLANNING D=,PARTMr'NT
U.S. Postal Servlce - Ruth E. Davidson
RECEIVED
MAR 16 1988
PALOMAR 0BSER'.:ITORY
Rancho Calif, Water
Southern Calif, Edison
Southern Calif, Gas
General Telephone
Temecula Unified School
He. Palnear
Sierra Club
Calif. Native Plant
Santa Maragartta Rancho Prop. Owner
Con~nissioner Bresson
VESTING TAACT 21819 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32532
- Kaiser Development Co. - Robert BeRn,
William Frost and Associates - Rancho
California Area - First Supervisortel
District - Generally Southerly of Santa
Gertrudts Road - and Northerly of Via
Notre and easterly of Valle 01vera -
R-A-~ Zone - Schedule A - 26.9 acres into
26 lots - Related Case TR 3883 - Nod 119
- A.P. 919-350-008
Please raytar the case described above, along vith the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for April 21, 1988. If it
clears, it will then 20 to public hearth2.
Tour conehis and recommendations are requested prior to April 7, 1988 in order that
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regardIn2 this item, please do not ~esttate to contact
Gloria Nattel at 787-1363
Planner
PLEASE SEE ATTAC~r~n
PLEASE print name and title Dr. l~!nert J. Brucat~/Assistant Director/Palanar
4080 LEMON STREET, 9T" FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
t'ge d~ 'PO'P.f~40q
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OffiCE Or THEr DIRErCTOR FALOMAR OI.~ErRVATORt 10S-:¢
This case is within 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory. and is therefore
within the zone requirinS the use of Xow-pressure sodium vapor lamps for
street lightin~, as stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
We request that the design for other types of outdoor lighting that may be
employed on this property be made consistent with the spirit of the decision
of the Board of Supervisors which is intended to mitiEate the adverse effects
such facilities have on Zhe astronomical research at Palomar. Beneficial
steps to that end include:
1. Use the minimum amount of light needed for the task.
2. Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination.
Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial
applications, the associated business is open past that time, in which
case the lights should be turned off at closing.
Use low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards,
parkin~ lots, security and other similar applications. These lights
need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m.
For further information, call (818) 356-4035.
Robert J. Brucato
Assistant Director
I'A.',,ALIL%,A I,..ALIF{JR,%IA el l2~ TELlrI'HC~' ~ (llta~ 3~.r-40.).'1 T[:.[I, l~42.& CALTECH PSD
March 31, 1988
Board of Dire:tots:
Richsrd D. Steffey
Jams A. Darby
St. Vice Presidenl
Ralph Daily
Dou$ Kuiber$
Joa A. Luadin
Jeffrey L, MinkJet
T. C. Rowe
Officers:
Sta~ T. Mill,
Genertl Minaret
Phi!lip L. Forbes
Director of Finance -
T~asur~
Norman L. Thomas
Director of Engmeenng
Thomas R. McA!iesier
Director of Operations
& MamLenance
DU~cu~ of Ad~scr~Uon -
Rutan and Tucker
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Vesting Tract 21819
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrahgements between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Engineering Services Representative
F012/jkth073
1~ A
NCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~)Rfk~l I~T A7 l~&r~ · P/'I~T (')N'ITI(~I~. R(')X 174 · TEMECULA. CA 92390-0174 · (714~ 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0615
County A dmini, m:~ivq Off~,
April 27, 1988
Mr. Richard MacHott, Supervising Planner
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
SUBJECT:
Meadowview Vesting Tentative Tract
Map Number 23583
Dear Mr. MacHo=t:
The following summarizes our findings regarding the fiscal
impac= analysis for the pro3ect identified above. The
appendix attached summarizes =he basic assumptions used in
the analysis. Please note =hat these results reflect the
current levels of service provided by the County based on
Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 actual costs (per capl=a factors)
and Departmen=al and Auditor-Controller review of operations
and facility costs for services reviewed using case study
analysis. S=aff ~o the Growth Fiscal Impac~ Task Force and
Depar=men~s are curren=ly reviewing service levels provided
and the need to increase the levels of service. Curten=
findings are that existing levels of service are not
adequa=e in most cases. Should =he desired level of service
be utilized in the fiscal analysis performed, it would
significan=ly increase the costs associated with this
development.
COUNTY FUND
(Operations and
Maintenance)
FISCAL IMPACT
AFTER BUILDOUT
CUMULATIVE FISCAL
IMPACT AT BUILDOUT
County General $2,707 $8,791
Fire $488 $731
Free Library $177 S266
SUBTOTAL COUNTY
$3,372 $9,788
Road Fund ($2,298) ($3,446)
GRAND TOTAL $1,074 $6,342
Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center
4080LEMON STREET · 12TH FLOOFI · RNERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 · (714)787-2544
The following special circumstances apply to this project:
1. CAO staff has reviewed library costs with Library
personnel and incorporated actual operations and maintenance
costs into the analysis. Using Llbrary staff estimates of
the costs of providing the current level of service,
considering the ~ncrease in population, this project should
result in one-t~me capital facility costs of $2,878 (library
space, volumes) and ongoing annual operations and
maintenance costs of $551. Library staff has indicated that
the current level of service =s not adequate.
2. Flood Control staff has indicated that flood control
faci1~ties constructed within Zone 7 are unlikely to be
sufficiently funded for maintenance costs. Current
estimates indicate that funding shortages should occur for
the next ten years. Suggested mitigation measures include a
cash deposit by the project developer or use of an
assessment mechanism. The amount of deposit would be
determined by a present value analysis and project timing.
The cost of maintaining flood control facilities
not be known until final design phases, when facility
have.been fully identified. Flood Control staff
therefore, condition project approvals to identify a
of financing facility maintenance and operation
necessary) prior to recordation of subdivisions.
will
needs
w~11,
means
(if
Based on the analysis and assumlng that the average sales
price of the units will be $215,000, overall Meadowview
(Vesting Tentative Tract 23583) will have a positive fiscal
impact at buildout of $6,342. After buildout, this project
will have an annual positive fiscal impact to the County of
$1,075 at current levels of service.
Initial Review By:
Review Approved By:
'FLArlrlirk, DEPARCfflEfI
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION
,NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER:
PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s):
APPLICANTS NAME:
NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E.A.:
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. DESCRIPTION (incltKle proCx)sed minimum lOt Nze and uses Is N)plicable): Subdivide 26.9 acres into 23 lots for residential uses,
MODULENUMBER(s):
VESTING TRACT N0. 23583
K~ISE~ DFvELOoMENT COMPANY
GIRRIA MAClEt - PIANNFR
119
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES
C. ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO.(s):
D. EXISTING ZONING:
E. PROPOSED Z~)NING:
F. STREET REFERENCES:
of Val 1 e O1 i vera.
Ge
26.9 *'
He
R-A-~ ~ THEPROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
6 THEPROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE?
~outh nf ~anta Rertr,di~ Rnad, Nnrth Of V~a Notre and East
Thomas Bros. Pll5 A-5
Pll4 F-5
SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATrACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 30 Township 7S Range 2W
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITEAND ~SSURROUNDINGS:
Project site consists of low natural grasses and an occasional bush or small
tree. Dirt trails run across parcel in various spots. Slopes range from relativel)
flat to steep in other areas. Surrounding land uses are single family residential
and vacant.
.. 215-70 {Nee
II. COMPRENENSNE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the N)fxopriate option(I) belOw and proceed accordingly.
I'] All or pad of lhe project site is in "Adopted Specific Pins," "REMAP" or 'Rancho Villages Community
Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, N (B and C only), V an¢l Vi.
133 All or pad of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV
(A, B and D only), V and Vl.
I'] All or pad of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned
above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B, end E only), V anti %/I.
1
Ill. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARI~S AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
A, Indicate the nlture of the propoled lind use ss determined horn ttte descriptions ss found in Comprehensive General Ran Figure
V1,3 (Circle One), Thtl inf~'mltion il necelslry to tieterrains the Ipproprilte and ule suitlloility ratings in Section III.B.
NA - Not ,e$'pliclNe C,,dticll Ellentill NortoN-High Ri~k ~ormiI-Low
B, Indiclts wiffi s yes (Y) or no {N) whether Iny environmental hlzlrd and/or resource issues rely significantly affect or be affected
by the proposal. All referenced figures Ire contained in I~e Comprehensive General Plin. Fo' any issue marked yes (Y) write
idditionll dltl sources, Igef'~ciss consulted, findings of flct IrN:l any mitigltiOn measures uncler SeCtion V. Allo, where indicated,
circle Itte appropriate lend use suitability or noise acceptN~ility rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of ~is page).
HAZARDS
1- N Alquist-Priolo Special Studies or County FluIt 12. N Airport Noise (Fig. II. 18.5, II. 18.11
H&zard Zones (Fig. VI.1) & %/I.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.)
(~que PS U FI (Fig, VI.3) (~ A B C D (Fig, %/1.11 )
2 N faction Potential Zone (Fig. %/1.1) 13. N Railroad Noise (Fig. V1.13 - V1.16)
3-N nd eking ne(FigVl.1) C18S$ :[:[ 14. N ' w Noise(Fig. Vl.17-VI.29)
U R (Fig. VI.5) B C D (Fig, V1.11)
4, N Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps) 15. N Other Noise
5- N Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale ~roj A B C D (Fig, VI. 11 )
Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16. H ec! Generated Noise Affecting
'(,,~ S PS U R (Fig. %/!.6) Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. %/1.11 )
6. N 0ckfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. 1%1 Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. %/I. 11 )
7- N Expansive Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil 18. Y Air Quality Impacts From Project
Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. N Project Sensitive to Air Quality
8. Y Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation 20. N water Quality Impacts From Project
Service Soil Surveys) 21. N Project Sensitive to water Quality
9- N Wind Ersosion & Blowsand (Fig. %/1.1, 22. N Hazardous Materials and Wastes
Ord. 460, Sac. 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23. N Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30- V1.31)
Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) 24. Other
.. ~k/~,;,;plalnl (Fig. VI,7) 25. C)bher
U R (Fig. %/I.8)
70. N
~.N
RESOURCES
26. Y 32. N
27-N 33 N
34. Y
Agriculture (Irtg. VI.34 - I/I.35)
In or Nee 8n Agricultural Preserve
(Riv. Co. AgricuHural Lend Conversation
Contract Maps)
2S. Y W,d,fe (Fig. w.3e - w.37) 3s. Y
29. N vegetatkon (F',g. W.38- v~.40)
30- N Minerll Resourcel (Fig. %/1.41 - VI.42) 36.
31- N Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VI.44) 37.
Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45)
Historic Resources (Fig. I/I.32 - VI.33)
Archaeological Resources
(Fig. VI.32 · %/i.33 & VI.46 - %/I.48)
Plleontoiogical Resources
(PNeontoiogical Resources Map)
Otter
Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable
U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable
B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged
USE DETERMINA' yN
1. OPEN ~PACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): Area not desiqnated as 0Den' Space
2. I, AND USE PLANNING AREk ~nuthw~t T~rri tnry
3. SUBAREA, IFANY: Ranchn Califarnia/Temecula
4. CO MMUNITYPOUCYAREA, IFANY: Rancho California and
Lighting Policies
5. )UNITY PLAN, IF ANY:
6. CO MMUNrTY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY:
Mt. I'alomar
Observatory Street
SUI4MARY OF POLICIES AFFECTINGPROPOSAl; Future land uses within this area
should generally be Category I and II land Uses, with major connercial and industrial
land uses located adjacent to 1-15. In the outer portions of this area, future
land uses should generally be Citegory III land uses. Mt. Palomar policies apply
and they suggest low pressure sodium lights and appropriate shielding be used
for the project.
Be
For all prciects, inidcate with a yes (Y) Or no (N) whether any public facilities and/or services issues may significantly affect
or be dlected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Ran. For any issue
marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V.
PUBUC FACIUTIES AND SERVICES
1. Y Circulation (Fig. !V.1-!V.11. Discussin 10. N
Sec. V Existing. Planned & Required Roads)
Bike Trails (Fig. IV. 12 - IV.13)
Water (Agency LetteraT)
Sewer (Agency Letters~
2. N
3. N
4. N
5. N
6N
1. Y
8. N
g.N
Fire Services (Ir~. N.16 - IV.18)
Sheriff Sen~ces (F~ IV.11 - N. 18)
Schoois (F~. N.17 - N.18)
~olid Waste (Fig. N.11 - N.18)
Pad~ ~ Recreation (Ir~. N.19 - N~O)
ll.N
12. Y
13. N
14. N
15-N
18. N
17. Y
Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV. 19 - N.24/
Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps)
Utilities (Fig. IV.25 - IV.26)
Ubraries (Fig. IV.17 - N.18)
Health Services (F~. IV.17 - IV.18)
Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4,
11.18.8-11.18.10 & IV27 - IV.36)
Disaster Preparedness
~ Sphere of Influence
Other Mr. Palomar
If Ill o~ part of the project is located in "Adopted Specif~ Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy
Areas', review in detail the SpeCifK; policies applying to the p~!, and complete the following:
1. State the relevant land use designation(s):
2. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate document
and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Ran? If not explain:
3
W. LAND USE DETERMINX N ((:QntJnved)
U. If .Ill or plJ1 o~ the I:m:)ject site t~ in "Ateis not Designated u Open Space", end is n(:d in I Community Plan, complete
~esUon8 1, 2, 3, 6 end 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 end 7 if it is in · Community Pmn.
1. Land use catsgoryCms) nec~ t~ supixxi me pnX~ project A~ indicate Imnd use bype
(i.e. residenlial, Cornn~, etc.) Cateqorv III- Residential
Current land use category(S) for the mite besed on exisuung conclitoris.
(Le. residential. commercial, etc.) Cateqory III- Residential
AJsO indicate land use type
3. If D. 1 dilkrs from D.2. will the difference be resoived at the development stage? Explain:
4. Community Plan designation(s):
Is the proposed project consistent with the po,cies and designations of the Community Plan?
ff not explain:
& Is the proposal compatible with existing end proposed surrounding lend uses?
If noL explain:
7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Ran?
ff not, reference by Section end Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: Yes
E- If all or plrl of the project site i~ in In Open Space end Conservation designation, complete the fOllowing:
1. State the designation(I]:
2. II the proposal Consistent with the designation(s)? ff not, explain:
3. Based on Ibis initial ltudy, M the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan?
ff not, reference by Section end Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies:
2/87) 4
___V..INFORMATION SOURCE qNDING8 OF FACT AND MITIGATIO; 'qEABURE8
A. ~kDDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED:
DATE DATE ADEQUACY
'SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION DETERIIiATION
ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NOJ~ATE)
:IX! 8-28 Biological Survey
III B-34 Archaeological Survey
Be
For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B end IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the
following, in the format as shown below:
1. List all additional relevant data sources, including agencies consulted.
2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concerns.
3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable withoul requiring an environmental impact report (E.I.R.)
4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to
Sub,t4ction A.
5. If additional sheets are needed to coml)leta this section, check the box at the end of the section and attach
the necessary sheets.
SECTION/
ISSUE 1%10.
III B-7-8
Soils
AtD2
Gkb
HcC
RnE3
Ruf
SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES:
Description Slope
Arlington&Greenfield 8 to 15%
Gorgonio 2 to 15%
Hanford 2 to
Ramooa&Buren 5 to
Rough Broken Land 30 to
8%
25~ Rapid
50%
Run-Off Erosion
NedSum Noderate
Slow to Rapid MOderate to
Slow to NedSum Noderate
High
Erosion potential falls between slight
be taken during the grading phase.
Shrink-Swell
Low
Low
Low
Low
and high. Nitigation measures should
III B-18
Air Quality Impacts will be cumulative in nature ~nd therefore not mitigable
at this time.
III B-26
The project site is in an area of local important Farmland. Development has
already taken place around the suject site a~d this is more or less
infilling between two tracts. No mitigation is necessary as it has been
urbanized.
SECTION/
ISSUE NO.
ZZ! B-28
III B-34
INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continue)
SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OFFACT. MfflGATION MEASURES:
Site lies within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat'Habitat. A biological renort is
requested.
Potential Archaeological Resources on Site ~rcho requested.
III B-35
Paleontological Resource Potential on the subject site. Paleontologist
should be on hand when grading.
Iv B-1
Traffic and Circulation
Margarita Road/North General
Via Norte - 66'
Kearny Road - 88'
IV B-17
Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policies apply as this project lies
within their 3p-mile radius sphere. Low pressure sodium lighting and
appropriate shielding should be implemented.
,See allached pa~es.
VI, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION:
r"l The project will not have · ~ignifr, ant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
(or)
I"'1 The project could have · signirr,,ant effect on the environment; however, them will not be · significant
effect in this use because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the
project and · Negative Declaration may be prepared.
(or)
I'1 The project may have · significant effect on the environment and an
il required.
Name: ,,
Prepared by
Environmental Impact Report
Date: y:Z F'z/~?
CASE NO.
E,A, NO. ,
STAFF US~ ONLY
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Please complete P·r~s I anti II Of thiS tore and lYovide all Of the eclditioPal materials requWed in PItt III. F·ilurl to cIo k~ ely
(leisy the revww In0 Drocel.s Of your Droject- If you Ire un·lDiS to prove· the in;urmlt~on, oe you need uliltlnce. plelle 'e,,'. ,
free to contact the Pllnnir~g Department It (1'14) 787~418.
PART I: Glnlrll InfOrmltion
1. Whlt I· the TOtll Acreage ~nvohed? . 2b. 9 acres
2 IS there · oeev,ous apOl|clt,on fil~S foe the Ieme life? YES l) NO ~
If 'Yes" DroviOe Cm Numpar. AlSO p/oriOle the Environmental AMel. t. ment Numlar, II know~ end Er.viroetmental implet
RepOrt Numpar, d IDDI~CiDle.
CASE NO. Tract 3~83 (ParceiMID Zone Change, etP.)
E.A. NO. ~ KN:Nm), aIR NO. (If iO¢4icmbe)
3. AclOd:onli comment~ you may w~sh to m~pOly regaffiing your Ixolect. (AttaCh en e~liti,-~al sheet If necessary.)
PART II: Environmental Queltlonnelm
1. Is the Drolect within an AIQuist-Prlolo Sixeel $tud~el Zo4~? YES ~ NO
To (later·me if your Droiect ~1 I~te~ in I S~ll Stutel Z~t ~nl~ tM Pu~ I~o~t~ ~io~ ~ refer to the
S~;li StuOy Zones MIDi IvlHlOte It t~ Pg~ Inf~tion C~nter ~ the Plnni~ De~nL If tM ~o~ · w~thm
zoo. refer to Ore·Inca ~7.1, ~ d~scuM the situltton ~h ~ ~n~ ~qi~.
If I fluIt h~lrO reOo~ ~s nKesM~. ~m~ete the my·station Wior to lu~m~q ~ur ~pl~ti~ IM ~O~N 6 CONS
the reDo~ wdh th~S fO~. If I wl~r ~ the r~uirements ~ grlnte( lu~m~ I ~ d the ~i~r ~ thi f~
2 Is t~e DrO~CT I~lte~ withe I hlzlr~ ~nlgement Z~ ~ ~uHl~ion Irll Is Ih~ ~ ~ ~ tM '~lmlc ~fe~ E~
ment Techn,MI Re,if"9 YES; NO ~
TO Oeterm,~e :f you~ Orole~ ~S luble~ to t~ geol~ic ~lr~l note~ I~ ~ s~ ~Mu~ the '~ilm~ Slfe~ i
Element Technical Re~' which ~i IvlillBll It the Pu~a~ Intor~t~n C~nter ~ the Plnnmg DeNnmen~
If the Imswe. to aueshom e2 ~$ 'YIL" contl~ ~he IpgrOprmte Geq~Dh( Plnni~ Teim ~i~ tO ~i~gM 8DDroonlte
reelSure t O minimize the ~lr~. inco~qte lny miti~bon mllsurtl i~to t~ Dr~ ~i~gn pnorto luBmi~ng the
t~on or ~nd~te m the spice Dr0vt0e~ ~1~ the rllu~l of your O~UMiOM w~h tN PinniN
3 If your OrO~Ct ~1 m the aesen IreL ~ it within I ~101~6 ilffi Irll? ~S D NO ~
The Ptlnmng Offices m Ind;o Ind Rtvl~ wil; pr~ y~ ~th mf0rmltnon co~mi~ Dlo~nd hglr~tYOu ~y
wnsh to C0ntlct the U-S ~sl C0nle~lhon
If you r Dr0leCt ~S suP/cot to 01~nd hgl~L iubm~ I Bl~n~ ~tr~ Din wRh the 8Nl~tiO~ (AI~ refer t0 Sect,on 14 1
~ OrO.ninCe 460. ~f your Oro~ ~l I Nrcel mID ~ luNwmon).
4 Is wlter H~'tce IvldlBle it the DrO~Ct ~e~ ~S · NO ~
If "NO.' how fir must the wlter hn~l} N I~en~e~ t0 pr~i~
NumNr of fNt or radii
Fuffiher exDllnihon:
5. Is sewer Service ·vaiisble It the lit·? YES C:} NO ~
If "NO," how fir must the wlter line(I) i)e extenN<l to provide Service?
NumlDer of feet Or mifel septic tank/learh field ty~tems prrtpn~rJ fnr perdeft
6. AO~ClilsOnll Comments:
Tht$ Env~ronfnental inf0rmatton Form ts $ubm~tte{I in con,iunct'/,on ~th the request for
approval of ¥est(ng Tentative Tract No. 21819 t26 R-A-l/2 lots[,\,
PART III: Addltion81 Miterilia
The fOllOwing iteml must be lut)mitted with thil fix·:
I. At le·ll three (3) panorlmic Dhotogrlphl(COkx grintl) Of the Ixoject lit·, oe ~n lenll DIN)to Of the Nt& If color phOtOgrlDhl
ere utihzl~L inclucle · mad klentlfytng:
& The position from which each Dl~tqrlph wal tlken
t}. The ·re· Of coverage Of each phOtOgft~
2+ A Clelr phOtOCOpy (Xerox Or mailer COpy) Of the IpOrOprilte portion Of the U.S. GaOloUt,41 Survey Qua·tangle maD, ~enn-
eltsng Ihe bouncllnes Of the prolect late. AlSO note the title o~ the
I certi+y that I hive inveltiglte¢l the Queltionl in Parts IInd II InQ the enlwlri ere true ·nd COrrect to the NIt 04 my
knowteOge Robert 8, Keffele, Planning t;oorcl~nator
Robert Be~n, Idilltam Frost and Associates
i V:'R 23583
,,
, ~e
//HillIll} ~ zs~z.
cZ
I~'ADOW
/I\ c
J App. KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. , I'D~ATIONAL U&llt4~
Use 26 LOTS.
, Area RANCHO CALIFORNIA. Ist. Sup. D ist. 4m
Sec. 25 T. 7 S.,R. 2W. .a4sessor'sBk. 919 Pg. 35
~' Circulation NICOLAS RD. ART I10'
Element ,
m Rd. Bk. PI. 55CDaIe 6~2~88 Drawn By Vn
; I"- ~'00' RYVE~ID[ COY./NTY PLANNIN6' DEPARTMENT
~-~-e-,~.. NO ICALE
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP / TRACT NO. 23583
DATE 12/03/90
IHPROVKMKNT~"
FAI~fFUL PERFORMANCE
SEL~JRITY
MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY
Streets and Dra}na~e $ 725,500.00 ~ 362,750.00
Water m 212,000.00 ~ 106,000.00
Sewer m 96,000.00 m 48,000.00
TOTAL $ 1,033,500.00 ~ 516,750.00
,Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) $ 103,350.00
,(or Bonds if work is completed)
Monument Security
Inspection Fee: (Offsite Improvements)
Fee paid to date (Credit)
Inspection Fee Due
Monument Inspection Fee
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
Total Inspection Fees Due
RCFC Drainage Fee Due $
Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD ~,. $
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee $
15,312.00
68,372.00
14,605.00
53,767.00
498.00
b4,265.00
44,364.00
3,450.00
N/A
ITEM NO. 10
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER '~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Engineering Department
December 18, 1990
Consultant Agreement for Community Facilities District
( Ynez Corridor)
PREPARED BY:
Tim D. Serlet, City Engineer
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Engineering Department recommends that the City Council
approve the attached agreement with J. F. Davidson Associates,
Inc., to provide professional engineering services for Community
Facilities District 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) and authorize the mayor
to sign the agreement.
