Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
070198 PC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Dieabitiee Act, if you need special elsiefence to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400, Not;~cetlon 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to er~ure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title Ill TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 1, 1998, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Reso Next In Order #98-020 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Slaven ROLL CALL: Guerriero, Naggar, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. 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 Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Swear in New Planning Commissioners 3. Select New Chair and Co-Chair 4. Decision of Permanent Wednesday Night Planning Commission Meetings 5. Approve Minutes from May 20, 1998 6. Trash Bin Ordinance PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 7. Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0235 (General Plan Amendments) and Planning Application No. PA98-0236 (Zoning Amendments Development Code and Zoning Map) City of Temecula South of the Intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs and Winchester Roads Commencement of Actions Necessary to Detach Certain Real Property from the City of Temecula, Located on the North Side of Winchester Road, at the City's Northern City Limit and Known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-140-007 (Sonny Salkind, Applicant). Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Recommend 8. Ca~e No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: 9. Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: 10. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: 11. Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Presenter: Recommendation: PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) James Hundley (Hunco Devdopment) 41635 Enterprise Circle North To construct a 16,756 square foot industrial building on 1.16 acre site. Mitigated Negative Declaration John De Gange John Pourkazemi Approval NIA City of Temecula City-wide Recommended changes to the existing Development Code regulations of on-site storage of vehicles (to include recreational vehicles) in residential zones None Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Provide recommendations to the City Council regarding modifications to the existing Development Code regulations pertaining to the on-site storage of vehicles (to include recreational vehicles) in residential zones Planning Application No. PA98-0205 (Prezoning and Annexation - Vail Ranch and Redhawk) City of Temecula Within the City's southern Sphere of Influence (known as Vall Ranch Specific Plan and Redhawk Specific Plan), south of SR79 South, east of Murdy Ranch {east of Pala Road), north and west of Anza Road The pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 1,995 acres which is comprised of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217) and Vail Ranch (Specific Plan No. 223) Specific Plan Areas from unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula Mitigated Negative Declaration John DeGange, Project Planner Recommend Approval PA95-0116 (Paseo Del Sol) City of Temecula Westerly of Butterfield Stage Road between State Highway 79 South and Pauba Road The First Amendment to the Development Agreement will provide that the obligation of the Developer to construct certain parks and recreation facilities and to dedicate certain properties to open space paseos as set forth in the original development agreement will continue but the maintenance obligations for such facilities and properties will be shifted to the Developer and the homeowner associations within the tracts. Negative Declaration Dave Hogan and Beryl Yasinosky Recommend Approval July 15, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California ITEM #2 SWEAR IN NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ITEM #3 SELECT NEW CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR ITEM #4 DECISION OF PERMANANT WEDNESDAY NIGHT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ITEM #5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM MAY 20, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, May 20, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Senior Planner Hogan, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Curley, Associate Planner Fagan, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS Although there were no public comments, Acting Chairwoman Slaven informed the attending public that Chairwoman Fahey has resigned from the Ranning Commission, noting that she was a valuable asset to the Commission and that she will be greatly missed. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aoproval of Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Approval of Minutes of Aoril 1. 1998. and Aoril 15, 1998 With regard to the April 1, 1998, minutes, Commissioner Miller requested that page 4 be amended to accurately reflect Mr. Russell Rumansoff's address as 27394 Jefferson Avenue. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the April 1, 1998, minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. M_M_O_~: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the April 15, 1998, minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exceotion of Commissioner Soltysiak who abstained. 