DISCUSSION: At the regular City Council meeting of August 28, 1990, the City
Council awarded the work for professional engineering services
for Community Facilities District 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) to J. F.
Davidson Associates, Inc., directed the City Engineer to issue
a notice to proceed and authorized the City Manager to negotiate
a final scope of services and fee subject to Council approval. In
order to expedite the project, J. F. Davidson agreed to begin
work without a final contract immediately upon the receipt of the
notice to proceed. J. F. Davidson is currently pursuing the
necessary environmental work for the entire project along with
the preliminary design work.
The Engineering Department has now completed negotiating a
scope of services and fee with J. F. Davidson Associates for
professional engineering services necessary to complete the
construction of the following components of Community Facilities
District:
Project 1 - Ynez Road Widening
Project 2 - Winchester Road Interchange Modifications
Project 3 - Apricot Overcrossing Project
Project 4 - Rancho California Road Interchange Modification
Due to the complexity of the projects involving Caltrans
approvals the services and professional fees involved in each of
the projects listed above has been divided into schedules A
through C. Schedule A represents the lump sum fee for
completing all the engineering services required to produce the
construction documents necessary to publicly bid the Ynez Road
Widening and the Apricot Overcrossing Construction. Schedule
B represents the lump sum fee to complete preliminary design
surveys, environmental assessments, and project study report
for the interchange modifications at Winchester Road and Rancho
California Road. The Project Study Report is a requirement of
Caltrans that explores various alternatives to modifications to
their system. At this time it is uncertain what additional
improvements Caltrans will require at the interchanges to
accommodate new northbound on-ramps. Therefore, Schedule C
is only an opinion of the probable cost necessary to complete the
Caltrans Project Report and to prepare the contract documents
necessary to construct the additional loop ramps at the
interchanges. The opinion assumes Caltrans will require the
bridges to be widened in conjunction with the ramp construction.
Once the project study report is approved by Caltrans, the fees
associated with Schedule C will be brought back to the Council
for your review. The following chart summarizes the cost
associated with each Schedule.
SCHEDULE A:
Project No. 1
Completion of Plans, Specification
and estimate for Ynez Road.
431,275.00
Project No. 3
Completion of Plans, Specification
and Estimate including Project
Study Report and Project Report
for Apricot Overcrossing.
622,53~.00
SCHEDULE A TOTAL
1,053,809.00
SCHEDULE B:
Project No. 2
Design Surveys and Mapping
Along with the Project Study
Report for the Winchester
Road Interchange Modification.
Project No. 4
Design Surveys and Mapping
along with the Project Study Report
for the Rancho California Road
Interchange Modification.
SCHEDULE B TOTAL
TOTALSCHEDULE A AND B
SCHEDULE C:
Project No. 2
Completion of Project Report
and Plan, Specification and Estimate
for Winchester Road Interchange
Modification.
Project No. 4
Completion of Project Report
and Plans. Specification and Estimate
for Rancho California Road Interchange
Modification.
TOTAL SCHEDULE C
TOTAL SCHEDULES A, B AND C:
110,150.00
108,250. O0
218,q00.00
1,272,209.00
512,615.00
443,700.00
956,315.00
$ 2,228,524.00
The fee for the professional engineering services will be funded through the first
bond sale of Community Facility District 88-12 and represents approximately 9% of
the probable construction cost. The Engineering Department, along with Max Gillis,
will review each invoice submitted by J. F. Davidson Associates. Inc. on a per cent
complete and an hourly basis prior to authorizing payment.
3
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD) 88-12
YNEZ ROAD CORRIDOR
This agreement for engineering is made and entered into on
this day of , 1990, by and between the City
of Temecula, California, a municipal corporation,
(hereinafter referred to as "CITY" ) , and J. F. Davidson
Associates, Inc. , a California corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "ENGINEER").
1. SERVICE
ENGINEER shall perform engineering services for City of
Temecula Community Facilities District No 88-12 - Ynez
Road Corridor (herein referred to as "District") which
shall include, but not be limited to, those services
defined in Exhibit "A", "SCOPE OF SERVICES."
2. RETAINER
CITY hereby retains ENGINEER, as an independent
contractor, to perform the engineering services
hereinafter specified; and, ENGINEER agrees to perform
said engineering services for the term of the work
contracted by the District.
3. SCOPE OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
Engineering services to be performed by ENGINEER shall
consist of engineering, in accordance with Caltrans'
Standards and specifications and appurtenant CITY
Standards and specifications as described in Exhibit
"A", "Scope of Services."
A. Duties
ENGINEER shall provide a Project Manager as
provided in Section 5, who shall report to the
CITY ' s designated representative. The Project
Manager shall be a Registered Civil Engineer in the
State of California. The CITY ' s representative
shall be designated separately by the CITY MANAGER.
Duties shall include, but shall not be limited to,
those defined in Exhibit "A".
4. COMPENSATION
For the work authorized under this Agreement, as set
forth in Section 3, ENGINEER shall be paid on a lump
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 1
sum, not-to-exceed basis for all work effort actually
expended in the provision of services. Said services
shall be as defined in Exhibit "A". When out of scope
items are encountered, ENGINEER shall immediately
identify such items and bring them to the CITY's
attention for action and approval prior to ENGINEER
encumbering additional costs beyond those set forth in
Section 3.
ENGINEER shall invoice the CITY monthly in accordance
with the rate of pay as set forth in the ENGINEER's
Schedule of Fees which is attached hereto and marked
Exhibit "B".
ENGINEER shall submit to CITY an invoice each month
based on a percentage completion for each item of work
described in Exhibit "A" in sufficient detail to
demonstrate satisfactory completion of the services
performed during that month. ENGINEER shall also
provide any "deliverables" completed that period. CITY
agrees to accept each invoice as a record of work
performed by ENGINEER under this agreement.
ENGINEER agrees that, unless authorized by amendment to
this Agreement, the total amount of such invoices shall
not exceed the total amount as shown in attached
Exhibit "C" ENGINEER and CITY shall review the
Schedule of Fees in July, 1991 and shall make mutually
agreed adjustments to the rates of pay set forth in the
ENGINEER' s Schedule of Fees, which shall become
effective on August 1, 1991. Such adjustments shall be
representative of the prevailing changes in fees for
such services. This procedure will be continued each
successive year until the project is completed.
ENGINEER agrees that payment of monthly invoices for
work performed under Exhibit "C", Schedule A and B,
shall be subject to the sale of bonds for CFD 88-12.
However, if bonds have not sold by January 1, 1991, all
work identified by this contra~t shall cease and all
invoices submitted by ENGINEER shall be paid in full by
CITY. Subsequent work after receipt of all payments
shall be agreed upon once sufficient funds are made
available by the CITY for payment to ENGINEER.
Payment for work performed under Exhibit "C", Schedule
C shall be funded from sources as determined by the
CITY.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 2
CITY shall make prompt progress payments to ENGINEER
within thirty (30) calendar days following CITY
approval of an invoice from ENGINEER.
5. EMPLOYEE'S QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Jimmy W. Sims shall serve as Project Manager for
ENGINEER. Replacement of said Project Manager shall
not be made by ENGINEER without the prior knowledge and
consent of the CITY. ENGINEER'S employees actually
performing the services described in the Agreement
shall meet or exceed the qualifications set out in the
ENGINEER'S proposal, which is made a part hereto by
reference. The ENGINEER shall remove from service,
under this Agreement, any person determined by the
CITY, or their duly authorized representative, to be
unsuitable for the work herein.
ENGINEER shall perform the services defined in this
Agreement in accordance with the generally accepted
standards for performing similar services. CITY has
relied on ENGINEER' s representations for quality and
professional work as an inducement to enter into this
Agreement. ENGINEER has represented to CITY that
ENGINEER has the qualifications, experience and
personnel to perform services for CITY.
6. LICENSES
ENGINEER'S employees shall maintain licenses as
required by laws of the State of California at all
times while performing services under this Agreement.
7. WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE
ENGINEER certifies that he is aware of the laws of the
State of California requiring employers to be insured
against liability for worker's compensation, and shall
comply with such laws during the term of this
Agreement.
8. INSURANCE
ENGINEER shall maintain $1,000,000 of professional
liability insurance coverage (errors and omissions) in
accordance with sound business practices and
requirements of the CITY and $1,000,000 in general
liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage,
and other applicable insurance coverage and shall name
CITY, its officers, employees and agents as additional
insured under these policies. Said policy shall
indemnify ENGINEER, its officers, agents and employees
while acting within the scope of their duties, against
any and all claims arising out of or in connection with
CONTRACT: ADS. AC1 3
the project. Said policy shall specifically provide
that any other insurance coverage which may be
applicable to the project shall be deemed excess
coverage and that ENGINEER's insurance shall be
primary.
ENGINEER'S LIABILITY
To the maximum extent allowable by law, ENGINEER shall
indeminify and hold harmless CITY, its employees,
officers, agents, and members, from any and all claims,
damages, expenses, suits, or other costs, including but
not limited to those arising out of bodily injury,
death or third party property damage, stemming from
ENGINEER' s negligent performance of the services
described herein. Such indeminity shall aplly
regardless of the design review of the party to be
indemnified hereunder.
10. WORK PRODUCT
All materials, logs, diaries, reports, drawings,
calculations, and field office notes shall be property
of the CITY and shall be made available and turned over
to the CITY at any time for inspection, review or
otherwise upon demand of CITY. ENGINEER may, however,
make and retain such copies of said documents and
materials as ENGINEER may desire.
Any use or reuse of said documents or any alteration or
revision to said documents by CITY, its staff or
authorized agents without the specific written consent
of ENGINEER shall be at the sole risk of the CITY. The
CITY agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the ENGINEER
against all damages, claims and losses including
defense costs arising out of any such alteration or
revision, or use or reuse at another site by the CITY,
its staff or authorized agents.
11. ASSIGNMENT
12.
This Agreement, or any part thereof, shall not be
assigned by ENGINEER without prior written approval of
CITY.
NON-DISCRIMINATION
In the performance of the terms of this Agreement,
ENGINEER shall not discriminate in the employment of
persons in accordance with the California Labor Code or
other provisions of State or Federal law.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 4
13.
14.
15.
16.
NOTICE
Any notices, requests, demands or other communications
under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deemed to have been duly given if delivered in person,
or when received if mailed by certified mail with
return receipt requested, or otherwise actually
delivered.
Notice to CITY shall be sent to:
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, California 92390
Attn: Mr. Tim Serlet, City Engineer
Notice to ENGINEER shall be sent to:
J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
Municipal Engineering Division
3426 Tenth Street
P. O. Box 493
Riverside, California 92502
Attn: Mr. Jimmy W. Sims, Project Manager
TERMINATION
Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty
(30) days notice. Upon termination, all work products
as defined herein shall be turned over to CITY by
ENGINEER. Upon termination by CITY, ENGINEER shall
immediately cease work in progress and CITY shall not
be liable for payment of ENGINEER's fees incurred after
the effective date of the termination.
OTHER TERMS
ENGINEER shall submit written reports to CITY on a
monthly basis on the status of work on the project.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
ENGINEER is, and shall be acting at all times in the
performance of this Agreement as an independent
contractor. ENGINEER shall secure at its expense, and
be responsible for any and all payments of all taxes,
social security, state disability insurance
compensation, unemployment compensation and other
payroll deductions for ENGINEER and its officers,
agents and employees and all business licenses, if any,
in connection with services to be performed hereunder.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the following parties have executed this
Agreement:
CITY OF TEMECULA
J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
By: By:
DATED:
"CITY": Mayor
"ENGINEER": Vice-President
Ill\
DATED:
ATTEST:
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott Field ,City Attorney
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 6
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Project Identifications / Design Criteria
The following projects identifications and descriptions are
provided to determine a general understanding of the scope
of work that this contract will encumber. The following
project identifications shall involve:
Project 1 - Ynez Road Widening Project
Project 2 - Winchester Road Interchange Modifications
Project 3 - Apricot Avenue Overcrossing Project
Project 4 - Ranch o California Road Interchange
Modifications
All engineering services associated with Project 1 shall
utilize criteria established by the City of Temecula's
current Standards and specifications. Engineering services
performed for Projects 2 thru 4 shall utilize criteria
established by the State Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS) Standards and Specifications.
Project Descriptions
In general, the engineering services envisioned for each
project is described as follows:
Pro~ ect 1 - Ynez Road Wideninq Pro~ ect. Perform design
surveys and mapping, geotechnical engineering, environmental
assessments, and prepare plans, specifications, and
estimates (PS & E) for the widening of Ynez Road from Palm
Plaza to Rancho California Road, a distance of approximately
7,500 feet. Plans shall include designs for curb and
gutter, sidewalks, pavement sections, storm drain culvert
extensions, power pole relocations, traffic signal
modifications, traffic signing and striping, waterline
relocations, sewer and other appurte'nant items.
Pro~ect 2 - Winchester Road Interchanqe Modifications.
Prepare a project study report (PSR), project report (PR),
environmental reports, traffic studies, traffic safety index
reports, traffic management plan (TMP), geometric approval
plans, design surveys and mapping, and PS & E documents for
the addition of a northbound loop ramp system within the
southeast quadrant of the existing interchange.
This project shall be broken into two schedules. Schedule B
shall consist of preliminary work necessary to prepare the
Project Study Report and obtain design surveys and mapping.
CONTRACT: ADS. AC1 7
Schedule C shall consist of preparing Project Report and PS
& E documents.
Protect 3 - APricot Avenue Overcrossin~ Project. Prepare a
project study report (PSR), project report (PR),
environmental reports, traffic studies, traffic safety index
reports, geometric approval plans, design surveys and
mapping, utility coordination, and PS & E documents for the
construction of Apricot Avenue from Ynez Road to Jefferson
Street including a bridge overcrossing of the 1-15 freeway.
Proiect 4- Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications.
Prepare a project study report (PSR), project report (PR),
environmental reports, traffic studies, traffic safety index
reports, traffic management plan (TMP), geometric approval
plans, design surveys and mapping, and PS & E documents for
the addition of a northbound loop ramp system within the
southeast quadrant of the existing interchange.
This project shall be broken into two schedules. Schedule B
shall consist of preliminary work necessary to prepare the
Project Study Report and obtain design surveys and mapping.
Schedule C shall consist of preparing Project Report and PS
& E documents.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 8
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE A
PROJECT NO. I - YNEZ ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following scope of services has been developed
specifically for the Ynez Road project.
° Data Collection
° Research
Review existing record documents relating
to right-of-way and centerline location.
Review existing property records to
determine approximate location of lot
lines.
Obtain record information on existing
utility locations.
Review street improvement plans prepared by
others as they relate to the project.
° Field Survey
Obtain aerial topography of project area
Perform cross-sectional and cultural
surveys of the project area. Includes data
on all cross streets and entrances for a
distance of 300 feet.
° Office Calculations
Plot cross-sections
Reduce field data to coordinate geometry
Close and adjust horizontal control
° Street Improvement Plans
Prepare Plan and Profile drawings at a
scale of 1" = 40'. Length of Ynez Road
improvements are approximately 7,500 feet
1. Prepare one title sheet
2. Prepare two detail sheets
3. Prepare seven plan and profile sheets
° Right-of-Way
Coordinate with the City's right-of-way
engineer, requirements for the proposed
improvements.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 9
° Traffic Signals Plans
Prepare traffic signal plans to modify the
existing signal at Rancho California Road
and Ynez Road
Prepare traffic signal plans to modify the
existing signal at Solana Way and Ynez Road
Prepare traffic signal plans to modify the
existing signal at the entrance to the
Target Center and Ynez Road (Tower Plaza)
° Waterline Relocations
Modify existing Rancho California Water
District (R.C.W.D.) plans to depict the
revised location of the fire hydrants and
other appurtenances along Ynez Road
Modify the R.C.W.D. plans and/or prepare
supplemental plans for the vertical
realignment of the existing water line from
Solana Way to "Target center".
° Utility Coordination
Coordinate relocation of existing utilities
within public right-of-way to accomodate
the widening of Ynez Road. This task will
include meetings , minor exhibit
preparations, and agency coordination.
° Hydroloqy Report
Review existing Hydrology/Hydraulic
information for the Ynez Road drainage
basin
Meet with Riverside County Flood Control
District (R.C.F.C.D.) to coordinate
planning of master planned drainage systems
for future consideration
Identify and calculate "local" drainage
areas to support drainage system designs.
° Storm Drain Plans
Storm drain improvements shall be designed at the
following locations along Ynez Road. There are no
other provisions within this contract to design
facilities other than the following:
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 10
Empire Creek and Ynez Rd - Extend existing culvert
to the east and design outlet improvements
immediately downstream. Downstream channel
improvements and right-of-way engineering is not
included in this agreement.
DrainaGe System between Empire Creek and Solano Wav
- Install a new single barrel culvert to replace
deficient existing culvert. We are assuming that
downstream channel improvements are not needed.
One easment document is budgeted.
Drainage system at Solona Way - Extend existing 4-
barrel RCP to the east; design outlet improvements
immediately downstream; and two catch basins at
this location. No easement documents are budgeted
for this system.
Drainage System between Solano Way and Apricot -
Extend an existing double RCB culvert to the east.
This facility shall also be extended under Project
No. 3. Modify two existing catch basins and
provide one easement document.
° Sewer Plans
Sewer plans shall be prepared in accordance with
Eastern Municiapl Water District standards and
specifications. The extent of sewer facilities are
described as follows:
Within Ynez Road beginning at the Apricot
intersection and extending approximately
1000-feet south to an existing sewer
connection.
Adjacent and parallel to the existing
Caltrans right-of-way beginning at the
Apricot crossing and extending
approximately 1,500-feet south to an
existing sewer connection.
This element will also include preparation of four
(4) legal descriptions and plats for the new sewer
facilities.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 11
° Striping and Signing Plans
Prepare a Striping Plan for that portion of
Ynez Road being improved
Prepare a Signage Plan for that portion of
Ynez Road being improved
° Detour Plans
Prepare Detour Plans for Ynez Road at a sufficient
scale to describe the necessary work required for the
new improvments.
° Public Meetings/Processing and Coordination
Attend up to 200 manhours of public and private
meetings and improvement plan procesing meetings at
various agencies
° Cost Estimate:
Provide preliminary engineering cost estimate for the
Ynez Road improvements
° Geotechnical Engineering:
Provide preliminary geotechnical engineering support
services for the Ynez Road improvement plans.
° Environmental Clearances:
Prepare an environmental assessment for the project. A
mitigated Negative Declaration is anticipated for this
project.
° Quality Control Plan:
Prepare a quality control plan (QCP) for the project
which will describe all project elements, manpower
requirements, budgets, time schedules, and internal
plan checking procedures. Also included in this budget
is administartive time to implement the QCP.
° Preliminary Engineering:
Provide preliminary engineering and coordination for
the purposes of establishing improvements to be
constructed under CFD 88-12.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 12
° Mileage and Deliveries:
This element will include charges for mileage expended
and delivery charges for the project.
° Reproductions:
This element will include charges for reproductions
made for external uses other than in-house check
prints.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 13
PROJECT NO. 3 - APRICOT ROAD OVERCROSSING @ 1-15
SCOPE OF SERVICES
For Project 3, the following "Proposed Index of Plan Sheets
- Additional Project Elements" represents the Scope of
Services required to prepare plans, specifications, and
estimates for the project and shall be deemed as the sole
basis for developing the lump sum fees presented in Exhibit
"C". The estimates presented therein are reflective of the
"Number of Sheets" shown as follows.
In the event there are substaintial changes to the total
number of sheets required by Caltrans, we respectfully
reserve the right to renegotiate our proposed fees.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 14
PROPOSED INDEX OF PLAN SHEETS
PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS
J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC., ONLY
Project No. 3 - Apricot Avenue Overcrossing @ 1-15
Drawing Type
Scale
No. of
Sheets
Highway Drawings
Title Sheet
Typical Cross-Section Plans
Standard Plan List
Construction Staking and Survey Control Data
Layout Plans & Profiles
Construction Details
Contour Grading Plans
Drainage Layouts
Drainage Profiles
Drainage Details
Drainage Quantities (including Culvert List)
Construction Staging/Traffic Control Plans
Construction Staging/Traffic Control Plans
Construction Area Sign Plans
Pavement Delineation Plans
Summary of Quantities
Sign Plans
Traffic Item Quantities
Sign Summary Sheet
Lighting Plans
Electrical Plans
Landscape and Irrigation Plans & Details
Right Of Way Maps
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
Varies
l"=50'H
1"=5 'V
Varies
1"=50 '
1"=50 '
Varies
Varies
N.T.S.
1"=200'
1"-50 '
N.T.S.
1"=50 '
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
1"=50 '
1"=50 '
1"=50 '
1"=50 '
1
2
1
1
8
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
6
2
Projected PS&E Drawings - JFDA only
51
ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS TO BE PERFORMED
Design Surveys
Project Study Report
Traffic Safety Index
Bridge Engineering
Meetings/Administration
Aerial Mapping
Project Report
Traffic Study
Materials Report
CAD - Intergraph
Geometric Approval
Environmental Assessment
Quality Control Plan
Bridge Reports
WORK NOT INCLUDED UNDER SCHEDULE A
Traffic Signal Designs are not included at the following
locations:
Ynez Road and Apricot
Jefferson Road and Apricot
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 15
Environmental engineering beyond the preparation of a Categorical
Exemption.
Revisions to the PS & E documents generated from Caltrans
Headquarters' Office Engineer after District 8 approvals.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 16
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE B
PROJECT NO. 2 - Winchester Road Interchange Modifications
PROJECT NO. 4 - Rancho California Road Interchange Mod.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services under this schedule shall consist of
those necessary to prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) for
Projects 2 and 4. The goal of this phase of work is to
define more concisely the extent of improvements required at
these two locations prior to proceeding with formal
construction documents. The following work elements will be
included under Schedule B:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Design Surveys and Aerial Mapping
Traffic Study
Environmental Assessments
Preliminary Layouts and Profile Alternatives
Preliminary Alternative Cost Estimates
Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluations
Preliminary Bridge Evaluations
Prepare Project Study Report
Caltrans Processing / Meetings
All of the above work shall follow State of California
Transportation Department (CALTRANS) Standards and
Specifications.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 17
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE C
PROJECT NO. 2 - Winchester Road Interchange Modifications
PROJECT NO. 4 - Rancho California Road Interchange Mod.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
For Projects 2 and 4, the following "Proposed Index of Plan
Sheets - Additional Project Elements" represents the Scope
of Services required to prepare plans, specifications, and
estimates for the two project and shall be deemed as the
sole basis for developing the lump sum fees presented in
Exhibit "C" The estimates presented therein are reflective
of the "Number of Sheets" shown as follows.
The work effort for these projects assume that bridge
widenings of Winchester and Rancho California will be
required to accomodate the new loop on ramps for northbound
traffic.
The following listing should be considered valid for
establishing ,'budgets', only. After completion of Schedule B,
a re-evaluatlon of our work effort shall be performed and
agreed upon prior to beginning work on this schedule.
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 18
PROPOSED INDEX OF PLAN SHEETS
ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS
J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project No. I - Winchester Road Interchange @ 1-15
Drawing Type
No. of
Scale Sheets
Highway Drawings
Title Sheet
Typical Cross-Section Plans
Standard Plan List
Construction Staking and Survey Control Data
Layout Plans & Profiles
Superelevation Diagrams (Ramps)
Construction Details
Contour Grading Plans
Drainage Details
Drainage Quantities (including Culvert List)
Construction Staging/Traffic Control Plans
Construction Staging/Traffic Control Plans
Construction Area Sign Plans
Pavement Delineation Plans
Summary of Quantities
Sign Plans
Traffic Item Quantities
Sign Summary Sheet
Lighting Plans
Electrical Plans
Traffic Signal & Ramp Metering Plans
Planting Plans
Irrigation Plans
Planting and Irrigation Details
Planting and Irrigation Quantity Summary
Right Of Way Maps
N.T.S. 1
N.T.S. 3
N.T.S. 1
Varies 2
l"=50'H 8
1"=5 'V
1"=50 'H 3
1"=5 'V
Varies 2
1"=50 ' 2
Varies 4
N.T.S. 1
1"=200 ' 2
1"-50 ' 4
N.T.S. 1
1"=50 ' 3
N.T.S. 1
N.T.S. 2
N.T.S. 1
N.T.S. 1
1"=50 ' 2
1"=50 ' 2
Varies 4
Varies 2
Varies 2
N.T.S 1
N.T.S. 1
1"=50 ' 2
Projected PS&E Drawings - JFDA only
57
ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS
Design Surveys
Project Report
Quality Control Plan
Aerial Mapping
Traffic Management
Bridge Engineering
Geometric Approval Plan
Traffic Safety Index
Materials Report
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 19
PROPOSED INDEX OF PLAN SHEETS
ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS
J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC., ONLY
Project No. 4 - Rancho Callfornia Road Interchange @ 1-15
Drawing Type
Highway DrawinGs
Title Sheet
Typical Cross-Section Plans
Standard Plan List
Construction Staking and Su~,y Control Data
Layout Plans & Profiles
Superelevation Diagrams (Ramps)
Construction Details
Contour Grading Plans
Drainage Details
Drainage Quantities (including Culvert List)
Construction Staging/Traffic Control Plans
Construction Staging/Traffic Control Plans
Construction Area Sign Plans
Pavement Delineation Plans
Summary of Quantities
Sign Plans
Traffic Item Quantities
Sign Summary Sheet
Lighting Plans
Electrical Plans
Traffic Signal & Ramp Metering Plans
Planting Plans
Irrigation Plans
Planting and Irrigation Details
Planting and Irrigation Quantity Summary
Right Of Way Maps
No. of
Scale Sheets
N.T.S. 1
N.T.S. 3
N.T.S. 1
Varies 1
l"=50'H 8
1"=5 'V
1"=50 'H 3
l"=5'V
Varies 2
1"=50 ' 2
Varies 4
N.T.S. 1
1"=200 ' 2
1"-50 ' 4
N.T.S. 1
1"=50 ' 3
N.T.S. 1
N.T.S. 2
N.T.S. 1
N.T.S. 1
1"=50' 2
1"=50 ' 2
Varies 3
Varies 2
Varies 2
N.T.S 1
N.T.S. 1
1"=50 ' 2
Projected PS&E Drawings - JFDA only
56
ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS
Design Surveys
Project Study Report
Traffic Safety Index
Quality Control Plan
Aerial Mapping
Project Report
Traffic Study
Bridge Engineering
Geometric Approval
Environmental
Traffic Management Plan
Materials Report
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 20
EXHIBIT B
SCm~nULE OF HOURLY BILLING RATES
EFFECTIVE THROUGH JULY 31, 1991
(Revised 08/28/90)
EnqineerinQ & Municipal Services Rate
Surveying Services
Rate
Principal
Engineer V
Engineer IV
Engineer III
Engineer II
Engineer I
Engineering Designer IV
Engineering Designer III
Engineering Designer II
Engineering Designer I
Drafting Supervisor II
Drafting Supervisor I
Drafter IV
Drafter III
Drafter II
Drafter I
Transportation Engineer iI
Transportation Planner
Plan Checker
$125.00
100.00
95.00
84.00
65.00
55.00
84.00
65.00
55.00
51.00
65.00
55.00
53.00
45.00
37.00
32.00
61.00
55.00
57.00
Principal
Land Surveyor IV
Land Surveyor III
Land Surveyor II
Land Surveyor I
Survey Drafter III
Survey Drafter II
Survey Drafter I
1-Man Survey Party
2-Man Survey Party
3-Man Survey Party
$125.00
95.00
82 00
75 00
65 00
51 00
45 00
37 00
82 00
140 00
180 00
Travel Time (when in excess of
8 hours work per day)
1-Man Survey Party 34.00
2-Man Survey Party 60.00
3-Man Survey Party 86.00
Inspector 63.00
* Above Rates are -~ximum for the classificaton.
Planning Services
Architecture
Principal
Deputy Director, Planning
Planning Supervisor
Planner III
Planner II
Planner I
Planning Aide
Planning Intern
$125.00
100.00
84.00
77.00
71.00
45.00
32.00
32.00
Director of Architecture
Architect II
Designer III
Drafter III
Drafter II
Drafter I
$84.00
67.00
65.00
44.00
34.00
30.00
Landscape Architecture
Computer Services
Director, Landscape Architecture $90.00
CadManager/Water Management
Project Landscape Architect
Project Manager
Project Coordinator
Drafter II
Drafter I
67.00
67.00
60.00
48.00
37.00
32.00
Systems Technician $37.00
Operations Manager 65.00
Computer Operations Coot. 51.00
Co~uter Intern 32.00
Senior Com~uter Technician 37.00
Computer Technician 32.00
Services And Expenses
Secretarial/Word Processing Services $35.00
In-house Reproduction Cost
Travel .36/Mile
Subsistence Cost
Other Expenses - including Special Consultants
and Purchased Services through Subcontracts Cost +20%
Expert Witness or Litigation (4-hour minimum,
including preparation time) $160.00
EXHIBIT "C"
SCHEDULE A - Fee Breakdowns
Costs shown herein shall considered as lump sum not-to-
exceed charges unless the scope of work described under this
contract changes. Sub-consultant charges for geotechnical
engineering and bridge engineering have been marked up 3%
for JFDA handling costs.
PROJECT I - YNEZ ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
Data Collection:
Street Improvement Plans:
Right-of-Way:
Traffic Signals:
Waterline Relocation:
Utility Coordination:
Hydrology Studies:
Storm Drain Plans:
Sewer Plans:
Striping and Signage Plans:
Detour Plans:
Meetings/Processing:
Cost Estimates:
Geotechnical Engineering:
Environmental Clearances:
Quality Control Plan:
Preliminary Engineering:
Mileage and Deliveries:
Reproductions:
$ 51,640.00
$ 51,865.00
$ 10,600.00
$ 12,500.00
$ 24,950.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 24,800.00
$ 67,700.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 10,120.00
$ 17,050.00
$ 35,050.00
$ 23,000.00
$ 25,000.00
$ 23,500.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 2,000.00
TOTAL COSTS - Project No. 1:
$431,275.00
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 21
SCHEDULE A - Fee Breakdowns (continued)
PROJECT NO. 3 - Apricot Road Overcrossing
Quality Control Plan
Project Study Report
Environmental Clearances
Design Surveys
Aerial Mapping
Traffic Study
Traffic Management Plan
Traffic Safety Index
Project Report
Highway Drawings & Specifications
$ 5,000.00
$ 15,700.00
$ 23,500.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 9,350.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$227,618.00
Bridge Drawings & Specifications±3744H$202,910.00
Materials Report $ 56,856.00
Reproductions $ 5,000.00
Mileage and Deliveries $ 2,000.00
CAD Charges $ 24,600.00
TOTAL COSTS FOR PROJECT NO. 3
$622,534.00
TOTAL COSTS FOR SCHEDULE A:
$1,053,809.00
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 22
SCHEDULE B - Fee Breakdowns
PROJECT NO. 2 - Winchester Road Interchange Modifications
Design Surveys and Aerial Mapping
Traffic Study
Environmental Assessments
Preliminary Layouts and Profile Alternatives
Preliminary Alternative Cost Estimates
Prepare Project Study Report
Caltrans Processing / Meetings
Quality Control Plan
TOTAL COSTS FOR PROJECT NO. 2
$ 29,650.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 23,500.00
$ 14,200.00
$ 3,450.00
$ 12,050.00
$ 2,300.00
$ 5,000.00
$110,150.00
PROJECT NO. 4 - Rancho California Road Interchange Modification=
Design Surveys and Aerial Mapping
Traffic Study
Environmental Assessments
Preliminary Layouts and Profile Alternatives
Preliminary Alternative Cost Estimates
Prepare Project Study Report
Caltrans Processing / Meetings
Quality Control Plan
$ 27,750.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 23,500.00
$ 14,200.00
$ 3,450.00
$ 12,050.00
$ 2,300.00
$ 5,000.00
TOTAL COSTS FOR PROJECT NO. 4
$108,250.00
TOTAL COSTS FOR SCHEDULE B:
$218,400.00
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 23
SCHEDULE C - Fee Breakdowns
PROJECT NO. 2 - Winchester Road Interchange Modifications
PROJECT NO. 4 - Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications
Highway Drawings & Specs
Bridge Engineering & Specs
Project Report
Traffic Safety Index
Traffic Management Plan
Material Report
Reproductions
Mileage & Deliveries
CAD Charges
TOTAL COSTS FOR EACH PROJECT
Winchester Rd
Rancho Calif Rd
$288,750.00 $264,650.00
$100,425.00 $ 72,100.00
$ 18,500.00 $ 18,500.00
$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
$ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
$ 44,540.00 $ 28,450.00
$ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
$ 30,400.00 $ 30,000.00
$512,615.00
$443,700.00
TOTAL COSTS FOR SCHEDULE C:
$956,315.00
SUMMARY OF SCHEDULES A, B, & C
SCHEDULE A - $1,053,809.00
SCHEDULE B - $ 218,400.00
SCHEDULE C - $ 956,315.00
GRAND TOTAL $2,228,524.00
CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 24
ITEM NO.
11
APPROVAL
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
December 18, 1990
First Extension of Time
Tentative Parcel Map No.
23430 Revised No. 1
PREPARED BY:
Steve Jiannino
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 90- approving the First Extension of
Time for Tentative Parcel Map 23430
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Bedford Properties Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
J.F. Davidson Associates Inc.
PROPOSAL:
First Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 23430, an 9 lot
Schedule E Parcel Map.
LOCATION:
Southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads.
EXISTINC ZONING:
C-P-S
(Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: C-P-S
South: M-M
East: R - R
West: C-P-S
(Scenic Highway
Commercial)
( Manufacturing- Medium )
( Rural Residential )
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Commercial Center Under Construction
North: Commercial Center
South: Advanced Cardiovascular Systems
STAFFRPT\PM23430 I
PROJECT STATISTICS:
East: Vacant
West: I - 15
Total Acres:
No. of Parcels:
Minimum Parcel Size:
44.07 acres
9 parcels
0.6 acre
BACKGROUND:
The City of Temecula Planning Commission at their
December 3.1990 meeting, recommended approval of
the First Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map
23430 Revised No. 1. Tentative Parcel Map No.
23430 Revised No. 1 is a nine (9) lot Commercial
Subdivision of 44.6 acres located at the southwest
corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. The City
Council approved Parcel Map No. 23430 Revised No.
1 July 31, 1990. The approval of the revised map
did not extend the original expiration date of the
parcel map. A time extension request is necessary
for the recordation of the Final Map.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution 90- approving the First
Extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23430
Revised No. 1 based on the Analysis and findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
1. Resolution
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 12-3-90
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 12-3-90
STAFFRPT\PM23430 2
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23430 REVISED NO.1 A
NINE (9) PARCEL COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION OF 44.6
ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF YNEZ
AND WINCHESTER ROADS.
WHEREAS, Bedford Properties Inc. filed the Time Extension in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time
and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension 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 Time Extension.
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Time Extension on December 18, 1990, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Time Extension; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission
proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Time Extension;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
the following findings:
Findings.
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
STAFFRPT\PM23430 1
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
Time Extension proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
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 Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP
and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1} The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that the Time
Extension 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\PM23430 2
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) PursuanttoSection18.30(c), no Time Extension 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 proposed subdivision does not affect the
general health, safety, and welfare of the
public.
(2) The City Council, in approving the proposed Time
Extension, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project 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 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 size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density.
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
f)
Parcel Map No. 23430 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density and coverage
creates a compatible physical relationship
with adjoining properties.
STAFF R PT\PM23~30 3
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
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 Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the state map act in regard to the future
passive energy control opportunities. Units
have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities.
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in
summer o
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT ION 2, the Time Extension
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. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves The First
Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 23/430 Revised No. 1 for a nine (9) parcel
Commercial Subdivision of/4/4.6 located at the Southwest corner of Ynez and
Winchester Roads subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
ST A FF R PT\PM2 3/430
Resolution.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th 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
18th 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 The First Extension of Time for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23430 Revised NO. 1.
DATED: By
STAFF R PT\PM23430 5
CITY OF TMMMC%rLA
~q)NDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MaP NO. 23430
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE:7/13/9
ORIGINAL EXPIRATION DATE: 8/16/90
EXTENSION EXPIRATION DATE: 8/16/9
e
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 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 TMNTATIVM
PARCEL MAP NO. 23430, REVISED PERMIT NO. 1, AMMNDED NO. 2, 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 E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Board of Supervisors
approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free fromall encumbrances as approved by the County
Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road
Commissioner.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary.
All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and
utility access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the City
Department of Building and Safety·
TENTaT~ PARCEL HAPNO. 23430
REVlSMDFERNITNO. 1
AMENDED NO. 2
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement reconvnendations
outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 2-14-90, a copy of
which is attached.
10.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recon~nendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 12-06-89, a copy
of which is attached.
11.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 12-06-89, a
copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood
control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land
Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area~
drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to
recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map.
12.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined i the County Fire Department's letter dated 12-04-89, a copy of
which is attached.
13.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated 12-13-89, a copy
of which is attached.
14.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined i the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated 10-12-89, a copy
of which is attached.
15.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined County Geologic
Report No. 418 update and in the County Geologist transmittal dated 8-15-89,
a copy of which is attached.
DB'VELOPMMNT ST]x. MIIRaDS:
16.
Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the C-P-S zone.
PRIOR TO RECORDATIONOF THE FINaL MaP
17.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following condition shall be
complied with:
A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be
transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
T~NTATIV~ PARCEL MAP NO. 23430
~aVlS~D PBE~IT NO. 1
~~. 2
Conditions of A~al
~age 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SF~-~T CONDITIONS
18.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final map
to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed
with the Office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordation of the
final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of
the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of
Building and Safety. The following notes shall be placed on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet.
"The notice appearing in Section 6.a. of Ordinance No. 625, the
Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, shall be place~ on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet, with Lots No. 1 thru 9 identified
therein, the manner provided in said Section 6.a., as being located
partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of, land zoned for
primarily agricultural purposes by the County of Riverside."
be
"County Archaeological Report No. 1203 was prepared for this property
on 3-28-88 by Christopher Drover, and is on file at the County of
Riverside Planning Department."
"County Biological Report No. 195 was prepared for this property in
March 1988 by the Planning Center, and is on file at the Riverside
County Planning Department."
de
"County Geological Report No. 418-update was prepared for this property
on April 14, 1989 by Highland Geotechnical Consultants and is on file
at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern
in the report are as follows: liquefaction.
ee
"This property is located with 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."
19.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints affecting
this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet,
the original of which is on file at the office of the Riverside County
Surveyor. These constraints affect all parcels.
20.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying fees required by that ordinance which is based on
the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. 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
City ordinance or resolution.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23430
REVISED PERNITNO. 1
A_MENDED NO. 2
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
21.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance
of any building permit by the City of Temecula Department of Building and
Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the
intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This
certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific
seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or
fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures
must be demonstrated.
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
LeRm, D. Smoot
lORD COHMISSIONr,,R · COL'NI~' K'R%.lr~OR
February 14, 1990
-JermarT-2-3.r-t~)0
COt,.'NTY AOMBelSTRA tr,,T CL',TT,R
~AILING ADOIU..~.
PO. IOX lOgO
(7141 117-4K%54
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
(Shopping Center)
REz PM 23430-Revised ll-Amend #2
Team 5 - SHD 19
AP 1111-111-111-9 .
tAS amended at P.C. 2-14-90
The Road Department has reviewed the traffic study for this
project. The study indicates a projected Level of Service "C' on
both Winchester Road and Ynez Road, based upon substantial
improvement. The Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies
relative to Category II Land Uses statesz "A minimum of Level of
Service "C" is necessarT for any new Category II land use." As
such, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan
policy.
The following conditions of approval incorporate mitigation
measures identified in the traffic study which are necessary to
achieve or maintain the required level of service.
The project proponent shall incorporate such demand
programs as may be appropriate to comply with the goals and
objectives of the Regional Mobility Plan and Air Quality
Hanagement Plan, including1 a) design provisions to
accoamodate transit servicesl and b) Participation in
regional corridor stucLtesl all as approved and confirmed by
the Road Co~ssioner.
Prior to the -isseanoe-ef-en~--bela4Jme-t~emite~-recordation
of the final map, the project proponent shall consult with
and obtain clearance from the following agencies to assure
compliance and coorcLtnate with the Regional Nobility and
Air Quality Management Plans I a ) Caltrans, District 8 ~ b )
The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQHD ) ~
c) The R/verside Transit Agency (RTA)3 and d) The Riverside
County Transportation Cc~mmission (RCTC).
*As amended at P.C. 2-14-90
COUNTY ~I"IY~ CE3'4'KR · 4080 LD4ON 5111EET · PJ~r., CAL~O~ 92501
PH 23430-Revised el-Amend #2
aenNery-~3~-~9gg February 14, 1990
Page 2
Ynez Road shall be constructed to a full width Urban
Arterial standards, 134' right-of-way along the frontage of
PH 23430.
*5.
The project proponent construct the traffic signals at the
freeway interchange. This is necessary to attain a Level of
Service *C""D".
The plot plan should delineate the future Apricot right-of-
way as proposed by the developer for informational
purposes.
After a review of the Operation Analysis sn~,itted for the
proposed access points for the project, the Road Department's
requirements shall be8
7. Install the primary entry to the Palm Plaza project as a
standard intersection with a signal midway between
Winchester Road and Apricot Street.
Install two additional driveways, one as a right turn
in/right turn out located midway between Winchester Road
and the primary entry, and the other located midway between
Apricot and the primary entry. The southerly driveway shall
have a channelized median opening for left turn in only, as
long as access rights are dedicated on the eastside of
Ynez, except for two access points. The southerly opening
shall not line up with the left turn in opening
With respect
referenced item,
recommendations8
to the conditions of
the Road Department
approval for the above
has the following
Sufficient right of way along Winchester Road (State
!tLghway 79) shall he conveyed for public use to provide for
a 134 foot full width right of way.
10. Sufficient public street right of way shall he provided
along Ynez Road to establish a 134 foot full width right of
way including standard corner cutback. Developer shall
dedicate to Riverside County all vehicular access rights
along the east side of Ynes Road from Winchester Road,
southerly to the south line of th~s project, with only two
access points allowed. The two access points shall bet (1)
opposite the signalized entrance to this proJect~ (2) north
of (not aligning with) the southerly drive approach to this
· As amended at P.C. 2-14-90
· *As deleted at P.C. 2-14-90
PH 23430-Revised Wl-Amend ~2
aeeeary-8a~-iggg February 14, 1990
Page 3
12.
14.
Prior to recordatton or any use allowed by this permit, and
prior to doing any work within the State highway right of
way, clearance and/or an encroachment permit must be
obtained by the applicant from the District 08 Office of
the State Department of Transportation in San Bernardino.
The project proponent shall enter into a written agreement
with the County of Riverside and Caltrans District 08 to
provide for the design and construction of signals and
related facilities at the following intersectjones
a. Winchester Road at 1-15 ramp facilities
b. Winchester Road at Ynez Road
Winchester Road (State Highway 79) and Ynez Road shall be
improved with concrete curb and gutter located 110 feet
curb :o curb and match up asphalt concrete paving~
reconstruction~ or resurfacing of existing paving as
determined by =he Road Con=nissioner within a 134 foot full
width dedicated right of way in accordance with County
S~andard No. 100A, including all necessary transitions as
per Caltrans standards as approvsd by the Road
C~,issioner.
The landdivider shall construct
on Winchester Road and Ynez Road
Ccs~nissioner.
full width raised medians
as approved by the Road
Standard 35 foot curb return, cross
access ramps shall be constructed
Ordinance 461 where applicable.
gutter, spandrel and
in accordance with
Six foot wade concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along
Winchester Road (State Highway 79) and Ynez Road in
accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb
sidewalk).
ImprDvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
ex~ending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
RIverside County Road Cmmlssioner. Improvement plans
shall include all traffic signal design plans as described
in Condition #5 and 22.
Major drainage Is involved on =his project and
solution shall be as approved by the Road Ccsmnissioner.
?M 23430-Revised ~l-Amend ~2
~~/2~/~/February, 14, 1990
Page 4
19.
Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
20.
All work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit.
21.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside
County Standards and shall be shown on the street
improvement plans.
22.
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 to curb.
23.
The primary interior driveways shall be kept free of all
"back-on" parking.
24.
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.
25.
The developer shall be allowed to occupy 60% of the
leasable area of the center prior to completion of the
Winchester/Ynez traffic signal and Winchester Road
improvements from 1-15 to Ynez Road. As mitigation, the
City Engineering Staff will monitor intersection traffic
levels and the developer shall pay for traffic directors
when needed at the intersection after opening until the
improvements are completed, so as to keep the level of
service at the intersection at current operational level.
25a. The traffic signal at the center driveway shall be
constructed and funded by the developer with no credit
applied towards developer's signal mitigation fees.
26.
A striping plan is required for Winchester Road (State
Highway 79) and Ynez 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.
PN 23430-Revised ~l-Amend #2
aasaaFy-~a,-&99e- February 14, 1990
Page 5
ge
0e
The applicant shall com~ly with the Caltrans reconmend-
atlons as outlined in their letter dated July 11, 1989.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
c~mply wt~h Road DeparUnent stanaards and require approval
by the Road Comissioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through =he establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road C~tssioner. Landscape
plans shall be suamnitted on stanc~ard County Plan sheet
format ( 24 ' x 36 ' ). Eandscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict ~
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
Should this project lie within arF assessment/benefit
district, the applicant shall prlor to recordatton make
application for and pay for their reappornionment of the
assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district
unless said fees are deferred to building permit.
Prior =o recordatton, the
Businessman's Association
easements for legal access
Commissioner.
applicant shall establish a
to provide for reciprocal
as approved by the Road
Road DIvision Engineer
County of Riverside
TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: Dsctmbtr 6, 1989
A1LI~I· Glo a ~c,.~eL
~fielENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
FROM:
RE: PARCEL ~ 23430, ~d~ENDED NO. 2, REVISED NO. I
Environmental Heai=h Services has reviewed Amended No. 2,
Revised No. I dated November 17, 1989. Our current comencs
will remain as scared in our memo daced April 22. 1988.
SM:tac
· .~T~ENT
e,E.% +{)RII 4,1{. - -',
t,l l~U, mmm_m LlJII.
Iramere, m
emmmm, e
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT
of HEALTH
l/I aTN Illlilt la4.k lPOlt OdnriCI IOI IItOI- In4illaDl. Gl. llIOI
AMENDE:Z:) NO. 1. "lss~N.l.%%l(
April 22. 1988
RIV!~RSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DE~T.
4080 Lemon SLreet
Riverside. CA 92502
Attn: Greg Heal
mKelm
,el,. ~.I
:O~OmL Cd~ ettll
Ill roSefro Itltl If.
41,1ll. ~k IINI
ILllOll
· alkm Immm~l, ~ 18168
mwlllem~L ewk. w
RZ; Parcel Hap 23430; That portion of Lots 115 End 116 of
Tamscala Land and Water Company in the County or Riverside.
State of California. as shown by map on file in Book 8. F'aqe
359 of HIps, Records of SEn Diego County. California
(f Lots)
Gentlemen:
The DepIrtment of Public Health has reviewed Tent. aLive Hat,
No. 23430 and recommends that:
A valet system shell be installed accord]hg to
plans and specification as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
przndts of the plans of the valor system shall
be submitted In tr3plScate, with a mlnsmum scale
not legs than one Inch equ&|s 200/eat. along vath
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the Internal pipe diameter,
lotsalon st vilvel and Fire hydrants; pipe and
3sins speci/lc&tions, and the silo o[ the main
st the ~tmction st the new system to the
existing system. The plans shell comply in
all respects with Div. S, PErt I, Chapter ? o[
the Cali/ornt& Health sad SaFety Code, Cali/ornia
Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16. and General
Order No. ~03 o[ the Public Utilities Commission o[ the
SLate o[ California. when applicable.
Riveraxle County Planning Peps.
Amended No. ?, -Imm,
Page Tvo
ALert: Greg Neal
Aprll 22. lge8
The plans shall be smgned by a registered engineer and
valor company with the following certX[XcaLXon:
certify that the design o( the voter system ~n Parcel
Nap 23430 js ~n accordance v~th the voter system
expansion pians of the Rancho Callfornla Water
D~str~ct and that the voter service,storage and
d~sLr~bution system viJ~ be adequate to provide voter
service to such parcel. This certification does not
constitute · guarantee that ~t viii supply voter to
such parce] at any specific quantities. flora or
pressures for f~re protect3on or any other purpose"
This certlficat~on shall be signed by a respons3ble
official of the voter company. l'b!_EJsns must be
!!!!~ two wee~s ~£~or to the
This Department has a statement from the Rancho CaJlforn~a
Water D~strict agreeing to serve domestic voter to each and
every lot an ~he subdavasaon on demand prow]dang
satisfactory flnanczal arrangements are completed vzth the
subdzv3der. It vii1 be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prlor to the recordat~on of the
[~nal map.
This Department has s statement from the Eastern Munxcz~a!
Water Dxstr~ct &gree~nq to &/1or the subdivision seva~e
system to be connected to the severs of the Dmstrmct. The
sever system shall be ~nstalled according to plans and
specifications as approved by the D~etrzct, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prznts or the
plans of the sever system shall be submitted zn Lrlpi3cate.
along vzth the orzglnai dravzng, to the County Surveyor. The
pr3nts shall ahoy the Internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and ~o3nt specz[~catlons
Lnd the size of the severs at the 3unct~an of the nov system
Lo the existing system. A single plat ~nd~cmtzng locatzon
of sever iinee end+vater lines eh&i3 be · portion of the
eev&ge plane ·rid profiles. The plans shall be sig.ed by a
registered eng:neer and the sever d,strSct vlth the
fo~Jovzng certification: '! cerLZfy that the design of the
se~er system jn Parcel Nap 23430 is $n ·ccordance vlth the
ee~er system exp&nszon plans of the Astern Nun3cipal Water
D~strSct and that the vests d3sposaZ system ze adequate at
this time to treat the anticspared vastes from the proposed
parcel.'
Rzverstde County Pl&nn3ng Dept.
Amended No. ~ !hem
Page Three
AT'I"N: Greg Nea~
Aprz~ 22, 1986
It vz~J be necessmry for ~:nanciaJ &rrangements to be made
prxor to the recordatzon ot the rSn=~ msp.
Zt~vsZi be necessary rot the annexm~son proceedings to be
completely ~na~zed prior to recordatlon of the f~na! map.
S~nceret,v,
Sa"~~a~ an *
F. nvzronmental HeaJth -r, ervaces
SM:tac
-)
K(NN~'TH I, EDWAROS
1999 MARble' II'Rtrr
PO. IOx 1032
I'Lq, ZPHON! i71,1) 787-2015
FAX NO. (714| lle-llgS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CAm mlrOleNl& 12~O1
Riverside County
Planning Department
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Planner ~.~/~/,~H~,
Area:
We have reviewed this case and have the following cormants:
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 construd-
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 Dfstrtct's report dated ~'- ~'~-~ is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
Th~s project is a part of
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~avJhbeeenpr°ject will be
constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached conmnents apply.
KKNNi'rH I,. EDWARDI
P. O. BOX lOJ9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERIIDI, CALIFORNIA IllDe
August 3, 1989
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention:
Regional Team No. 5
Gloria Haciel
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
Parcel Hap 23q30
Revised Permit
This is a proposal to divide q~ acres into a 9 lot commercial
subdivision in the Temecula area, on the southwest corner of Ynez
Road and Winchester Road, and adjacent to Interstate 15.
The site is on relatively flat terrain between Santa Oertrudis
Creek to the north and a large unnamed wash to the south. Santa
Gertrudis Creek is contained by newly constructed facilities,
The unnamed wash has capacity for perhaps a third of its 100 year
peak flow rate of 1250 cfs. The reinforced concrete box where
the wash crosses North General Kearny Road is undersized. Large
amounts of runoff from this wash will spill over onto an open
field to the northeast of the subject property and Join with run-
off from a local watershed of 300 acres, These combined flows
sheet across Ynez Road onto the subject property, Water ponds on
the property as it seeks enough energy to pass through an exist-
ing 7' wide x 3' high reinforced concrete box beneath Interstate
15, As the pond gets higher, some flow will outlet in a Caltrans
interceptor channel toward more freeway culverts to the south,
This proJeer proposes to intercept the sheet flows with a tem-
porary channel offsite along the east side of Ynez Road and carry
them to the box culvert under Ynez Road to the channel along the
south side of this project,
The applicant indicates that the pondinS elevation upstream of
the freeway is 10q3.7, that their project would not decrease the
existing pond volume and that all new buildings would be flood-
proofed to at least that elevation.
RIverside County
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Map 23~30
Revlsed Permi~
- 2 -
August 3, 1989
Following are the District's recommendations:
This parcel map is located within the 11mlts of the
Hurrieta Creek/TemecuZa Valley Area Drainage Plan for
which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board·
Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provi-
sions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of
Area Dralnage Plans", amended February 16, 1988:
Dralnage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shali be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the tlme of issuance of a gradlng
permlt or bulldtng permit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be flrst obtalned after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
have been initiated on the parcel wtthln the prlor 3
year perlod, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that parcel which remain active·
The preservation of the 10q3.7 pond elevation should be
proven with appropriate hydraulic and topographic
information.
The proposed interim channel on the east slde of Ynez
Road should be constructed with the first phase of this
pro~eet. The channel should have capacity to carry the
storm runoff from the 300 acres, The 6qO cfs breakout
should also be carried unless upstream facilities have
been Improved. Natntenanee should be provided.
The RCB under ~nez Road and the channel along the south
boundary of the project should have capacity to carry the
100 year pea~ runoft from its tributary area with full
development assumed· Zf they do not have capacity they
should be enlarged or other measures should be taRen.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Map 23430
Revised Permit
-3-
August 3, 1989
The onsite channel should be constructed to District
standards including those relating to design, alignment
and access. If the District is to maintain the channel,
the applicant will have to pay a maintenance charge.
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation of the final map.
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easement's
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
or buildings and obstructions".
A note should be put on the environmental constraint
sheet stating, "Finished floors of buildings shall be
constructed above elevation 1043.?".
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the Subdivi-
sion section of this office at
1)
2>
714/]87-2884.
Veryf '. ~ ,
V_~O~:b~. KASHUBA
~enior Civil Engineer
J. F. Davidson Assoclate~, Inc.
R$ncho California Development Co.
KF:bJp
1;/1;./89 15~I I~i~,~F~iDI~ C.(I.I, IT',' FII~ DEPTg.
filzaglz
12"4"8~
FlmnN&P~iV ~ ~Cl~
4OlOlammlm~l.mttL
PLAN!ILIIG DttAtl~XllT
GI,0IXA 14ACZZ1,
l!I
IBVZIBD Y,k~CgL ~ 23&30 - AHEHDED 12
With reapeat to the conditions of approve1 for th· above refersused lead division.
the rive Department re·osmude the fellsvial firs protection measures be provide~
lizaoeordan,·rlth Uverside County Ordinsn=ee udtor retainlead fire protection
stmsdard·t
FD/I*lO"t'l~:t0ll
The valet u~lu eh~l be ,ap&bZs of providiul · potential fire fray of 5000 OF14
and an aetua~ fire flow avatZ~bla from oaf on hydrant shall be 2000 GI~ for
hours duration eg 20 PIt residual operatinl pressure.
Aperaid eqer fire hydrants, (6'xi"x2-2|') elulZ be re, seed :t each street
taraffection and spaced not more than 330 foot ·part in any dtrsotion, with
no portion of ny 1ot frontate maze th~n 165 foot frou· fire hydrant.
Appliceug/dovelaper lbslZ furnlsh one espy of the valor eyetom plans to the
rite Depotremus far review. elmm oh&it ,oafon co fire hydrant g,ee, rotation
a~ epa~lq, a~, the often e~Z mac the fire fZwraqutremnco. Pim ,UZZ
be eilud/qprffd by a reiterated ctvti eqtneer aM the lou1 voter cQauy
~th Who to11~ ~e~t~fiaect~t "Z eerc~fy t~C the des/p of the near eyecan
U.~seeor~e ~ cb re~trmate prescribed by t~ ~verside ~uaty Fire
The required water systeu rueladleI fire hydrinte ebmZl be instailed and Iceopted
by the appropriate voter qeuey prior to mry embust~bh baildial stariLL betas
piesad osutm4tvtdsm.t lot.
questlout relardtq the menial of the tondilLon shirr be referred to the
lira Depergumst ttamztnl ~ rallneerial staff.
Chief rue Dt. partmst ~lmnner
guzt lieseve11, rite lafety Iit.~.aUlUc
Administrative Center, 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside. CA 92507
December 13, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Gloria Guzman
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501 '
RE: Parcel Map 23430 - Revised, Amended #2
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
The site is located in a special studies zone -- G-418.
Lot configuration shall conform to site development of PP 11222.
Very truly yours,
Robert CTnares
Senior Land Use Technician
/sn
Administration (714) li2-8840, (714) 787-2020
11:38 Bi, DG
0OUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUXLDINO AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
ORADINO SECTION
TO: PLANNING / GLO]~A CiUZHAN
DATE: A 90
RE: PM 23430 AMENDED #2
APN:
The information provided on this project did not include.a conceptual gra~Zn[
plan. However, lufflctlnt information wal supplied for us CO reccmmenC
approval with the following conditions.
Prior to commencinl ant IradinE in excess of 50 cubic 7Erda, the
applicant shall obtain a Iradinl permit end approval to construct from
the Suildinl and Safety Department.
Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance securi=y
to be'posted with the Buildinl and Safety department.
NOTE: For the final gradinS plan, please provide the applicable informa~on
from Building and Safety Departmen~ IradAnE forms: 284-120, 284-21. 284-88.
and 284-46. These forms are available at the Building and Safety Depar~mc-
offices.
Case No.:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Extension of Time, Parcel Map No. 23430
Prepared By: Steve Jiannino
Recommendation: Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
Bedford Properties, Inc.
J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc.
First Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 23430, an
9 lot Schedule E Parcel Map.
Southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads.
C-P-S
( Scenic Highway Commercial )
North: C-P-S
South: M-M
East: R - R
West: C- P-S
(Scenic Highway
Commercial)
( Manufacturing - Medium )
( Rural Residential)
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
Commercial Center Under Construction
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial Center
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems
Vacant
1-15
Total Acres:
No. of Parcels:
Minimum Parcel Size:
44.07 acres
9 parcels
0.6 acre
Bedford Properties requested a Time Extension for
Parcel Map No. 23430 on July 10, 1990, prior to the
August 16, 1990 expiration date of the original map.
The City was processing a revision to Parcel Map
No. 23430 at the time of the Extension request. The
STAFFRPT\PM23430 1
ANALYSIS:
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
FINDINGS:
City Council approved Parcel Map No. 23430,
Revised No. 1, and Plot Plan No. 2 for Palm Plaza on
July 31, 1990. Confusion arose regarding the
approval date of the map with its being transferred
from the County. It was determined that the
approval of the revised map did not extend the life
of the original map and a Time Extension is
required.
The commercial center, as proposed in Plot Plan No.
2, is well under construction with shops already
built and occupied. The Time Extension for Parcel
Map No. 23430 and the ultimate recordation of the
map will allow the major tenant, Mervyn's, etc., to
own or long term lease the individual lots.
This project is for the First Extension of Time for
Parcel Map No. 23430 in conformance with the State
Subdivision Map Law and Ordinance 460. Parcel
Map No. 23430 is a commercial parcel map, Schedule
E Parcel Map of 9 parcels on 44.07 acres. The
commercial project for the site is under construction
with some of the buildings already open for
business. Parcel Map No. 23430 is a financing map
of an approved and partially constructed commercial
site.
The commercial center and revised parcel map were
reviewed and approved by the City Council July 31,
1990. The proposed Time Extension will extend the
expiration date of the parcel map to August 16,
1991. The applicant is attempting to record the
final parcel map prior to the end of the year. The
Time Extension must be approved prior to
recordation of the final parcel map.
The City has adopted the SWAP as a land use
guideline until a City general plan is adopted. The
SWAP designation for the site is C (Commercial)
with the current zoning being C-P-S (Scenic
Highway Commercial). The proposed project is a
commercial subdivision which conforms to both the
SWAP and the current zoning for the site.
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law.
S TA FF R PT\PM23430 2
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 terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare·
Parcel Map No. 23~130 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density 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 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 Negative
Declaration adopted by the County for the
project.
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the state map act in regard to the future
passive energy control opportunities· Units
have significant southern exposure which
allows for passive heating opportunities·
Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow
solar penetration in winter and shading in
SUmmer,
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects.
STAFFRPT\PM23430 3
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applicants and herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend tothe City Council:
APPROVAL of the First Extension of Time for
Parcel Map No. 23430 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval, based on findin9s
contained in the Staff Report.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Exhibits
STAFF R PT\PM23430 4
DRAFT
COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adopt Resolution No. -(next)
concur to staff's recommendation that t summary s are likely to be consistent ~
The carried as follows:
AYES:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
/ Hoagland, Chiniaeff
GARY THORNHILL advised
to discuss Item No.
NOES: 0 [ERS: None
\.
\,,
~man
the meetinc
that the applicant wanted
ht.
CHAIRMAN
item and
therefore
C]
item
that the Commissi >ved to continue the
ere was no information in t ~nda package and
had nothing to base a --On. CHAIRMAN
~ated that the Commission would like )tinue the
y moved.
MARKHAM stated that they would prefer that the C sion
the item; however the Commission remained with their m0~on.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. EXTENSION OF TIME PM 23430 REVISED NO. I
Proposal for the first extension of time for PM 23430
located at the southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester
Road.
STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report on this item.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M.
COMMISSIO,NER FAH~moved close the public hearing at
6:30 P.M. ~'~r~°~ i~
ension~ of Time for Parcel Map
23430, Revision No. 1, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD and
carried unanimously.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4. PLOT PLAN NO. 104
PCMIN12/3/90 -3- 12/7/90
ITEM NO. 12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Engineering Department
December 18, 1990
Final Parcel Map No. 23430
PREPARED BY:
R ECOMMEN DAT I ON:
Douglas M. Stewart
That the City Council approve Final Parcel Map No. 23430
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Parcel Map No. 23430 was originally submitted to Riverside
County Planning Department on January 27, 1988. The
Parcel Map, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2, was approved
by the City of Temecula City Council on July 31, 1990.
Parcel Map No. 23430, Revised No. 1, proposes to divide 44.07 acres into nine {9)
commercial lots. The parcel map site is located west of Ynez Road and south of
Winchester Road. This parcel map is part of approved Plot Plan No. 11222, Revised
No. 2. The applicant is Bedford Properties, Inc. The following fees have been paid
for Parcel Map No. 23430:
Area Drainage Fee
Stephen's K-Rat Fee (for Plot Plan No. 11222)
Traffic Signal Mitigation
$ 41,008.00
$ 79,911.00
$110,175.00
Improvements for this site have been completed to date. The following bonds have
been posted for Parcel Map No. 23430.
Streets and Drainage {1 Year Maintenance Only)
Water (1 Year Maintenance Only)
Sewer ( 1 Year Maintenance Only)
Survey Monument Bond
$ 80,000.00
4,000.00
6,000.00
9,636.00
STAFFRPT\ FPM2 3 4 3 0 1
FISCAL IMPACT: Not Determined.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Parcel
Map No. 23430, Revised No. 1, subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
CH:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Development Fee Checklist
Location map
Copy of Map
Conditions of Approval
Fees and Securities Report
STAFFRPT\FPM23430 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Final Parcel Map No. 23~30
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
( Qu imby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No.
(Planning)
20
N/A
N/A (Fees Paid)
Condition No. 57
( Transportation
Engineerin9 Plot Plan
Condition )
N/A
Condition No. 12
(Planning)
Condition No. 11
(Planning)
STAFFRPT\FPM23430 3
,1
II
I PM 23430
LI
t
I
CZ 46'
| CP- SWAP
... . ...
· .'."' .
· .. .....".'... :.' ·
15
:,-,:,',~
/
I ii
II Ii
I I
~ ,_=,2y
..'
/~.::,
OICI
2-5 D A
, ,
- cz too. ,-~.
,-,. R~ ~.,,4,~; /" ?~' ~' c T '
~ -. .}~. ' j /- ~ ~...~-!6 D~/AC,'
,: · ~,, ~,
· App. KAISER DEV, ELOPMENT COMP, ~ I IONAL MAP~
U~ 44,07 ACR,ES ~O 8 LOTS ~ ~ ~
. 515 wn
~ .' . .
· I"- 800' ~/aE CO~ ~~/~$ O~AR~~ ,o sc.L~
el-/l-l-aLI
MINUTE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE:
TO:
MEETING OF=
AGENDA ITEM
No.:
SUBJECT~
August 3, 1990
City of Temecula Planning Department
July 31, 1990
Item 7
Plot Plan No. 2 - Related Case PP 11222
It was moved by Councilmember Mufioz, seconded by
Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation
as follows:
7.1
Approve Plot Plan No. 2, a revised permit for
county Plot Plan No. 11222, based on the findings
contained in the staff report and subject to the
conditions of approval as amended by the Planning
Commission on July 16, 1990.
7.2
Approve Tentative Parcel No. 23430, Revised No. 1,
based on the findings contained in the County Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
approval with the deletion of Road Condition #25.
Condition No. 22, was changed to read, "as mitigation,
the City engineering staff will monitor intersection
traffic levels and the developer will pay for traffic
directors when needed at the intersection after opening
until the improvements are completed, so as to keep the
level of service at the intersection at current
operational level."
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans,
Moore, Mufioz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula,
California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, the
forgoing to be the official action taken by the City Council at the
above meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3rd
day of August, 1990.
JUNE'IS. GREEK, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
[SEAL]
Mayor
Ron Parks
Mayor Pro Tem
Karel F. Lindemans
August 29, 1990
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, Califomia 92390
(714) 694-1989
FAX (714) 694 - 1999
Councilmembers
Patricia H. Birdsall
Peg Moore
J. Sal Mu~oz
Mr. Gregory A. Erickson
Bedford Properties
POBox 9016
Temecula, CA 92390
Final Conditions of Approval for
Plot Plan No. 2 (Revised Permit for Plot Plan No.
and Parcel Map No. 23430, Revised No. I
11222)
Dear Mr. Erickson:
On July 31, 1990 the Temecula City Council approved the above referenced projects
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. The plot planpermit willbe valid
for a period of two years, until July 31, 1992. Substantial construction of the
project must be initiated prior to the expiration date. Theparcel map approval is
valid for two years frc~ the original approval date, with extensions of time
optional as provided in Ordinance No. 460.
If you have any questions regarding this notification, please contact the Planning
Department at (714)964-6400 at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
GT:ks
cc: Engineering Department
CITY OF TEMECUIA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLOT PLAN NO. 2
(REVISED PERMIT FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 11222, AMENDED NO. 4)
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: 7-31-90
EXPIRATION DATE: 7-31-92
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the original City
approval date; otherwise it shall bec~e null and void and of no effect
whatsoever· By this approval within the two (2) year period which is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 2, or as amended by these conditions.
e
In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one
(1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shall c~ply with
Ordinance No. 655.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with appr~ved landscape,
irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancypermits. An
autcumtic 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.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, a phasing plan for the shopping
center must be s,,~w. itted and appruved to coincide with the appr~ved landscape
plan.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall
submit seven (7) copies of~ an 18.12 parking, landscaping, shading and
irrigation plot plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by
a filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinanue No. 348.
A min/mum of 2,406 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with
Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three (3)
inches on four (4) inches of Class II base.
-2-
10.
11.
12.
13.
A minimum of 25 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
the approved plot plan. Each parking space reserved for the handlcapped
shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of
porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol
of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area
and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a mintmum of
height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one { 1 ) inch in height,
which clearly and conspicuously states the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed
away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning ."
!n addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue
paint of at lust three {3) square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Road Department
Environmental Health
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of
the Department of Building and Safety.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
Eighteen | 18| trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose a total of 18 bins
shall be located within the project, and shall be constructed prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shell be six feet in height and
ahall be made with masonry block and · gate which screens the bins from
external view. {Amended per Director's Hearing on 11/6/89|
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six (6) feet.
Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees
along the freeways, streets, and within the parking areas.
This projed site Is within a significant groundshaking zone. MItigation shall
be the application of the proper Uniform Building Cede standards in the
development of this project.
15.
16.
18.
19.
20.
21.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to Issuance of
· ny building permit by the Riverside County Department of Buildlng and
Safety, · California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the
Intended structure or building is safe end structurally integrated. This
certification shall be based upon, but not Iimlted to, the site specific selsmic,
geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure
development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be
demonstrated.
Twelve Class II bicycle rtcks shall be provided in convenient locations to
facilitate bicycle access to the project ·re·.
Prior to Issuance of building permits, perform·nce securities, In ·mounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls end fences in ·ccordance with the ·pproved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with
the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to Issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and
irrigation shall have been installed and be in · condition acceptable to the
Director of building end Safety. The plants shall be healthy end free of
weeds, disuse or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
end in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be Installed
underground.
Prior to the sale of any structure as shown on Plot Plan No. 2, · land division
shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and
any other pertinent ordinance.
For use on projects located outside SKR study areas which contain occupied
SKR Habitat:
1. Prior to the issuance of · grading or building permit:
The Secretary of the Interior must have approved the Stephens~
K·ng·roo R·t H·bitat Conservation Plan and ·ny proposed taking
of the SKR must be in compliance with the ·pproved Plan:
be
The Secretary of the Interior must have issued to the County,
the Section 10(·) Permit required by the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 end said Permit must be in effect: end
A report, prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish end
Wildlife Service to trap the Stephensm Ken ·too Rat for scientific
purposes, documenting the amount an3I quality of occupied
Stephensm K·ngaroo R·t Habitat subject to disturbance or
destruction must have been submitted to ·pproved by the
Planning Director.
22.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate
fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by
the Habitat Conservation Plan as Implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
atanclards:
2S,
26,
27,
28.
29.
30.
31,
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 No. St~6.
The existing water system per water improvement plan approved for Plot Plan
No. 11222 will provide sufficient fire protection for the proposed project.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
flow 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within S0 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 wateRlow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for ·pproval prior to Installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
!n lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into
square foot compartments, epproved by the Fire Department, as per Section
505 {a) of the Uniform Building Code.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install pertable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
· certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment,
Prior to Issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $~413.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees.
-5-
32.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum
of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount
must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
33.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning
end Engineering staff.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 2 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to
building plan submittal, the following items will be requested:
~. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in
order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law.
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
This is a proposal to construct a shopping center in Rancho California between Ynez
Road and the freeway south of Winchester Road.
The site is on relatively flat terrain between Santa Gertrudls Creek to the north and
a large unnamed'wash to the south. Santa Certrudis Creek is contained by newly
constructed facilities. The unnamed wash has capacity for perhaps a third of its 100
year peak flow rate of 1259 ds. The reinforced concrete box where the wash crosses
North General Kearny Road is undersized. Large amounts of runoff from this wash
will spill over onto an open field to the northeast of the subject property and join
with runoff from a local watershed of 300 acres. These combined flows sheet across
Ynez Road onto the subject property, Water ponds on the property as it seeks
enough energy to pass through an existing 7~ wide x 3~ hlgh reinforced concrete box
beneath Interstate 15. As the pond gets higher, some flow will outlet in a CalTrans
interceptor channel toward more freeway culverts to the south.
This projed proposes to intercept the sheet flows with a temporary offsite along the
_-~__t side of Ynez Road and carry them to the box culvert under Ynez Road to the
channel along the south side of this project,
The applicant indicates that the pondlng elevation upstream of the freeway Is 10q3.7,
end their project would not decrease the existing pond volume and that ell new
buildings would be flood proofed to at least that elevation,
-6-
The County Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta 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
Drairusge Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other types of development,
Virtually ell new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are
particularly troublesome in those watersheds where an Area Drainage Plan has been
Klopted. In order to mitigate the downstream Impacts brought about by Increased
runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Public
Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. Mitigation charges, where
appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate.
Following are the District's recommendations:
36.
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 this case includes · total of LIq acres. At the current fee
rate of $1,970.00 per acre, the mitigation charge equals $86.680.00. 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 been
credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
37.
The preservation of the 10q3.7 pond elevation should be proven with
appropriate hydraulic and topographic information.
The proposed Interim channel on the east side of Ynez Road should be
constructed with the first phase of this project. The channel should have
capacity to carry the storm runoff from the 300 acres. The &tl0 cfs breakout
should also be carried unless upstream facilities have been ·pproved.
Maintenance should be provided.
39°
The RCB under Ynez Road end the channel along the south boundary of the
project should have capacity to carry the 100 year peak runoff from its
tributary area with full development assumed. If they do not have cap·city
they should be enlarged or other measures should be taken.
The onsite channel should be constructed to District standards Including
those relating to design, alignment end access. If the District is to maintain
the channel, the applicant will have to pay · maintenance charge.
Onstte drainage facilities located outside of road right of wa should be
contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall I~ kept free
of buildings and obstructions.
Offslte drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage
_&we.menU obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should
be recorded and · copy submitted to the DIstrict prior to the Issuance of
permits.
-7-
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 to the issuance of grading or building permits.
COUNTY GEOLOGIST
We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled "Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation, 41 + Acre winchester Plaza Shopping Center, SWC of
Winchester Road, and Ynez Road, Temecula, CA," dated April 14, 1989, and your
response letter, dated, August 10, 1989.
Your report determined that:
There is a moderate liquefaction potential at the site for soils at depths
between 20 and 40 feet.
Approximately 1 to 3 inches of liquefaction-induced settlement might occur at
the subject site.
Your report recommended that:
To mitigate the liquefaction potential of the site, the near-surface soils within
proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 5 feet below
the existing ground surface or 4 feet below the deepest footing, whichever is
greater. Deeper localized removals to competent soils should be anticipated.
Overexcavations should extend a minimum lateral distance of 5 feet beyond the
outer edges of exterior footings.
Prior to fill placement, the exposed soils should be scarified to · depth of 6 to
8 In and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (ASTM D 1557).
A 1-foot layer of gravel |1-112 in maximum aize| should then be placed in the
bettom of the excavations and compacted to et least 90% relative compaction
ASTM D 1557},
To mitigate the potential effects of liquefaction, continuous footings should be
used for all proposed structures. Square footings may be considered but
should be constructed as a combined or continuous footing. Two tq
reinforcing bars placed in the top and 2 In the bottom of the continuous
footings ere recommended to provide uniform support of the foundation
system. A Structural Engineer should evaluate configurations end
reinforcement requirements for combined footings, structural loads,
shrinkage and temperature stresses, with special consideration given to the
possible effects of liquefaction.
The design structures should comply with the requirements of the governing
Jurisdictions and standard practices of the Structural Engineers Association
of California.
-8-
Foundation and grading plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical
Engineer to assure conformance with the intentions of the recommendations
contained in this report.
It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and satisfies
the additional information requested under the California Environmental Quality Act
review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval of the
report is hereby given.
The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of liquefaction potential shall
be adhered to in the design and construction of this project.
It should be noted that the recommendations for liquefaction mitigation made in this
report supersede those made in County Geologic Report ~118, prepared by Leighton
and Associates on October 16, 1985.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DRAINAGE
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based
on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District.
The Development shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage
flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the
use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of
Ordinance No. ~|60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the shall
provide adequate facilities as approved by Engineering Department.
All lots shall drain toward the street unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
50.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through undersidewalk drains.
51.
A detailed drainage study will be required to be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. The study shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer and shall include existing interim and proposed
conditions, including Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations.
GRADING
52.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, 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.
53.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four (L~)
copies of a comprehensive grading plan to Engineering Department. The plan
shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be
additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. The plan shall be
-9-
55.
56.
drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City maintained road right-of-
way.
The developer shall provide bonds and agreements, clearances from all
applicable agencies, and pay all fees prior to the approval of the plans.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments, including median cuts.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
57.
Prior to the issuance of building permits the developer shall deposit wi~h the
Engineering Department a cash sum based on the current fee schedule as
mitigation for traffic signal impact.
58.
The developer shall be allowed to occupy 60% of the leasable area of the center
prior to completion of the Winchester/Ynez traffic signal and Winchester Road
improvements from 1-15 to Ynez Road. As mitigation, the City Engineering
Staff will monitor intersection traffic levels and the developer shall pay for
traffic directors when needed at the intersection after opening until the
improvements are completed, so as to keep the level of service at the
intersection at current operational level.
CITY OF TEMECUIA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23430
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE:
ORIGINAL EXPIRATION DATE:
7-31-90
8-16-90
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 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. 23430, REVISED PERMIT NO. 1, AMENDED NO. 2, 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 E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Board of Supervisors
approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue .in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the County
Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road
Commissioner.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary.
All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and
utility access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the City
Department of Building and Safety.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23430
REVISED PERMIT NO. 1
AMENDED NO. 2
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recomendations
outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 2-14-90, a copy of
which is attached.
10.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 12-06-89, a copy
of which is attached.
11.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined
in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 12-06-89, a
copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood
control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land
Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area
drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to
recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map.
12.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined i the County Fire Department's letter dated 12-04-89, a copy of
which is attached.
13.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated 12-13-89, a copy
of which is attached.
14.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined i the Building
and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated 10-12-89, a copy
of which is attached.
15.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined County Geologic
Report No. 418 update and in the County Geologist transmittal dated 8-15-89,
a copy of which is attached.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
16.
Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the C-P-S zone.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
17.
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following condition shall be
complied with:
A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be
transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23430
REVISED PERMIT NO. 1
AMENDED NO. 2
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SF~-RT CONDITIONS
18.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final map
to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed
with the Office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordation of the
final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of
the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of
Building and Safety. The following notes shall be placed on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet.
"The notice appearing in Section 6.a. of Ordinance No. 625, the
Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, shall be place~ on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet, with Lots No. 1 thru 9 identified
therein, the manner provided in said Section 6.a., as being located
partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of, land zoned for
primarily agricultural purposes by the County of Riverside."
"County Archaeological Report No. 1203 was prepared for this property
on 3-28-88 by Christopher Drover, and is on file at the County of
Riverside Planning Department."
"County Biological Report No. 195 was prepared for this property in
March 1988 by the Planning Center, and is on file at the Riverside
County Planning Department."
de
"County Geological Report No. 418-update was prepared for this property
on April 14, 1989 by Highland Geotechnical Consultants and is on file
at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern
in the report are as follows: liquefaction.
"This property is located with 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."
19.
The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints affecting
this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet,
the original of which is on file at the office of the Riverside County
Surveyor. These constraints affect all parcels.
20.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying fees required by that ordinance which is based on
the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. 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
City ordinance or resolution.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23430
REVISED PERMIT NO. 1
AMENDED NO. 2
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
21.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance
of any building permit by the City of Temecula Department of Building and
Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the
intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This
certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific
seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or
fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures
must be demonstrated.
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
Le. Rov D. Smool
lOAD COM,qt~;IONER & COI.'NTY S].'RVL~OR
Februacy 14, 1990
-j~arru azT- -2-) r - i 9~0
CCX.%q'Y AD'4D',IS"TI~iTR'[ Cf..',TT_R
K~,ILING ADORLSS
PO ~OX tO'q,o
(714) 71.'-655&
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
(Shopping Center)
RE: PM 23430-Revised #1-Amend #2
Team 5 - SHD #9
AP #111-111-111-9 .
*As amended at P.C. 2-14-90
The Road Department has reviewed the traffic study for this
project. The study indicates a projected Level of Service "C" on
both Winchester Road and Ynez Road, based upon substantial
improvement. The Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies
relative to Category II Land Uses states: 'A minimum of Level of
Service "C" is necessary for any new Category II land use." As
such, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan
policy.
The following conditions of approval incorporate mitigation
measures identified in the traffic study which are necessary to
achieve or maintain the required level of service.
The project proponent shall incorporate such demand
programs as may be appropriate to comply with the goals and
objectives of the Regional Mobility Plan and Air Quality
Management Plan, including: a) design provisions to
accommodate transit services; and b) Participation in
regional corridor studies; all as approved and confirmed by
the Road Co~Enissioner.
Prior to the-issuanee-e~-an~--b~Fi-14ia~-Fcrmi~s~-recordation
of the final map, the project proponent shall consult with
and obtain clearance from the following agencies to assure
compliance and coordinate with =he Regional Mobility and
Air Quality Management Plans: a) Caltrans, District 8; b)
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD);
c) The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); and d) The Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC).
*As amended at P.C. 2-14-90
COUNTY ADMFN1STRATIYZ CENTT. R, 4080 LEHON STRIIT, RIVT_RSrDE, CEORNIA 92501
PH 23430-Revised tl-Amend t2
aaReePy-ea~-~998 February 14, 1990
Page 2
* * 3. - Pr, t~x= -=~- - ~e - ~~e- - ee -anr - ~xz~)dt.n~/l=ermt=~; -a-
- me~ham~e~ ~ -e3~~e- t~e -eenstTu~ ~ iorr v]~ - ' WiTm-~es trr
- ~ - 4~ - - ~44~ima~e- - ~ - - ) er~ - ~-en(-i~uzat~crr - -between -~effnrrson-
Ynez Road shall be constructed to a full width Urban
Arterial standards, 134' right-of-way along the frontage of
PM 23430·
*5.
The project proponent construct the traffic signals at the
freeway interchange. This is necessary to attain a Level of
Service
The plot plan should delineate the future Apricot right-of-
way as proposed by the developer for informational
purposes.
After a review of the Operation Analysis submitted for the
proposed access points for the project, the Road Department's
requirements shall be~
7. Install the primary entry to the Palm Plaza project as a
standard intersection with a signal midway between
Winchester Road and Apricot Street.
Install two additional driveways, one as a right turn
in/right turn out located midway between Winchester Road
and the primary entry, and the other located midway between
Apricot and the primary entry. The southerly driveway shall
have a channelized median operhing for left turn in only, as
long as access rights are dedicated on the eastside of
Ynez, except for two access points. The southerly opening
shall not line up with the left turn in opening
With respect
referenced item,
recommendations~
to the conditions of
the Road Department
approval for the above
has the following
Sufficient right of way along Winchester Road (State
Highway 79) shall be conveyed for public use to provide for
a 134 foot full width right of way.
10. Sufficient public street right of way shall be provided
along Ynez Road to establish a 134 foot full width right of
way including standard corner cutback. Developer shall
dedicate to Riverside County all vehicular access rights
along the east side of Ynez Road from Winchester Road,
southerly to the south line of this project, with only two
access points allowed. The two access points shall be~ (1)
opposite the signalized entrance to this project; (2) north
of (not altgning with) the southerly drive approach to this
project.
,/ks amended at P.C. 2-14-90
*"As deleted at P.C. 2-14-90
PM 23430-Revised ll-Amend ~Z
aan~a~y-~a~-~99g February 14, 1990
Page 3
12.
13.
14.
15.
17.
18.
Prior to recordation or any use allowed by this permit, and
prior to doing any work within the State highway right of
way, clearance and/or an encroachanent permit must be
obtained by the applicant from the District 08 Office of
the State Department of Transportation in San BerD^~dino.
The project proponent shall enter into a written agreement
with the County of Riverside and Caltrans District 08 to
provide for the design and construction of signals and
related facilities at the following intersections=
a. Winchester Road at 1-15 ramp facilities
b. Winchester Road at Ynez Road
Winchester Road (State Highway 79) and Ynez Road shall be
improved with concrete curb and gutter located 110 feet
curb to curb and match up asphalt concrete paving;
reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as
determined by the Road Commissioner within a 134 foot full
width dedicated right of way in accordance with County
Standard No. 100A, including all necessary transitions as
per Caltrans standards as approved by the Road
Co~unissioner.
The landdivider shall construct
on Winchester Road and Ynez Road
Commssioner.
full width raised medians
as approved by the Road
Standard 35 foot curb return, cross
access ramps shall be constructed
Ordinance 461 where applicable.
gutter, spandrel and
in accordance with
Six foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along
Winchester Road (State Highway 79) and Ynez Road in
accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb
sidewalk).
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
exZending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a gTade and aligrunent as approved by the
Riverside County Road Commissioner. Improvement plans
shall include all traffic signal design plans as described
in Condition #5 and 22.
Major drainage is involved on this project and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road Commissioner.
?M 23430-Revised ~l-Amend ~2
~~/Z~/~990/February, 14, 1990
Page 4
19.
Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
20.
All work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit.
21.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside
County Standards and shall be shown on the street
improvement plans.
22.
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 to curb.
23.
The primary interior driveways shall be kept free of all
"back-on" parking.
24.
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.
25.
The developer shall be allowed to occupy 60% of the
leasable area of the center prior to completion of the
Winchester/Ynez traffic signal and Winchester Road
improvements from 1-15 to Ynez Road. As mitigation, the
City Engineering Staff will monitor intersection traffic
levels and the developer shall pay for traffic directors
when needed at the intersection after opening until the
improvements are completed, so as to keep the level of
service at the intersection at current operational level.
25a. The traffic signal at the center driveway shall be
constructed and funded by the developer with no credit
applied towards developer's signal mitigation fees.
26.
A striping plan is required for Winchester Road {State
Highway 79) and Ynez 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.
PH 23430-Revised tl-Amend 12
aan=aFy-~a~-~99G- February 14, 1990
Page 5
27.
9e
30.
The applicant shall comply with the Caltrans recommend-
ations as outlined in their letter dated July 11, 1989.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Department standards and require approval
by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape
plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit
district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make
application for and pay for their reapportionment of the
assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district
un/ess said fees are deferred to building permit.
Prior to recordation, the
Businessman's Association
easements for legal access
Comm~ssioner.
applicant shall establish a
to provide for reciprocal
as approved by the Road
Road Division Engineer
County of Riverside
TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
AT~NHENTAL
FROM:
DATE: December 6, 1989
HFALTH SPECIALIST IV
RE: PARCEL MAP 23430, AMENDED NO. 2, REVISED NO.
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No. 2,
Revised No. I dated November 17, 1989. Our current couaaents
SH: tac ~ ]98~~ '
DE'C 0 8 ' ' ~
f,E.~ I'()H.%! 4,1(. - -',
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE '.
DEPARTMENT
'
Apr~ I 22, 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside. CA 92502
Attn: Grog Neal
IIJ, LTI Ill/Ill
:OIOelA. C& Illl*l
.mill
¢t.i11 OAlfl ITITfT
,ill ILIWHI
Illel If&Ill N
e&tll
11111
m~ffllrll
RE:; Parcel Hap 23430; That portion of Lots llS and 116 of
Temecula Land and Water Company in the County of R~verslde.
State of California. as shown by map on fiJe In Book 8. F'aoe
359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County. Cal~forn3a
(~ Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tent. aLive Mar.
No. 23430 and recommends that:
A water system shall be Installed accord3r,9 to
plans and specxficat~on as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prlndt~ of the plans of the water system slyall
be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale
not less than one ~nch equals 200 feeL. &Ion9 w~th
the original drawinl to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the Internal pipe diameter,
location or valves and rife hydrants; pipe and
joint specifications, and the si=e or the main
at the ~unctton or the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in
all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 or
the California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16. and General
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the
StaLe of California. when applicable.
Pzverstde County PZannxn9 Dept.
Amended No. ?, qm.-,
Page Two
Attn: Greg Heal
Aprxl 22. lg88
The plans shall be signed by i registered engineer and
valet company with the following certification:
certify that the design of the valet system in Parcel
Nap 23430 is in accordance with the water system
expansion plans of the Rancho California Water
District and that the water service,storage and
distribution system viii be adequate to provide water
service to such parcel. This certification does not
constitute a guarantee that it viii supply water to
such parcel at any specific quantities, flows or
pressures for fire protection or any other purpose"
This certification shall be signed by a responsible
o/ritual of the valet company. ~3_!_~!~! must be
submitted to the Coun~Z_!g£y~gE~!_~/fice to review at
least two v!~!_EEXor to the request for the_
recordation of the final maR.
This Department has a statement from the Pancho California
Water District agreeing to serve domestic vater to each and
every lot ~n the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory fsnanc~al arrangements are completed vlth the
subdivider. IL w311 be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the recordatlon of the
final map.
This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
~ater District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the severs of the Dlstrlct. The
sever system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
pllns of the sever system shall be submitted zn triplicate.
along v,th the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. iocation of
manholes, complete profiles. pipe and joint specifications
and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system
to the existing system. A single plat indicating location
of sever lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plane and profiles. The plane shall be sigaed by a
registered engineer and the sever district with the
following certification: 'Z certify that the design of the
se~er system in Parcel Hap 23430 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Hunicipal Water
District and that the vista disposal system Is adequate at
th~s time to treat the antic~pated vistas from the proposed
parcel."
Rzvers~de County Planning Dept.
Amended No. ~ ~
Page Three
ATT'N: Greg Neal
Apr2~ 22, Z988
~F13~_~ans Dust be submitted to the
~9_~ev at least tvo vee~_~Zg£_~_~b~_~gg~st for the
[~g&~n of the f~nal
It vzll be necessary for/znancsal arrangements to be made
przor to the recordaLton of the/inal map.
]tiviJJ be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be
compieteJv f:na/:zed prior to recordat~on or the f:na! n, ap.
S~ncerely.
F, nvsronmentai Health Serv~ces
SH:tac
KENNETH I. EDWARDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTR,OL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CAIJIrORNIA g2~O2
Riverside County
Planning Department
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. ~
Planner ~.,~/~/~z~,
Area: /~*~F~ ~
Re:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicab)e r~les and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied density.
The District's report dated F- ~'~=~ is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~aveThe project will be
been constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
OH!l H. Y, ASHUBA n~or t~vil Engineer~
DATE:
K'.ZNNETH L. rDWARD~I
CHl[lr [NQIIN[IR
I lll MARKEl' ITRlrr
P. O. 10se I011
TIZ..I~HONI (714)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIV[RIID[, CALIIrORNIA IllOl
August 3, 1989
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention:
Regional Team No. 5
Gloria Maciel
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
Parcel Map 23430
Revised Permit
This is a proposal to divide q4 acres into a 9 lot commercial
subdivision in the Temecula area, on the southwest corner of Ynez
Road and Winchester Road, and adjacent to Interstate
The site is on relatively flat terrain between Santa Gertrudis
Creek to the north and a large unnamed wash to the south. Santa
Gertrudis Creek is contained by newly constructed facilities.
The unnamed wash has capacity for perhaps a third of its lO0 year
peak flow rate of 1250 cfs. The reinforced concrete box where
the wash crosses North General Kearny Road is undersized. Large
amounts of runoff from this wash will spill over onto an open
field to the northeast of the subject property and join with run-
off from a local watershed of 300 acres. These combined flows
sheet across Ynez Road onto the subject property. Water ponds on
the property as it seeks enough energy to pass through an exist-
inE 7' wide x 3' high reinforced concrete box beneath Interstate
15. As the pond gets higher, some flow will outlet in a Caltrans
interceptor channel toward more freeway culverts to the south.
This project proposes to intercept the sheet flows with a tem-
porary channel offsite along the east side of Ynez Road and carry
them to the box culvert under Ynez Road to the channel along the
south side of this project.
The applicant indicates that the pondthE elevation upstream of
the freeway is 1043.7, that their project would not decrease the
existing pond volume and that all new buildings would be flood-
proofed to at least that elevation.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Hap 23~30
Revised Permit
- 2 -
August 3, 1989
Following are the District's recommendations:
Thi~ parcel map is located within the limits of the
Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for
which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board.
Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provi-
sions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of
Area Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shal) be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit or building permit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be first obtained after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3
-year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that parcel which remain active·
The preservation of the 1043.7 pond elevation should be
proven with appropriate hydraulic and topographic
information.
The proposed interim channel on the east side of Ynez
Road should be constructed with the first phase of this
project· The channel should have capacity to carry the
storm runoff from the 300 acres. The 640 cfs breakout
should also be carried unless upstream facilities have
been improved. Maintenance should be provided.
The RCB under Ynez Road and the channel alone the south
boundary of the project should have capacity to carry the
lOO year peak runoff from its tributary area with full
development assumed. If they do not have capacity they
should be enlarged or other measures should be taken·
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Map 23430
Revised Permit
- 3 -
August 3, 1989
The onsite channel should be constructed to District
standards including those relating to design, alignment
and access. If the District is to maintain the channel,
the applicant will have to pay a maintenance charge.
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation of the final map.
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easement's
shown on the final map. A note should be added to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions".
A note should be put on the environmental constraint
sheet stating, "Finished floors of buildings shall be
constructed above elevation 1043.T".
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits·
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the Subdivi-
sion section of this office at 714/~87-2884.
/
Ver y/ _ ,
e ' r Civil Engineer
cc: 1) J. F. Davidson Associate .
2) Rancho California Development Co.
KF:bJp
iUvmak CA tlEOt
PLA~qXJaQ Dr~AIZ~aINT
Arflh (~LDLT. A KACZF. L
LI'VZEID PLRCEZ, ZtA.P 23430 - A,HZ~E.D 12
With rampmet to the coMicions of approvLL for the abrve referenced la~d division,
abe Fire DeparCmenZ teaseneeds the folioviaI fire protection meam~aree be provided:
J.Q motordance ~Ch ~vmrside County Ordinances ~/or raceSaimed ~ire protection
ee~lrdll
The racer malts shall be capeble o~ preyidea8 a potential fire few of ~000 GFH
and an actual firs flow Iveilablm ~rom any one hydrant shall be 2000 ~FH for
ho~zs duration at 20 FIX residual operactq pressure.
Appreysd luper fire hydranca~ (6"x&"x2-2|") shall be located at each corset
LEesreactiOn and spiced not more chin 330 feet apere in any direction, rich
no poreion of any lee frontelm mote then 165 lest from · fire hydrant.
Applicant/developer chill furnish on, copy of the rarer system plans to the
/ira Daparemmnt for rl~ov. FXmJIs shall conform to firs hydrant cTpee, location
ami apeciq, end, the system shall meeg the fire fXw requirements. Flan8 shall
be eilued/apprrved by a relicfeted civil anSiriser and the local vator cmmpany
vtth the follcrrJ. q csrtiftaaciont '! certify Chit the domain of the vetor lyetam
is-in accordmuss rich the requirements prescribed by the liverside Connay Firm
Dept."
The required refer ayeEra includla$ fire hydrants shell be teecalled end accepted
by the eppFopriaCa racer qency prior to azry combustible buildtel material beans
pl&Ged on an Ledevades/lot,
AAX questions relardtztl the uaautq of the condiatoms chill ba referred to the
Fire Doperesent ~lma~tq and ~eer~ st~f.
aiYNOSD a, its
C~i. ef Fire D~.partsmnt Planner
lure Kantwell, Fire Seasty Sp.ecisllst
Administrative Center, 1 777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
December 13, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Gloria Guzman
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Parcel Map 23430 - Revised, Amended #2
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
The site is located in a special studies zone -- G-418.
Lot configuration shall conform to site development of PP 11222.
Very truly yours,
Robert C'i'nares~ '
Senior Land Use Technician
/sn
Administration (714) 682-8840, (714) 787-2020
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
APN:
FEBRUARY 6,~90
PM 23430 AMENDED
The information provided on this project did not include.a conceptual lradini
plan. However, sufficient information was supplied for us to recommend
approval with the tollowin2 conditions.
Prior to commencin2 any lrading in excess of 50 cubic yards. the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from
the Building and Safety Department.
Gradinl in excess of 199 cubic yarde will require performance securi%F
be'posted with the Building and Safety department.
NOTE: For the final gradinS plan, please provide ~he applicable informatXon
from Building and Safety Department gradinS forms: 284-120, 284-21. 284-88.
and 284-46. These forms are available at the BuildinS and Safety Departmc-
offices.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1990
(AGENDA ITEM 3-3 -Tape 3A, 3B)
PARCEL MAP NO. 23430, REVISED NO. 1, AMENDED NO. 2 - EA 34048 - Bedford
Properties, Inc. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - west
of Ynez Rd and south of Winchester Rd - 9 lots - 44.07± acres - Schedule
E
Hearing was opened at 2:32 p.m. and was closed at 3:02 p.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 34048 and
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23430, Revised Permit No. 1, Amended No.
2, based on the findings and conclusions listed in the staff report. The
applicant proposes to divide 44.07 acres into 9 commercial lots located west of
Ynez Road and south of Winchester Road. The site, which is currently vacant,
is zoned C-P-S. Surrounding land uses are conmercial uses, light manufacturing
uses, a pasture and vacant property. Surrounding zoning is C-P-S, R-R, A-2-20
and M-M. The project site is located within the Southwest Area Community Plan
and is designated as Commercial, therefore, the proposal is consistent with the
Plan. Staff added the following three findings as follows:
6. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent
with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied by the City
of Temecula or which will be studied within a reasonable time by the
City of Temecula.
7. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the City of Temecula's future adopted General Plan if
the project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
8. The project complies with all other applicable requirements of State law
and local ordinances.
Staff amended the Conditions of Approval by deleting Condition No. 17, as there
are no trees on the site at present. Further, staff deleted Condition No. 21
regarding the ECS note on trees as that condition is no longer needed.
Commissioner Turner asked if a plot plan was previously approved by the
Director for this proposed parcel map. Staff advised that there was an
approved plot plan with conditions. Staff advised that the conditions for the
plot plan are basically the same as for the parcel map, however, there was no
menti on of trees.
Larry Toerper, Road Department staff, said that the conditions of approval for
the plot plan require the project proponent to construct a 134 foot street,
with more lanes along the frontage and the intersection than required of the
Toyota dealership (CUP 3076}. Therefore, the conditions of approval for the
plot plan and parcel map would more than provide for the frontage. The project
would improve Ynez and the intersection of Ynez and Winchester, and would also
signalize both ramps at 1-15 and Winchester as well as the main entrance to the
shopping center, located about half way down Ynez. Mr. Vickers asked whether
the conditions for this map the same as imposed on the plot plan, and Mr.
Toerper said yes.
32
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1990
Commissioner Donahoe referenced item 3 of the Road Department's letter dated
January 23rd, and Mr. Toerper recommended deleting Item No. 3, as the full
width construction of Winchester is not required. There have been discussions
about a regional center going in on the southeast corner of Winchester and
Ynez, and that would require the widening of the bridge and of Winchester.
There are no submittals as yet for the regional center. Staff advised that a
specific plan has been submitted. Commissioner Beadling asked where the "hang
up" was that they are not requiring everyone to pay into that big intersection.
Mr. Toerper said that, hopefully, there will be a road improvement district
formed to fund things like the overpass. By its very nature, bridges and
overpasses are not part of frontage requirements. The Road Department is
starting a program to bring many road improvement districts to the Board to
institute, and to have someone start paying for them. He said that a one year
program will reflect a lot of the things these traffic studies are pointing the
need for.
TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT:
Greg Er. ickson, Bedford Properties, said that they support the Toyota project
(previous case) as they felt that it would benefit the city through sales tax
and also the Mello Roos District, which is pending. The property to the east
is also owned by their company and they plan on developing a regional mall,
hotels, office buildings, restaurants, etc. They are processing a specific
plan, an EIR, and associated studies in order to build that project. He said
that Bedford has been working for a long time with the Road Department and
Caltrans to try and resolve some traffic problems. They came in with a traffic
study that showed a minimum level of improvements which they agreed to provide
and, through the Road Department, they plan to provide additional improvements
over and above what is required by this project. The existing Assessment
District No. 161 will help alleviate the congestion at that intersection and
overcrossing at least for a couple years.
Mr. Erickson said that there are a couple long range problems, such as the
widening of the Winchester Road overcrossing and the construction of the
Apricot overcrossing. They need benefit districts to provide for those
improvements. The Mello Roos District, which has been adopted by the County
and is now before the City of Temecula, can provide funding for the Apricot
overcrossing. All their plans are in various stages of plan check.
Commissioner Turner said that the Apricot overcrossing would be located at the
bottom of the project. Mr. Erickson indicated on the exhibit where the Apricot
overcrossing would go, and said that the right of way would be split 50-50
between their property and the adjacent property owner (A.C.S.). They acquired
the right of way on the west side. A.C.S, through a business agreement, agreed
to the right of way for Apricot, and are coming in with a plot plan
demonstrating that in the near future.
Mr. Erickson said that the traffic studies were done to provide for Level of
Service {LOS) "C" or "D," depending upon land use, and this traffic study was
33
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1990
c'onditioned to provide a LOS "D." This project has conditions to provide two
lanes each way on Ynez without turn pockets, a signal at Winchester and Ynez,
and a signalized road crossing. In addition to those improvements, they
realize that as a major development in the area, future traffic can cause a lot
of problems, and they are sensitive to that issue. To meet those concerns,
they are widening Ynez to a 134 foot right of way, which allows for six lanes,
with the help of an assessment district. They will provide for double left
turn pockets on Winchester and Ynez into the shopping center, and will
signalize the overcrossing. They are working on right of way for Apricot and
will set back the buildings voluntarily in order to provide room for a loop
ramp, which would be required. Their timing is planned in order to get this
project going later this year. He did not know if the Toyota project will be
successful in having their conditions waived, but he would appreciate their
cooperation in helping them get applicable encroachment permits and so forth.
Commissioner Turner asked the timing on the Assessment District. Mr. Erickson
said that Assessment District 161 was formed by selling Series B bonds. If the
bonds do not come through in time, they will do upfront funding through a
letter of credit and be reimbursed by the bonds. That would take care of
Winchester Road. Ynez Road will be funded through developer funds as will the
Winchester overcrossing. Apricot has been included within the existing Mello
Roos District approved by the County, but that still needs to be approved by
the City. If the city approves the District, then they will have the Apricot
overcrossing built some time in the future. Caltrans has not given their
approval, and that will probably take about two years to get. However, with
the first phase of the Mello Roos District, they will fund the design and
engineering, then hope to build the overcrossing in the second phase.
Assessment District 161 includes the Winchester overcrossing, so that can be
improved. Lacking those two, they can form a bridge benefit district, which
they are doing with Rancho California Road.
Commissioner Turner asked Mr. Erickson if they had any suggestions regarding
the Toyota project. Mr. Erickson said they could meet with the proponents and
let them know what their schedule is. Everything is now in plan check, but
working with Caltrans takes a long time.
Mr. Erickson said he had some questions regarding the Road Department letter,
first page, item 2. He was not familiar with that condition and asked that
that it be modified to make it consistent with this parcel map request by
stating, prior to the recordation of the parcel map. He requested that the
Road Department assist them in their attempts to meet those conditions, as they
were concerned about the timing. He asked that item 5 be amended to read LOS
"D" rather than LOS "C". Item 6 has already been explained (Apricot
overcrossing).
Ed Studor, Road Department staff, said in reference to item 2 that the South
Coast Air Quality Management District is becoming more and more involved with
projects and the Road Department is 1 ooking for a letter from them regarding
whether they have any comments or concerns. This site is within the service
34
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1990
area of the Riverside Transit Agency. The population is growing in this area
and, therefore, this site would be a candidate for RTA services in the future.
The Riverside County Transportation Commission is expressing more and more
interest in projects that have an impact on regional facilities. Commissioner
Turner said that it does not say that they are looking for input or conments,
but rather clearance fron those agencies. He asked if some of those people
would have the ability to shut down this project. Mr. Studor said that the
Road Department is looking for any additional requirements that those agencies
may wish to impose, and added that Caltrans has the ability not to issue a
permit. Mr. Erickson said that he had no problem with Caltrans, but he did
with the others. He does not know how long it would take those agencies to
respond, as they may not be set up to provide clearances.
Mr. Richards explained that the Southwest Area Plan set up two tiers of special
policies regarding transportation and circulation. The first tier is all the
physical improvements necessary. The second tier, in order to get to an
acceptable level of service, is all the operational kinds of things that occur
with respect to transportation management, such as car-pooling associations,
etc. What is happening is that, technically, under SWAP, this parcel map
should have been transmitted to those agencies initially. In an effort to move
this along, the Road Department suggested requesting a clearance rather than
having to transmit to those agencies at this time. Under SWAP, those are
legitimate clearance agencies. Mr. Erickson said that it will take time before
this item gets to the City Council, therefore, they can investigate this
condition. As this is a parcel map, they would like the condition to read,
"prior to recordation" rather than "prior to issuance of building permits."
They already have an approved plot plan and they will be trying to pull
building permits soon. Mr. Toerper said that the only issue he sees would be
if they tie this to recordation of the parcel map, and not to the building
permits, and any of those agencies have requirements that may require even a
slight redesign of the plot plan or some accommodation, then how would that be
addressed if the building permits have been issued and construction started.
Mr. Vickers said if Bedford pulls the parcel map, they can still build on this
site, as they have an approved plot plan. This is a financing parcel map so
that they can divide up and sell off the lots. He suggested changing that
condition to read prior to recordation of the parcel map.. Mr. Toerper
concurred. He added that Item 5 can be amended to read Level of Service "D,"
and that Item 6 could stay. Mr. Studor advised that a new Road Department
letter will be issued with today's date.
Commissioner Donahoe said that she was curious about the parcel map lines, in
particular the jagged lines. Mr. Erickson explained that each parcel has to
have parking for its own use. Commissioner Donahoe referred to Parcel 4, and
Mr. Erickson said that he believed that that jog was in error. There was no
one else who wished to comment.
The hearing was closed at 3:02 p.m.
35
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1990
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23430, Revised No. 1,
Amended No. 2, proposed to divide 44.07 acres into 9 ccmmercial lots in the
Rancho California Area; the site is currently vacant; surrounding land uses
include commercial uses, vacant land, a pasture and light manufacturing uses;
the site is zoned C-P-S; surrounding zoning includes C-P-S, R-R, A-2-20 and
M-M; the site is located with the Southwest Area Community Plan; the land use
designation is C (Commercial); environmental concerns include liquefaction and
flooding hazards and impacts to farmland, Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat and
Scenic highways; there is a reasonable probability that the project will be
consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied by the
City of Temecula or which will be studied within a reasonable time by the City
of Temecula; there is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the City of Temecula's future adopted General Plan if the
project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan; and, the project complies
with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. The
proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan within
the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinance 460; is compatible with area
development; and, will not have a significant effect on the environment.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner, seconded by Commissioner Donahoe,
and unanimously carried, the C~mmissi on r~commended to the City of Temecula
adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 34048, ~nd approval of Tentative
Parcel Map NO. 23430, Revised Permit No. 1, Amended No. 2, subject to the
conditions of approval as amended this date, and based on the above listed
findings and conclusions.
36
Zoning Area: Rancho California
First Supervtsortal District
E.A. Number 34048
Regional Team No. 5
PARCEL MAP NO. 23430
REVISED PERMIT NO. 1
AMENDED NO. 2
Planning Conmnisslon: 2-14-90
Agenda Item No. 3-3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
1. Appl lcant:
2. Engt neer/Rep.:
3. Type of Request:
4. Location:
5. Existing Zoning:
6. Surrounding Zoning:
7. Site Characteristics:
s
Area Characteristics:
Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
10. Land Division Data:
11. Agency Recommendations:
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Influence:
Bedford Properties Inc.
J.F. Davidson and Associates
To divide 44.07 acres into 9
commercial lots.
West of Inez Road, and South of
Winchester Road.
C-P-S
C-P-S, R-R, A-2-20,
The site is currently flat and
vacant with dry grasses.
Commercial uses, a pasture and
vacant.
Southwest Area Community Plan
(C) Commercial
Land Use: Category II
Open Space/Cons: Areas not
Designated as Open Space
Total Acreage: 44.07
Total Lots: 9
See letters dated:
Road: 1-23-90
Health: 12-06-89
Flood: 12-06-89
Fire: 12-04-89
Bldg. & Safety-
Land Use: 12-13-89
Grading: 10-12-89
County Geologist: 8-15-89
Opposing/Supporting: None received
Within City of Temecula's city
ltmtts
ANALYSIS:
Pro;lect Descrtptto.
Tentative Parcel Hap No. 23430, Revised No. 1, Amended no. 2 is an application
to dtvtde 44.07 acres tnto 9 comerctal lots tn the Rancho California area.
The stte ts located west of Inez Road and south of WInchester Road.
PARCEl MAP NO. 23430
REVISED PERMIT NO. 1
AMENDED NO. 2
Staff Report
Page 2
Land Use and Zontng:
The site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include commercial uses to
the north, vacant land and a pasture to the east, light manufacturing uses to
the south and various commercial and industrial uses to the west across 1-15.
The site is zoned C-P-S. Surrounding zoning includes C-P-S, to the north, R-R
and A-2-20 to the northeast and east, M-M to the south and the 1-15 freeway to
the west.
Comprehensive General Plan:
The project is located within the Southwest Area Coenuntty Plan. The land use
designation is C {Commercial}. The established zoning on the property conforms
with the proposed land use designation for this area, and therefore this
project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and with the
Comprehensive General Plan.
Environmental Assessment:
The initial study conducted for Environmental Assessment No. 34048 indicated
liquefaction and flooding hazards, impacts to local important farmland wildlife
and the 1-15, an Eligible State Scenic Highway. All of these concerns or
impacts have been mitigated to an level of non-significance which will be
implemented through the conditions of approval.
FINDINGS:
1. Tentative Parcel Nap No. 23430, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 proposed to
divide 44.07 acres into 9 commercial lots in the Rancho California Area.
2. The site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include commercial
uses, vacant land, a pasture and light manufacturing uses.
3. The site is zoned C-P-S. Surrounding zoning includes C-P-S, R-R, A-2-20,
and M-Ft.
4. The site is located with the Southwest Area ConmNntty Plan. The land use
designation is C (Co,merctal).
5. Environmental concerns include liquefaction and flooding hazards and
impacts to farmland, Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat and Scenic highways.
PARCEL RAP NO. 23430
REVISED PEI~IT NO. 1
MENDEDDNO. 2
Staff Report
Page 3
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed project ts consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan
wtthtn the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinance 460.
2. The proposed project is compatible with area development.
3. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
RECOR4ENDATIONS:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 34048
based on the findings that the proposed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment; and,
APPROVAL of TENTATIVE PARCEL FlAP NO. 23430, REVISED PERleIT NO. 1, AMENDED NO. 2
based on the ftndtngs and conclusions found within the staff report and subject
to the attached conditions of approval.
GG:sc
1/23/90
! PM 23430
t VAC
VAC ·
!' LAND USE
VAC.
CZ 4490&
PASTURE
:,'-=-~\
. i ~1
,
I/ //
/ I ·
%=,,,,Y
/ VAC
· .:.,: :..:'::' .
'II'DUSTRIAL
CZ 4691
E ~oo~
M~ANUF. .-4
I
· 1 ""/
CZ 14
I)
·
I
,.../' VAC· U/C
·
App. KAISER DEVELOPMENT "Zej,'J~ i U}C,~'iO, AL cap
Use 44.07 ACRES INTO 8 LOTS ' I ~ *~
'Nee RANCHO CALIFORNIA Ist Sup.~st. ' I · /
5ec. 35 T. 7 5.,R.3~ ~esw's lk. 910 ~. 13 I ~ * ~e~
C~ulotMnWlNCH~ R~ UR~N ~IAL I10' ~
'~ ],,~ &, ~ FR~AY V~IABLE .. ·
23430 ~XIS'T:iNG Z'~)'~ING I 3
, //
/
M-,~
I-P
/ /I
R-R // /~
'Ii /I
I i/ ·
~ ,__...;,Y
CZ 46SO&
RIIR
.. ......... ...../
· :: '.:.': ::,..:.'.
M-~ A-2-20
=i R-2
M-M
,
·
1/ P J~,,
..... l'd~:k'~ER DEVELOPMENT COMP. U>C,,T~ONAL
Use 44.07 ACRES INTO 8 LOTS
i Atecl RANCHO CALIFORNIA IstSup. 01st
· · el ,I"' ·
; I"=~ ' 800" .'Wl/E'/iSfZ:~" CCXJVT')r.4:~L,4NN/N6'
el'3"t'l - JLI """
r- e~ I(
/.,
TIMi'CU'-A 0 I v: k
Ri~aD
"
e. 3W- R. 2W-
RO;D CLA$StF|CATION
FLARNIRG COI~ISSION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1990
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTIqERT
CORDITIOIIS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE PARCEL RAP NO. 23430, REVISED PEle!IT RO. 1, AHEIIDED RO. 2
The subdivider shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
RIverside, tts agents, officers, and employees from any clatm, actton, or
proceeding agatnst the County of RIverside tts agents, officers, or
employees to attack, set aside, votd, or annul an approval of the County
of RIverside, tts advtsory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning TDITATZVE PARCEL IIAP RO. 23430, REVZSED PERIqZT NO. 1o ENDED
NO. 2, whtch actton ts brought wtthtn the ttme pertod provtded for tn
California Government Code Sectton 66499.37. The County of Riverside wtll
promptly nottry the subdivider of any such clatm, actton, or proceeding
agatnst the County of RIverside and wtll cooperate fully tn the defense.
If the County fatls to promptly nottry the subdivider of any such clatm,
actton, or proceeding or fatls to cooperate fully tn the defense,' the
subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, Indemnify, or
hold harmless the County of RIverside.
The tentative parcel mp shall confom to the requirements of Ordinance
460, Schedule E unless modtfted by the conditions 11sted below. Thts
approved tentative parcel map wtll exptre two years after the Board of
Supervisors approval date unless extended as provtded by Ordinance 460.
The ftnal map shall be prepared by a registered ctvtl engtneer or l(censed
land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Hap Act, RIverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the publlc and shall
conttnue tn force until the governing body accepts or abandons such
offers, All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the County Road Commissioner, Street names shall be subject to
approval of the Road Commissioner,
Easements, ~hen requtred for roadway slopes, dratnage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shmm on the ftnal map tf w'ithtn the land
dhtston boundary, All offers of dedication shall profide for
nonexclusive publlc road and uttltty access. All easements, offers of
dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by
the RIverside County Surveyor.
Legal access as requtred by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the
parcel mp boundary to a County mtntatned road.
TENTATZVE PARCEL MAP MO. 23430
REVZSED PERMZT NO. 1
AHENDED NO. 2
Condtttons of Approval
Page 2
7. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map.
0.
18
28
4.
5.
Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted
to the County Department of Building and Safety.
The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement reconmendatlons
outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 1-23-90, a copy of
which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 12-06-8g, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control Dlstrict's letter dated
12-06-89, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within
an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of
Riverside County Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the
construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road
Commissioner prior to recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel
map.
The subdivider' shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 12-04-89, a copy of
which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the
Building and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated
12-13-89, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the reconmendattons outlined in the
Building and Safety Department: Grading Sectton's transmtttal dated
10-12-89, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the reco,mnendattons outlined County
Geologic Report No. 418 update and in the County Geologist transmittal
dated 8-15-89, a copy of which is attached.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23430
REVISED PERleIT NO. 1
AMENDED NO. 2
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
16. Lots created by this land dtvtston shall be In conformance with the
development standards of the C-P-S zone,
17. All existing trees on the subject property with a trunk diameter greater
than four (4) inches shall be preserved. Removal shall be at the
discretion of the Planning Director.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FIliAL MAP
18. Prior to the recordation of the Final Nap, the following condition(s)
shall be complied with:
a. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be
transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS
19. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final
map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be
permanently filed with the Office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the
recordation of the final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to
the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall
be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning
Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following
note(s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet.
a. "The notice appearing in Section 6.a. of Ordinance No. 625, the
Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, shall be placed on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet, with Lots No. I thru 9 identified
therein, in the manner provided in said Section 6.a., as being located
partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of, land zoned for
primarily agricultural purposes by the County of Riverside.'
*County Archaeological Report No. 1203 was prepared for this property
on 3-28-88 by Christopher Drover, and is on file at the Riverside
County Planntng Department.
"County Biological Report No. 195 was prepared for this property in
March 1988 by the Planntng Center, and ts on ftle at the RIverside
County Planning Department.
TENTATIVE PARCEL ~ RO. 23430
REVZSED PERMZT leO. 1
AMENDED NO. 2
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
1.
de
"County Geological Report No. 418-update was prepared for this
property on April 14, lg89 by Highland Geotechnical Consultants and is
on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items
of concern in the report are as follows: liquefaction.
ee
· This property is located with 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."
The following note shall be placed on the final map: 'Constraints
affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental
Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the
Riverside County Surveyor. These constraints affects all parcels.
The Environmental Constraint Sheet shall delineate the eucalyptus trees
and oak tree near the intersection of Highway 79 and Ynez Road as
indicated in County Biological Report No. 195. A note shall also be
placed on the E.S.C. Sheet stating: 'No surface alteration or removal of
trees shall occur in the delineated area. Relocation or replacement of
these trees is subject to the approval of the Planning Oirector."
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying fee required by that ordinance which is based
on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. Should
Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat
Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to
issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of
Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall
certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally
integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited
to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechntcal conditions.
Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist,
appropriate mitigation measdres must be demonstrated.
GG:sc
1/23/90
OFRCE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
II - ! · If
/
LeRoy D. Smoot
ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR
February 14, 1990
-Jafraar~ -2-3' ; - ~t g'~
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTT. R
~t~.ILfNC, ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 1090
RIVERSIDE. CAMFORNIA 92502
(714) 787-6554
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Ladies and Gentlemen:
(Shopping Center)
RE: PM 23430-Revised #1-Amend #2
Team 5 - SMD #9
AP #111-111-111-9
*As amended at P.C. 2-14-90
The Road Department has reviewed the traffic study for this
project. The study indicates a projected Level of Service "C" on
both Winchester Road and Ynez Road, based upon substantial
improvement. The Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies
relative to Category II Land Uses states: "A minimum of Level of
Service "C" is necessary for any new Category II land use." As
such, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan
policy.
The following conditions of approval incorporate mitigation
measures identified in the traffic study which are necessary to
achieve or maintain the required level of service.
The project proponent shall incorporate such demand
programs as may be appropriate to comply with the goals and
objectives of the Regional Mobility Plan and Air Quality
Management Plan, including: a) design provisions to
accommodate transit services; and b) Participation in
regional corridor studies; all as approved and confirmed by
the Road CommisSioner.
Prior to the -~se~,3aue-e~-~y--b~-14iR~-~--~e~- recordation
of the final map, the project proponent shall consult with
and obtain clearance from the following agencies to assure
compliance and coordinate with the Regional Mobility and
Air Quality Management Plans: a) Caltrans, District 8; b)
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD);
c) The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); and d) The Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC).
*As amended at P.C. 2-14-90
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER · 4080 LEMON STREET · RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
PM 2343G-Revised #1-Amend #2
danuaPy-a8~-~gee February 14, 1990
Page 2
Ynez Road shall be constructed to a full width Urban
Arterial standards, 134' right-of-way along the frontage of
PM 23430.
*5.
The project proponent construct the traffic signals at the
freeway interchange. This is necessary to attain a Level of
Service ~E .... D".
The plot plan should delineate the future Apricot right-of-
way as proposed by the developer for informational
purposes.
After a review of the Operation Analysis submitted for the
proposed access points for the project, the Road Department's
requirements shall be:
7. Install the primary entry to the Palm Plaza project as a
standard intersection with a signal midway between
Winchester Road and Apricot Street.
Install two additional driveways, one as a right turn
in/right turn out located midway between Winchester Road
and the primary entry, and the other located midway between
Apricot and the primary entry. The southerly driveway shall
have a channelizedmedian opening for left turn in only, as
long as access rights are dedicated on the eastside of
Ynez, except for two access points. The southerly opening
shall not line up with the left turn in opening
With respect
referenced item,
recommendations:
to the conditions of
the Road Department
approval for the above
has the following
Sufficient right of way along Winchester Road (State
Highway 79) shall be conveyed for public use to provide for
a 134 foot full width right of way.
10. Sufficient public street right of way shall be provided
along Ynez Road to establish a 134 foot full width right of
way including standard corner cutback· Developer shall
dedicate to Riverside County all vehicular access rights
along the east side of Ynez Road from Winchester Road,
southerly to the south line of this project, with only two
access points allowed. The two access points shall be: (1)
opposite the signalized entrance to this project; (2) north
of (not aligning with) the southerly drive approach to this
project.
*As amended at P.C. 2-14-90
**As deleted at P.C. 2-14-90
PM 23430-Revised #l-Amend #2
aeeuePy-aa~-~gge February 14, 1990
Page 3
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Prior to recordation or any use allowed by this permit, and
prior to doing any work within the State highway right of
way, clearance and/or an encroachment permit must be
obtained by the applicant from the District 08 Office of
the State Department of Transportation in San Bernardino.
The project proponent shall enter into a written agreement
with the County of Riverside and Caltrans District 08 to
provide for the design and construction of signals and
related facilities at the following intersections:
a. Winchester Road at 1-15 ramp facilities
b. Winchester Road at Ynez Road
Winchester Road (State Highway 79) and Ynez Road shall be
improved with concrete curb and gutter located 110 feet
curb to curb and match up asphalt concrete paving;
reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as
determined by the Road Commissioner within a 134 foot full .
width dedicated right of way in accordance with County{'
Standard No. 100A, including all necessary transitions as
per Caltrans standards as approved by the Road
Commissioner.
The landdivider shall construct
on Winchester Road and Ynez Road
Commissioner.
full width raised medians
as approved by the Road
Standard 35 foot curb return, cross
access ramps shall be constructed
Ordinance 461 where applicable.
gutter, spandrel and
in accordance with
Six foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along
Winchester Road (State Highway 79) and Ynez Road in
accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb
sidewalk).
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
Riverside County Road Commissioner. Improvement plans
shall include all traffic signal design plans as described
in Condition #5 and 22.
Major drainage is involved on this project and its
resolution shall be as approved by the Road Commissioner.
PM 23430-Revised #1-Amend #2
~a~a~y-~8~-~ggg--February 14, 1990
Page 4
19.
21.
22.
23.
25a.
26.
Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section
11.1.
All work done within County right of way shall have an
encroachment permit.
All driveways shall
County Standards
improvement plans.
conform to the applicable Riverside
and shall be shown on the street
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 primary interior driveways shall be kept free of all
"back-on" parking.
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.
The project proponent shall be responsible for the design
and construction of signals and related facilities at the
locations listed below. Said signalized locations shall be
operational prior to occupancy of any development projects:
a. Winchester Road at 1-15 ramp facilities
b. Winchester Road at Ynez Road
c. Ynez Road at center driveway
The above shall be designed and constructed at no cost to
any government agency. Should the project proponent
request reimbursement from the signal mitigation fund
(except for location "c"), it shall be made to the Board of
Supervisors or governing agency and subject to their
approval.
The traffic signal at the center driveway shall be
constructed and funded by the developer with no credit
applied towards developer's signal mitigation fees.
A striping plan is required for Winchester Road (State
Highway 79) and Ynez 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.
PM 23430-Revised #1-Amend #2
aenuaPy-~-~g9~- February 14, 1990
Page 5
28.
29.
30.
The a~licant shall comply with the Caltrans recom~end-
atione~'as outlined in their letter dated July 11, 1989.
Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall
comply with Road Department standards and require approval
by the Road Con~issioner and assurance of continuing
maintenance through the establishment of a landscape
maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar
mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape
plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet
format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted
with the street improvement plans and shall depict Only
such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are
to be placed within the public road rights-of-way.
Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit
district, the applicant shall prior to recordationmake
application for and pay for their reapportionment of the
assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district
unless said fees are deferred to building permit.
.Prior to recordation, the applicant shall establish a
Businessman's Association to provide for reciprocal
easements for legal access as approved by the Road
Commissioner.
Road Division Engineer
nT:Jw
County of Riverside
TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: December 6, 1989
Ai'TN' Clo ia Mac el
'~ISONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
FEOM:
RE: PARCEL MAP 23430, AMENDED NO. 2, REVISED NO. 1
Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No. 2,
Revised No. 1 dated November 17, 1989. Our current conmnents
SM: tac ~ .~ :
GEN. FORM 4. (Re.. ~'~T~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT.
4080 Lemon Street
RIverside. CA 92502
Attn: Grog Neal
41M$I. ~a IIIdl
~IDIO. C,I l/Ill
.All ILIIINI
litIt Is&lie ~
.Al~ ILIa$1D$~ C~ Iflll
fALl
'All lelmGL ~ Illil
lit eKeT$ e~- ~
:f~lll. CA
RE; Parcel Map 23430; That portion of Lots llS and 116 of
Temecula Land and Water Company in the County of RIverside.
State of California, as shown by map on/lie in Book 8. F'aqe
359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County. California
(~ Lots)
Gentlemen:
The DeDartment of Public Health h/~4 revolved Tent. aLIve MaF.
No. 23430 and recommends that:
A valor system shall be ]nat&lied accordmr, g to
plans and specification as approved by the water'
company and the Health Dep&rtment. Permanent
prlndts of the plans of the water system sl~a]l
be submitted in trmplicate. vsth a minimum scale
not less than one ~nch equals 200 feet. along with
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter.
location of valvel and fire hydrants; pipe and
]oint specifications, and the mi~e of the m&zn
at the junction or the new eymtem to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in
all respects with Div. 5. Part 1. Chapter 7
the California Health and Safety Code.
Administrative Code. Title 22. Chapter 16. and General
Order No. 103 or the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California. when appl3cable.
Rivers&de County Planning Dept.
Amended No. ~ ~
Page Two
Attn: Greg Neal
April 22, 1988
/The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and
water company with the/oilowing certification: "!
certify that the design of the water system in Parcel
Hap 23430 is in accordance with the veter system
expansion plen; of the R&ncho Californi& Weter
District end thet Lhe veter servlce,storege and
disLrZbution system viii be edequete to provide water
service to such pertel. This certificetion does not
constitute E gu&rentee thet it viii supply valet Lo
such parcel at any specific quantities, flows or
pressures for fire protect&on or any other purpose".
This certification shall be signed by · responsible
officiaZ of the water company. _Tli_~_9~ans must be
submitted to the Co~D~y_~[vevor's Off.ice to review at
JeesL Lvo weeks_~Z~[_~o the request for the
recordatZon of the Final ~.
This Department has · statement from the Rzncho California
~ater District agreeing to serve domestic weter to each end
every lot in the subdivision on demand provsd:ng
satisfactory f:nanc:aJ arrangements &re completed w~th the
subdivider. It will be necessary for the fznanc:aJ
arrangements to be made prior to the recordarson of the
final map.
This Department hem & statement from the Eastern Hunic:Da/
Water Dlstr~ct agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the sewers of the D~strict. The
sewer system shall be installed according to plans ~nd
specifications as approved by the Dsstrzct, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
p/ins of the sever system shall be submitted in triplicate.
along with the origin&/draving, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diEmeter, Jocetion of
sanholes, comp/ete profiles, pipe and ~oint specifications
84~d the s~ze or the severs a~ the 3unction of the new system
to the existing system. A singie p/it indicating location
of sever lines and' water/ines sh&ii be · portion or the
sev·ge pl·ns and profllel. The pl·ns shEiX be s~gRed by E
registered engineer ·nd the sever district with the
following certification: 'Z certify that the design of the
se~er system in Parcel Hap 23430 is in &ccord·nce with the
se~er system expansion plans of the ~stern Hunicipa! Veter
Distr~ct End thet the veste disposal system ss adequ·te at
th~s time to treet the antitapered v·stes from the proposed
Rxvers2de County Plann:ng Dept.
Amended No. ~ em,,,
Page Three
ATT~l: Greg Heal
Aprxl 22, lg88
irl3_~_~i&ns must be subm:tted to the County. Survey~Ei~_Q££i~
to revmev !5 least two_weeks ~r~or to the r~ffi~ for the
r_e!Eordat&on of the f~nal_~!R.
It v21I be necessary rot rznanclal arrangements to be made
przor to the recordat~on o~ the ~nal map.
IL~v]l] be necessary [or the annexam:on proceedings to be
completely/~nalized przor to recordat~on of the f~nal ~,ap.
S~ncerely.
E',nv~ronmental Health ,qerv~ces
SM:tac
e
tggS MARKET S')'REET
P.O. BOX 1033
TELEPHONE: (714) 787-2015
FAX N0. ('714) 788ogg65
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERSIDE. CAUF'OIINIA g2502
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. :~'
Planner ~.~/,; (~4u=-,~/
Are a: ;/~-~F~ uz ~
Re:
We have reviewed this case and have the following comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
1B inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the Area
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rGles 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.
v/' The Dtstrtct's report dated ~- ~'(JP~ is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
This project is a part of
free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements i~av/hbtenproject will be
constructed in
accordance with approved plans.
The attached comments apply.
,'OHN H. KASHUBA
Civil Engineer
DATE:
KENNETH I,. EDWARDS
gMIIF INelNIIR
Illl MARKEr ITIIErr
P. O. BOX IOII
TILl:PHONE (711) 717-1OIS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERIIDE, GALIIrORNIA 1llOl
August 3, 1989
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention:
Regional Team No. 5
Gloria Maciel
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
Parcel Map 23430
Revised Permit
This is a proposal to divide 44 acres into a 9 lot commercial
subdivision in the Temecula area, on the southwest corner of Ynez
Road and Winchester Road, and adjacent to Interstate
The site is on relatively flat terrain between Santa Gertrudis
Creek to the north and a large unnamed wash to the south. Santa
Gertrudis Creek is contained by newly constructed facilities.
The unnamed wash has capacity for perhaps a third of its 100 year
peak flow rate of 1250 cfs. The reinforced concrete box where
the wash crosses North General Kearny Road is undersized. Large
amounts of runoff from this wash will spill over onto an open
field to the northeast of the subject property and Join with run-
off from a local watershed of 300 acres. These combined flows
sheet across Ynez Road onto the subject property. Water ponds on
the property as it seeks enough energy to pass through an exist-
1rig 7' wide x 3' high reinforced concrete box beneath Interstate
15. As the pond gets higher, some flow will outlet in a Caltrans
Interceptor channel toward more freeway culverts to the south.
This project proposes to intercept the sheet flows with a tem-
porary channel offsite along the east side of Ynez Road and carry
them to the box culvert under Ynez Road to the channel along the
south side of this project.
The applicant indicates that the pondtng elevation upstream of
the freeway is i043.7, that their project would not decrease the
existing pond volume and that all new buildings would be flood-
proofed to at least that elevation.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Map 23430
Revised Permit
- 2 -
August 3, 1989
Following are the District's recommendations:
This parcel map is located within the limits of the
Murrieta Creek/Temeeula Valley Area Drainage Plan for
which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board.
Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provi-
sions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of
Area Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988:
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map; or
At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build-
ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading
permit or building permit for each approved parcel,
whichever may be first obtained after the recording
of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided
however, this option to defer the fees may not be
exercised for any parcel where grading or structures
have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3
year period, or permits for either activity have been
issued on that parcel which remain active·
The preservation of the 1043.7 pond elevation should be
proven with appropriate hydraulic and topographic
information. .
The' proposed interim channel ,on the east side of Ynez
Road should be constructed with the first phase of this
project. The channel should have capacity to carry the
storm runoff from the 300 acres. The 6qO ors breakout
should also be carried unless upstream facilities have
been improved. Maintenance should be provided.
The RCB under Ynez Road and the channel along the south
boundary of the project should have capacity to carry the
100 year peak runoff from its tributary area with full
development assumed· If they do not have capacity they
should be enlarged or other measures should be taken.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Map 23q30
Revised Permit
-3-
August 3, 1989
The onsite channel should be constructed to District
standards including those relating to design, alignment
and access· Ir the District is to maintain the channel,
the applicant will have to pay a maintenance charge·
Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation of the final map.
Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map. A note should be added 'to the
final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions".
A note should be put on the environmental constraint
sheet stating, "Finished floors of buildings shall be
constructed above elevation 1043.7".
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda-
tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Questions concerning this
sion section of this office
matter may be referred to the Subdivi-
M y~r s,
H. KASHUBA
· ~enior Civil Engineer
1 ) J F. Davidson Assdciate~ Inc
· elt ·
2) Rancho California Development Co.
KF:bJp
12/12~2~ 15=1~ RIUEI~IDE COUNTY FIE DEPTO. P. 82
bdkCAfttOt
4010tmmlbe~lebltt
thudk CA mot
~te
JLTTMt Gi MACilL
litI
IIVXIID PASTEL NAP 23130 - AKnmED t2
With tempest to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the rite Department toomuds the folXovinl fire protection meatdrew be provided
:Ln ascotdance trXth I~Lverside County Ordinances and/or tocsinlead fire protection
standardas
lZll raOTIC2'ZC81
The Mater man abel1 be aspable of prowidthS a potential fire flow of 5000 gPH
and an actual fire flow available from ~ny one hydrant shall be 2000 OPl4for
hours duration It J0 ~lZ restdual ~eratiq pressure.
Approved mupar firs hydrants, (6"x4"x2-2|w) shell be located ec each street
intersection and spaced mot more than 330 feet apart in any d/reotiou, with
u~ portion of any lot frontale more than 163 feet frou a firs hydrant.
ippXicautldeveXoper oh&iX furnish one espy of the valor eFstem pZm to the
rite Department for review. rlano shall e~o~ to fire hydrut c,ee, l~atlon
~ opa~tM, a~, ~e lyeto e~Z Met the fire {Zw requireunto. Plm
be o~ud/appr~ed bY a reStstored etvll e~lnor ~ the Zeal valor
~th the rolX~ tortClimactic "Z eert~f7 c~t the deoip of the ~ter
b ~ a~cot~l ~Cb gb tequtrmutl primerChad by t~ ~vermide ~uuCl Fire
~t.w
The required water mrstam iucludinl fire hydrants shelA be installed mad accepted
by the appropriate water Qemcy prior to fi7 ooubuecihte bulldin8 mteriaX betuS
phoed nasa tndivtdu~ lot,
question ralardXn8 the uemttu8 of the soudillon shall be referred to the
Department ,lmmtn8 and hathscriM staff.
C~tef rife b. parumut rimmet
lutt Manall, ~ lafety II~.cifl4mt
Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507
December 13, 1989
Riverside County Planning Department
Attention: Gloria Guzman
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Parcel Map 23430 - Revised, Amended #2
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
has the following comments and conditions:
The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for
all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of
the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348.
The site is located in a special studies zone -- G-418.
Lot configuration shall conform to site development of PP 11222.
Very truly yours,
Senior Land Use Technician
/an
Administration (714) 682-8840, (714) 787-2020
82/86/98 11: 38 BLDG ~ SAF*ETY RDM I H I STRAT I OH P. 03
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
GRADING SECTION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
APN:
FEBRUARY 6
PM 23430 AMENDED #2
The information provided on this project did not include · conceptual grading
plan. HoWever, sufficient information was supplied for us to recommend
approval with the followinS conditions.
Prior to commencing ant fredinS in excess of 50 cubic ~erds, t~e
applicant shell obtain a fredinS permit end approval to construct from
the Building and Safet~ Department.
Grading in excess of 199 cubic ~ards will require performance securit~
to be'posted with the BuildinS and Safer7 department.
NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information
from Building and Safet~ Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21,284-88,
and 284-48° These forms are available at the Buildin8 and Safet~ Department
offices.
k,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 N BERNARDINO, CA 92402
..) (714) 383-4609
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
July 11, 1989
Development Review
08-Riv-15-6.62
Your Reference:
TPM 23430
REVISED
Planning Department
Attention Ms. Gloria Maciel
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Ms. Maciel:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative
Parcel Map No. 23430 located at the southeast intersections of
Interstate 15 and Winchester Road in the Rancho California area.
Please refer to the attached Development Review Form which
documents Caltrans' requirements for this project. Conformance
with these conditions is required for issuance of an Encroachment
Permit.
If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J.
Neville at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
Original Signed
T. J. Ileville
H. N. LEWANDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
Att.
CALTRANS
(Your Reference)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORM
Date
Plan checker (Co Rte PM)
WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE:
Construction/~lition within present or proposed State right of ~ay should be investigated fgr
potential baynrdous ~aste (asbestos, petrcr_hen~cal.% etc.) and mitigated as per require~_nts of
reguiatory agencies.
WIden plans are submitted, please conform to the requirements of the attached '}[~ndout". l]nis will
expedite the review process and time required for Plan Check.
Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to have a significant effect
on the state highly system, consideration must be given to the cLm,]ative effect of continued develc~.nt
in this area. Any ,~ures necessary to mitigate th~ ctm~alative in~t of traffic and drainage sba] ] be
provided prior to or with development of the area that necessitates them.
It appears that tJ~ traffic and drainage generated by this prop~] could have a significant effect on
the state highway system of the area. Any m~sures m~cessary to mitigate the traffic and clrainage
in~ts sl-mll be irr_luded with the develo[mant. ,~
This portion of state highway is included in the California [~Lster Plan of State Highways Eligible
for Official Scenic Highway Designation, and in th~ future your agency my wish to have tj~is route
officially designated as a state scenic highway.
llnis portion of state highway has been officially designated as a state scenic hig~y, and develo[m~n_t
in this corridor should be cc~tible with the scenic hig~y concept.
It is recognized dmt there is considerable public car_ern about noise levels adjacent to heavily
traveled highways. land developrent, in order to be cc~tible with this car_ern, may require speri~l
noise attenuation m~q~res. Developnent of property should include any nec___~ry noise attenuation.
WE REQUEST THAT THE ITEMS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
THIS PROJECT:
/
Normal right of way dedication to provide ~ohalf-width on the state highway7~ o
Normal street improvements to provide half-width on the state highwayl~o
Curb and gutter, State Standard ~ along the state highway.
Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red
and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs. /
radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway.
A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns.
A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to
limit physical access to the state highway.
Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by existing public road
connections.
Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by__
driveways.
standard
t
Vehicular access shall not be provided within _~_~ of the intersection at
.r-15 Off
VeJaicnl~r ac_c~ss to t~ state highway ~11 be provided by a road-t)~e connection.
Vehicnlar access connections shall be paved at least within the state ~hioJ~ay right of ~y. ~
Access points to tJ~ state highray ~Lll be developed in a m~nner that will provide sioJ~t distance
for ~ mph along the state hi~vay.
landscaping along the state high'~y shall be low and forgiving in nature.
A left-turn lane including any ~ ·
Consideration shall be given to tt~ Drovision, or future provision, of signaJi y~tion and lighting
of the intersection of ~'~.~ ~,~ t~ and the state highray.
A traffic study indicating on- and off-site flow patterns and volunes, probable impacts, and proposed
mitigation ml_,~qures sba]l be prepared.
Adequate off-street parking, which does not require backing onto the state higrmay, shall be provided.
Parking lot shall be developed in a marm~_r that will not cause any vehic, fi~r nDvement conflicts,
including parking stall entrance and exit, witJ~in of the en~ from the state highray.
Handicap ~rking shall not be developed in the busy drive~ey mtrance are~.
Care s~l I be taken v~m developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage
pattern of the state highway. Partio,lar consideration should be given to cunulative .incressed storm
runoff to insure that a tLi~y drainage problen is not created.
Any necessary noise attenuation g~,~l l be provicK.od as p~rt of the developrant of this property.
Pl~qse refer to attachex] additional comments.
WE REQUEST:
A copy of any conditi~ of approval or revised approval.
A copy of any doctments providing additional state highway right of ~ey upm recordation of the rap.
WE REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS:
Any propo~]s to further develop this property.
A copy of d~ traffic or enviro~nemtal study.
A check print of the Parcel or Tract ~hp.
A check print of the Plans for any improvements witJ~in the state high~ey right of ~ey.
A dF_k print of the Grading and Drainage Plans for tJ~is property ~m av~ ]able.
Date: May 26, 1989
08-Riv-15-6.619
(Co-Rte-PM)
FTPP l1222/Winchester Plaza
(Your Reference)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
1. Future plan submittal must delineate State Right-of Way boundaries.
2. Plans must show existing and proposed grading (off/on site).
3. Contours must be legible.
Due to an increasing demand for development within this area,
Caltrans requires each development to mitigate its share of
drainage runoff.
Due to the magnitude of this proposal and the construction
explosion (residential, commercial), the developer should
contribute to all state highway improvements necessaryto maintain
the existing traffic flow patterns. In addition, we recommend
that this development participate in the "Winchester Properties
Assessment District No. 161" to mitigate its impact on state
highways. ..
The above comments represent a preliminary review (conceptual review)
only. It is presumed that once the above comments have been addressed,
application for a permit will be made in the usual manner. At that
time, a complete plan package should be submitted for review.
If you have any questions regarding Caltrans permit procedure
requirements, please call Mr. Bruce Gregg at (714) 383-4501.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
TDD (714) 383~4609
April 4, 1988
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,
Development Review
08-Riv-15-6.62
Your Reference:
TPM 23430
Planning Department
Attention Mr. Greg Neal
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Dear Mr. Neal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed TPM 23430
located at the southeast intersection of Interstate 15 and
Winchester Road in the Rancho California area.
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have
been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted
under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way,
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the Caltrans
District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M.
Connally at (714) 383-4384.
Very truly yours,
Ori.clinal Signed H, N. Lewandc~wt;k.
H. N. LEWANDOWSKI
District Permits Engineer
Att.
cc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department
DEVELOP~NT REVIEW FORM
~//"' /~" ~C~Rt~e PM)
(~r Re~erenee)
WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE:
Although the ~ drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to have
a significant effect on'the state highway system, consideration must be given to
the cumulative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures
necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of ~- ~' i i drainage should be
provided prior to or with development of the area that necessitates them.
It appears that the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal could have a
significant effect on the state highway system of the area. Any measures necessary
to mitigate the traffic and drainage impacts should be included with the
development.
This portion of state highway is included in the California Master Plan of State
Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Designation, and in the future your
agency may wish to have this route officially designated as a state scenic highway.
This portion of state highway has been officially designated as a state scenic
highway, and development in this corridor should be compatible with the scenig
highway concept.
It is recognized that there is considerable public concern about noise levels
adjacent to heavily traveled highways. Land development, in order to be compatible
with this concern, my require special noise attenuation measures. Development of
property should include any necessary noise attenuation.
WE RECO~4END: 0~/~o~ 7F
Normal right of way dedication to provide ~7 half-width on the state highway.
/
Normal street improvements to provide ~_half-width on the state highway.
Curb and gutter, State Standard/q2-F along the state highway.
Parking be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red
and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs.
.L _JL radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway.
A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns.
A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage be provided to limit
physical access to the state highway.
Vehicular access not be developed directly to the state highway.
Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by existing public road
connections.
Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by __
driveways.
standard
Vehicular access shall not be provided within
of the intersection at
Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by a road-type connection.
Form 8-PD19 (Rev. 5/87) (Continued on reverse)
,X
Vehicular access connections be paved at least within the state highway right of
way.
Access points to the state highway be developed in a manner that will provide sight
distance for mph along the state highway.
Landscaping along the state highway be low and forgiving in nature.
A left-turn lane, including any necessary widening, be provided on the state
highway at '~~ /~O ~f/ ·
Consideration be given to the provision, or future provision, of signalization and
lighting of the intersection of y~Z/~ ~ and
the state highway.
A traffic study indicating on- and off-site flow patterns and volumes, probable
impacts, and proposed mitigation measures be prepared.
Adequate off-street parking, which does not require backing onto the state highway,
be provided.
Parking lot be developed in a manner that will not cause any vehicular movement
conflicts, including parking stall entrance and exit, within of the
entrance from the state highway.
Handicap parking not be developed in the busy driveway entrance area.
Care be taken when developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing
drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration should be given to
cumulative increased storm runoff to insure that a highway drainage problem is not
created.
Any necessary noise attenuation be provided as part of the development of this
propert,y.
Please refer to attached additional comments.
WE WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE:
A copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval.
A copy of any documents providing additional state highway right of way upon
recordation of the map.
WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS:
Any proposals to further develop this property.
A copy of the traffic or environmental study, if required.
A check print of the Parcel or Tract Map, if required.
A check print of the Plans for any improvements within the state highway right of
way, if required.
~ A check print of the Grading and Drainage Plans for this property when available.
.,.-__-.~:, ._.,_.= r=~.. ~,~ 6763385 P.82
RIVERSIDE
TRANSJT
AGENCY
182.5 THIRD STREET, RIVERSK3E CA 92507-3484 · BUS. (714) 884.0850 FAX [714) 684-1007
May 24, 1990
Ms. Brenda Wahlerr
Bedford Properties
28765 Single Oak Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Regarding: Parcel #23430
Dear Brenda:
Please forgive the delay Of this letter.
The Riverside Transit Agency {RTA} has reviewed site maps for parcel
number 23430 w(th Bedford Properties.
The locations of proposed transit amentties has been agreed upon and
n_o further action by RTA- is deemed necessary. RTA appreciates the
cooperation of Bedford Properties.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
Jim Stoffer
Planner
JS:sda
0 5 1990
May 3, 1990
Ms. Barbara Walhart
Bedford Properties
P.O. Box 755
Rancho California, CA 92390
RE: Palm Plaza Commercial Development Traffic Impact Study
Dear Ms Walhert:
First of all I must apologize for the length of time this exercise
took but we were never notified by the County of Riverside that we
would be requested to "approve" traffic studies. However, the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), as a single
purpose transportation agency, has a vested interest in Riverside
County's transportation infrastructure.
At this time, the RCTC is involved with the refinement of a
regional transportation model which will be used to assist in the
assessment of alternative improvements to improve the highway
transportation system in Riverside County. As you may be aware, the
RCTC is the administrative/implementing agency for the Riverside
County Measure "A" program (1/2 cent transportation sales tax).
In approximately one year, the refinement of the transportation
model (RIVSAN Model) will be complete. In addition to our
application of the model on major highway improvements, we are
encouraging local governments within Riverside County to use the
model in assessing transportation impacts of both residential and
commercial development. We also intend on applying the model to
assist local government agencies develop their respective
Congestion Management Plans as required under AB 471.
Of particular interest to RCTC is the impact of the various
developments on commute (home to work and work to home) trips. As
you are aware, the significant growth of the past decade has
burdened our highway system beyond an acceptable level of service.
It appears that this growth trend will continue for years to come
and our efforts must be directed toward providing the most cost
effective and efficient transportation improvements as possible.
In assessing commute trips, we are interested in the cumulative
impact of development on our county-wide highway infrastructure.
For example, if there is a residential housing development of 500
units or more, lets say in Temecula, we are interested in the
impact of "regional commute trips" which would be originating from
the proposed development. In other words, will commute trips
originating from the development increase the traffic load on 1-
215, 1-15 Route 91 or Route 60?, and if so what are its
consequences and how should we accomodate the increased load?
This raises questions as to whether or not consideration of a
uniform traffic mitigation fee, as is being applied to development
in the Coachella Valley, would be applicable and appropriate in
Western Riverside County.
In terms of the commercial nature of the Palm Plaza Development,
the RCTC understands the relative impact of these developments to
assist in containing the growth of traffic impacts on the regional
system. This is true if employment opportunities are created for
Riverside County residents. Thereby, on an incremental basis
reducing the demand on the regional highway system.
In reference to the Palm Plaza Commercial Development traffic
impact study, I engaged the assistance of Mr. Tom Horkan who is a
traffic engineer with the Bechtel Corporation and he made a
generalized assessment of the study as being adequate. However,
there were several constructive comments made in his critique of
the study that I think you and your management group may find
useful in improving the quality of consultant work you engage in
the future.
o
o
On page 4 of the study it mentions that daily traffic
volumes and P.M. peak hour volumes have been estimated
for the local intersections. It appears that the traffic
counts identified were collected from various sources,
either from field counts, Caltrans, or the County Road
Department. From a best practice stand point, it is
desirable to explicitly state where counts were taken,
where they were estimated, and when they were factored
from older counts (as well as the source(s) of the older
counts. This will contribute towards improving the
accuracy of the current study as well as preventing
future studies from using inaccurate traffic counts.
Also stated is that certain intersections, in the A.M.
and P.M. peaks are operating at a level of service "D or
worse". It is better practice to state the level of
service each intersection is operating at because there
is a significant difference, as well as, differing
implications of intersections operating a level D or
level F.
Growth in the area is stated as being 14% but it is not
defended. There is no information provided that
demonstates this is no more than a guess. This growth
rate appears to be representative of the current
situation. However, documentation would further add to
the study's credibility.
The study should include an existing conditional analysis
for intersection level of service using existing volumes
and existing lanes.
O
The A.M. analysis should follow consistently with P.M.
analysis throughout the study. Although the site trip
generation is less during the A.M. peak hour the A.M.
background may be significantly higher than the P.M. peak
hour. Therefore, the addition of A.M. trips to an
overburdened road system could create significant
problems.
Table 4 includes numbers that do not match the analysis
sheets in the Appendix. Intersections 1 and 2 have
incorrect ICU values for Pre-Project Conditions.
The mitigation section of the report is not clear as to
what the study is recommending (improvements) the project
proponent (developer) to do. An executive summary of the
study recommendations would be most helpful. In other
words the summary should explicitly state what
improvements the developer should perform for the
implementation of the project. In addition, the summary
should describe the traffic conditions in the study area
after all improvements are performed and taking into
account all other improvements committed by other
projects in the surrounding area.
Finally, this study does not address impacts to the regional
highway system beyond the sections of 1-15 adjacent to the site.
The project is estimated to add 1,800 trips to the highway north of
Winchester Road and 1,500 trips to the freeway south of Winchester
Road (the volumes are both direction totals). Given the generalized
nature of development in the Temecula area being residential, this
commercial development might have the affect of reducing trips
generated from this area to or through other parts of the county
because of job development and the creation of local retail
facilities.
I hope you will benefit from this critique and apply it to future
traffic impact analyses in the future. We must understand that the
interests of both the RCTC and the developers are really quite
similar. The RCTC is trying to provide transportation improvements
which will improve service to the residents and visitors of the
County as well as contributing to improving the quality of life and
the environment. The developers desire projects which offer
improved quality of the life as well as value to the purchasers of
their products.
In conclusion, after reviewing the Palm Plaza Traffic Impact Study,
staff of the RCTC find it acceptable. Should you have anyquestions
please call Hideo Sugita of my staff at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
tor
CC:
Ed Studor, County of Riverside
Gary Moon, SCAG Inland Area Office
Frank Aleshire, Interim City Manager City of Temecula
Kay Ceniceros, Chairman RCTC
October 8. 1988
6TE Calffornta
Incorporated
1500 Crafton Avenue - 8ox 1-18
Hentone, CA 92359
In Reply Refer To
Parcel Hap 23430
First American Title
Insurance Company
P. O. Box 988
Riverside. CA 92358
ATTENTION: Hal Thomas:
Please be advised that, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
Section 6G438(c)(!), 6TE California Incorporated hereby waives its right to
object within thirty (36) days after recelpt of the fine1 map of Parcel Nap
23430 to the recording of said map so that said map may be earlier recorded
without its signature only on condition that failure of said public utility to
object to recording the final map without its signature shall in no way affect
its right under an easement or otherwise.
The division and development of the property shown on the final map will not
unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any easement held
by 6TE California Incorporated within the boundaries of said map.
Very truly yours,
TIM AVILA
Right of Way Agent
REAL PROPERTIES AND ADMINISTRATION
Southern Ca/iforn/a Edison Company
P. O. BOX 410
1OO LONG BEACH BOULEVARD
LONG BEACH. CALIFORNIA 9080'1
Riverside County Road Department
P. O. Box 1090
Riverside. CA 92502
Attention: Subdivision Section
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23430
September 9. 1988
Please be advised that the division of the property shown on
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23430 will not unreasonably interfere
with the free and complete exercise of any easement(s) held by
Southern-California Edison Company within the boundaries of said
tentative parcel map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the
Company's rights. title and interest in and to said easement(s).
nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the
provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of any costs
for relocation of affected facilities.
In the event that the development requires relocation of facil-
ities, if any. on the subject property by right of easement or
otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost
of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement
rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to
the performance of the relocation.
If additional information is required in connection with the
above mentioned subject. please call Mike Robertson at (213)
491-2828.
Very truly yours.
R. P. ROSSEL
Relocation and Distribution
L/13353/mrr21
cc: First American Title Insurance Company
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP / TRACT NO. 23d30
DATE 12/10/90
] MPROVRMKNT,q
FAITHFUL PERFO~67{
SECIII{IU
MATERIAl, & LABOR
SECq3RITY'
Street~
Water
TOTAl,
*Maintenance Retention (10% for one year)
*(or Bonds if work is completed)
Monument Security
Inspection Fee: (Offsite Improvements)
Fee paid to date (Credit)
Inspection Fee Due
Monument Inspection Fee
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
Total Inspection Fees Due
RCFC Drainage Fee Due
Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD ~
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
STEPHENS K-RAT FEE
$ 90,000.00
$ 9,636.00
$ ~
$ 482.00
m 482.00
$ 41 008 00
, 116,17~.00
$ 79,911;00
ITEM NO. 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT.'
CITY OF TEMECUI. A
A GENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
December 18, 1990
Appointment of Alternate to WRCOG
PREPARED BY:
Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a member of the City Council to serve as the
alternate voting delegate to the Western Riverside Council of Governments.
BACKGROUND: Councilmember Birdsall has been serving as the City of
Temecula's alternate to the Western Riverside Council of Governments. At a recent
meeting she requested that another Councilmember be appointed to this position.
jsg
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A GENDA
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 1990 - 8:00 PM
DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall
Introduction of Parks Maintenance Superintendent
CSD BUSINESS
1. Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of December 4, 1990 as mailed.
Public Facilities Reservation Fee Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt the Public Facilities Reservation and Fee Policy which includes
eliminating fees for daily non-evening park usage and categorizing utility
fees based upon the type of user group.
Sx~orts Park Ball Field Lightin~l Project, Phase II
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Approve Phase II of the sports Park Lighting System Project. This
includes retrofitring the existing lights on the north and south fields, and
rehabilitating the existing lights on the upper south soccer/football field
in Sports Park.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting:
January 8, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol
Street, Temecula, California
ITEM NO. 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD DECEMBER 4, 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order
at 8:05 PM, President Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks,
Birdsall
ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz
Also present were City Manger David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June
S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CSD BUSINESS
1. Sports Park Lighting System Project
Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, reported the proposed Sports
Park Lighting System Project is Phase One of the 1990-91 Capital Improvement
Plan, which would alleviate the overcrowded situation at the Sports Park. He
explained the plan would involve lighting an additional field, bringing the total
to three lighted fields in the Rancho Vista section of Sports Park. He stated
that a revised Sports Park master calendar for 1991 was prepared and
presented to the Temecula Sports Council who unanimously approved the
revised 1991 master calendar. He reported that on November 26, 1990, the
Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved and recommended for
Board approval, the installation of the lights at Sports Park. He stated an
environmental assessment has been completed by City Planning, with a
negative declaration given to the project, and all property owners within a
1,000 foot radius were notified concerning this public hearing.
Mr. Nelson stated he had received two letters concerning the project; one
concerned with the noise level and one requesting that the lights be turned off
at 10:00 PM.
Mr. Nelson reported that in terms of operation of the lights, the City will be in
compliance with County Ordinance 655, and the Palomar Lighting District and
every attempt will be made to have the lights turned off by 11:00 PM. Mr.
4\CSDMIN\I 20490 -1 - 12/12/90
CSD Minutes December 4, 1990
Nelson recommended the board approve this project and authorize staff to
advertise formal bids.
Director Parks asked if these lights would be shielded from the surrounding
residential area. Mr. Nelson answered that Musco, has an excellent product
and introduced Brent Marchetti to describe the type of lights being proposed.
Councilmember Lindemans asked if the neighbors were notified. Mr. Nelson
answered that notices were mailed to approximately 250 surrounding residents,
and every effort was made to notify residents.
Brent Marchetti, Musco stated the design of the lighting system addresses light
spill, glare light and the upper glow of the light. He stated this system will
minimize all three areas by location of the poles, mounting heights of the poles
for proper aiming and a reflector system that redirects the light back on the
field. He reported this system cuts out 95% of the glare and spill light.
Director Parks asked how this system compares to the existing lighting at
Sports Park. Mr. Marchetti stated this system is 90% more efficient.
Councilmember Lindemans suggested refitting the existing lights now instead
of at a later time. Mr. Nelson stated he did not want to delay the current
project, but stated this project will be researched as a part of the capital
improvement plan for the upcoming year.
Councilmember Lindemans requested that staff move ahead with the research
for retro-fitting these lights, possibly before year end.
Director Parks stated that since lights are already existing at these facilities,
restrooms and other concerns may be a more urgent need.
Mr. Nelson reported that a conceptual plan for Sports Park is being developed
and the types of developments needed, and their priorities will be addressed.
President Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:15 PM.
Michael Medaris, 30601 Moontide Court, representing the Starlight Ridge South
Homeowners Association, stated that the proposed lights will greatly impact
the surrounding residents. He submitted a majority consensus letter from the
Homeowners Association stating opposition to the lights. He said the current
schedule allows play until 11:00 PM, and play goes on well past the deadline,
with noise, traffic and foul language. He said the City cannot compensate for
its lack of parks by scheduling the Sports Park 24 hours a day. He objected to
4\CSDMIN\I 20490 -2- 12/12/90
CSD Minutes December 4, 1990
adult play into the late hours of the night.
President Birdsall stated this park has been in this area for 18 to 20 years and
the fact that they are lighted has been well publicized. She did, however, state
she feels that the 11:00 PM deadline should be strictly enforced.
President Birdsall closed the public hearing at 8:25 PM.
President Birdsall reopened the public hearing at 8:25 PM, following a request
to speak from a member of the audience.
Beatrice Vickers, stated that she is a resident of the surrounding area and
stated the noise is very offensive, the glare from the lights prevent any privacy
for homeowners, and asked that the lighting system be reconsidered.
President Birdsall closed the public hearing at 8:26 PM.
Shawn Nelson stated that the operation of the softball program has up to this
time been conducted by CSA-143, and the City will strictly enforce the 11:00
PM curfew. He stated the Balloon and Wine Festival is not planning to use the
Rancho Vista Fields for their event. He said the lighting system is not intended
as a long term solution to rectify the Parks and Recreation needs of the
community. He explained it is being pursued so that the City can effectively
meet the upcoming recreation events in the Spring.
Director Parks asked if this schedule is designed primarily for use by children
or adults. Mr. Nelson answered that 90% of the usage is planned for the
youth.
Director Moore suggested retro-fitting the existing lights to help homeowners
with the glare problem.
Director Lindemans stated this is a temporary situation where some sacrifices
must be made. He stated the City has 3,000 to 4,000 children to
accommodate, and asked if most cities turn off lights at 9:00 PM. Mr. Nelson
answered that most cities have lights off by 10:00 PM.
City Manager Dixon asked what effect on the existing programs a light turn-off
time of 10:00 PM would make. Mr. Nelson stated he would have to review
that with the Temecula Sports Council to see whether or not the programs
could still be accommodated during a reduced time frame. He stated that there
is only a two or three month period where this could be a problem.
4\CSDMIN\120490 -3- 12112/90
CSD Minutes December 4, 1990
City Manager Dixon stated he would like to work toward having activities cease
at 9:30 or 9:45 PM with the lights being turned off by 10:00 PM. He said that
the noise level would also drop earlier in the evening.
Director Lindemans stated with retro-fitting the existing lights, the surrounding
citizens would not be so greatly impacted.
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to approve the
Sports Park Lighting System Project, authorize staff to advertise formal bids on
this project with the understanding that the lights would be turned off at 10:00
PM, and certify the negative declaration.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore,
Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Mu~oz
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
Shawn Nelson reported that the 17.9 acres adjacent to Sports Park has been
approved to be deeded to the Temecula Community Services District by the County
of Riverside Board of Directors.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
DIRECTORS REPORTS
Director Lindemans requested that staff begin work to have the existing lights in
Sports Park retro-fitted with modern equipment.
Director Parks asked that restroom and snack bar facilities are planned for the Rancho
Vista area of the Sports Park.
4\CSDMIN\I 20490 -4- 12/1
CSD Minutes December 4, 1990
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Park, seconded by Director Lindemans to adjourn at 8:40
to a meeting on December 11, 1990.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Mu~oz
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
Patricia H. Birdsall, President
4\CSDMIN\120490 -5- 12/I 2/90
ITEM NO. 2
APPROVAL
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 18, 1990
PUBLIC FACILITIES RESERVATION FEE POLICY
PREPARED B~
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Adopt the Public Facilities Reservation and Fee Policy which
includes eliminating fees for daily non-evening park usage and categorizing utility fees
based upon the type of user groups.
FISCAL IMPACT: No adverse fiscal impact because the cost of maintenance
and operation of the public park facilities are covered through the city-wide park
assessment.
DISCUSSION: The main points of the policy are: a) To eliminate daily non-
evening fees for park usage; b) To develop utility fees based on the type of users;
and c) To develop a procedure to evaluate non-athletic special events.
The intent of the policy is to cover the majority of recreation activities and events that
will transpire in the park facilities. All special events shall be reviewed by the Parks
and Recreation Commission for approval and designation of appropriate fees.
On December 1 O, 1990 the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved
and recommended to City Council to adopt the Public Facilities Reservation and Fee
Policy.
The Reservation and Fee Policy is enclosed for your review.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
PUBLIC FACILITIES RESERVATION AND FEE POLICY
FY 1990-91
GENERAL POLICIES
Any gathering of 50 or more persons using a City park or using a City build-
ing, requires a completed application form and payment of fees at least four-
teen (14) days before the event.
Major special events in excess of 250 participants and all sporting events,
must provide a Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Temecula as an
additionally named insured in an amount of $1 million. Approval for any
special event requested that does not correlate with the intent of the
designed ballfields i.e., festivals, carnivals, cultural events, etc. must
be approved by the Parks & Recreation Commission.
3. All applications for reservations must be on official forms provided by the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD).
Any person or group causing property or equipment damage will be required to
pay for damages based on current cost of repair or replacement. Until pay-
ment is received for said damages, the TCSD reserves the right to refuse
future applications.
5. Groups requiring time to decorate or make other preparations, as well as
time to clean the facility, must be included on the application form.
Consumption of alcohol in any public building or park area is strictly
prohibited unless approved by the TCSD. Each request shall be evaluated on
an individual basis. If approved, applicant must provide liquor liability
and general liability in an amount of at least $1 million. Further, if alcoholic
bevages are sold, a liquor permit issued by the California Alcohol Beverage Control
Department is required.
All groups are required to notify the TCSD of any change in their use of a
facility, especially cancellations. A cancellation fee of 25% of the to-
tal fee will be charged if notified less than 72 hours in advance of the
scheduled event.
Non-residents of Temecula will be charged an additional $10.00 fee per parti-
cipant in any youth or adult league. All non-profit organizations providing
youth or adult leagues will be required to total all non-resident partici-
pants and submit payment to the TCSD for said participants.
Resident non-profit organizations shall be any non-profit organization in
which 50% or more of its participating, registered members reside within
the City boundaries of Temecula.
10. Non-resident organizations (profit or non-profit), shall be any organization
in which less than 50% of its participating, registered members reside
within the City boundaries of Temecula.
11. All for-profit organizations, resident or non-resident, shall pay the Group
3 rate for facility usage.
12. Fees required for all special events shall be coordinated with the type of
group requesting usage and the overall benefit to the City. All special
event applications will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
13. The TCSD reserves the right to reschedule groups or events. However, reo
scheduled dates required by the TCSD must be in extreme situations only,
and every attempt shall be made to reschedule the event or activity to
the satisfaction of the user.
GROUP CA TEGORIES FOR USER FEES
Group I
Group 2
Group 3
- Non-profit organizations, civic groups, and service clubs pro-
viding benefits and services to the community.
- Base standard rate for community users.
- For-profit and non-resident organizations.
FIELD FEE SCHEDULE
(Rates per Field
per Hour)
Without lights:
With lights:
Non-resident fee
(per participant)
Group 1
N/C
5.00
10.00
Group 2
N/C
12.00
10.00
Group 3
12.00
20.00
N/A
ITEM NO. 3
APPROVAL
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 18, 1990
SPORTS PARK BALL FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT,
PHASE II
PREPARED B~
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Approve Phase II of the Sports Park Lighting System Project.
This includes retrofitting the existing lights on the north and south fields, and
rehabilitating the existing lights on the upper south soccer/football field in Sports Park.
FISCAL IMPACT: The projected cost of Phase II is $130,000.00. However,
$335,000.00 was originally budgeted and approved for Phase I. With the deletion of
two Temecula Valley High School fields, and the addition of one field in Sports Park,
the cost of Phase I should be between $225,000.00 to $250,000.00. Therefore, an
additional commitment of $65,000.00 to bring the total capital outlay amount for
lights in Sports Park to $400,000.00, will adequately fund Phase I and Phase II.
DISCUSSION: At the public hearing on December 4, 1990, for Phase I of
the Sports Park Ball Field Lighting Project, the City Council (Board of Directors), stated
concerns about the existing lights on the north and south fields in Sports Park as well
as the need for the upper south soccer/football field to be properly lighted. Further,
the Board stated that a curfew of 10:00 p.m. must be adhered to in all evening
recreation activities.
By retrofitting the existing north and south field lights, and rehabilitating the upper
south soccer/football field, the TCSD can expand its ability to provided recreation
opportunities while reducing the upward glare and spill light associated with the
existing north and south fields.
Agenda Report- Sports Park Ball Field Lighting Project
Page 2.
On December 10, 1990, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved
and recommended to City Council to approve Phase II of the Sports Park Ball Field
Lighting Project.
A site plan including the lighted fields for Phase I, and the proposed lighted fields for
Phase II are enclosed for your review.