3. Southside Specific Plan Workshop Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (as per written material) and introduced Mr. AI Zelinka. By way of overheads, Mr. AI Zelinka, representing Urban Design Studio, Project Manager for this project, provided a detailed overview of the proposed Southside Specific Plan, identifying preliminary opportunities as well as constraints, reviewing issues identified by the community, highlighting components of the Specific Plan, describing the proposed list of permitted uses, and advising that the proposed Specific Plan was designed to provide flexibility as well as a diverse mix of uses. Reviewing the public participation process with regard to this Plan, Mr. Zelinka advised that the community suggested that the westside of Front Street be zoned Community Commercial. Further addressing the Commissioners' comments, Mr. Zelinka noted the following: that extensive input was received from the business and property owners of this area; that the business and property owners viewed high-density residential as an opportunity to increase market potential; that concerns were expressed with regard to the combination of the interchange/bypass, noting that individuals may bypass Front Street; that public meetings with regard to this issue primarily included business and property owners of the area of discussion; that there was support of the First Street bridge connection but that concern was expressed with regard the possibility of constructing Santiago into an interchange; that the community would not view the Batch Plant (currently a legal non- conforming use) as a long-term use; that uses between Community Commercial and Highway-Oriented Commercial are not drastically different but that new uses were introduced to ensure the ease of locating a use in the area of discussion; that the public was pleased with sections of the landscaping; that because of the flood plane issues, development of the creek side is viewed as challenging. In response to Mr. Zelinka and in response to the written material (of record), the following comments/issues were raised by the Commissioners: that an Animal Hospital/Shelter, Laundromat, recreational vehicle park, and a recycling collection facility would not be viewed as a compatible use for the Highway-Oriented Commercial Zone; that a use such as a sidewalk cafe should be permitted. It was noted by Mr. Zelinka that although it would be within the Commission's discretion to change the proposed land uses, it was viewed by the community that a sidewalk cafe would be more compatible in the northern section of the study area; that a bicycle sales/rental/service shop should be permitted in the Highway- Oriented Commercial Zone but that a funeral parlor would not be compatible; that the proposed Plan should be customized to the particular area and, therefore, it was recommended to reconsider, redefine, and create consistency with the proposed uses. Although this was not a public hearing, Acting Chairwoman Slaven invited public input at this time. Mr. Doug Juengst, 28936 Front Street, Suite 105, representing RSS Associates (property located within the Service Commercial Zone), requested that this property be retained at Service Commercial. Further elaborating on Mr. Juengst's request, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that it would be within the Commission's purview to recommend to the City Council that the Service Commercial Zone be extended by 208' to the south. Mr. Robert Quaid, 28822 Front Street, reiterated the request of RSS Associates to retain the property within the Service Commercial Zone and further elaborated on his plan to purchase property including the parcel of discussion in order to build a new Harley-Davidson Motorcycle facility (proposed building to be in excess of 18,000 square feet), advising that if Service Commercial were not retained, he would not be able to close escrow on the property. In light of the public input he had received during the review process, Mr. Zelinka advised that the community would be supportive of the proposed Harley-Davidson facility. Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the Harley-Davidson facility would be permitted under the existing zone but would not be permitted as part of the Southside Specific Plan and, therefore, Mr. Quaid was desirous of addressing the Commission with his concern. As long as the proposed building would be designed in such a fashion that it would be compatible with the area, it was the consensus of the Commission to approve the 208' extension to the south. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the transportation corridors for Front Street were not designed to provide landscaped medians, noting that such medians would prohibit utilizing Front Street as a parade route. Commissioner Soltysiak requested that specific language be included to demonstrate the actual financing of the facade improvements as well as landscaping. Requesting that the proposed uses be readdressed, redefined, and customized to the area of discussion, Acting Chairwoman Slaven requested that any future workshop include the use of photographs to describe the conceptual ideas. Planning AoDlication No. PA98-0170 (General Plan Amendments} and Planning AoDliCatiOn NO. PA98-0109 (Zoning Amendments - Development Code and Zoning Map} Request to approve several clean-up amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use Ran and Zoning Map and amendments to the Development Code to modify landscape requirements for automobile dealerships, modify side yard requirements for shopping centers, clarify the heights of accessory structures in the HR, VL, L-1, L-2, and LM zones, adding regulations for temporary construction trailers in residential zones clarifying side yard storage for vehicles, adding motorcycle parking space dimensions, and adding a requirements for wheel stops in commercial zones. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Commissioner Miller noted that he would be abstaining with regard to the Spanos Panhandle property. By way of a zoning map, Associate Planner Fagan presented a detailed overview of the staff report (as per agenda material) and provided additional clarification with regard to the Salkind property (currently zoned as Medium Density Residential} and commented on staff's recommendation to zone the property as Highway-Tourist Commercial versus Service Commercial because of the adjacent residential developments. Further elaborating on his situation, Mr. Sonny Salkind, 339575 Glen Oaks Road, advised that he has been the owner of the property for the past 28 years; that one piece of his property has been bifurcated by the City/County line, zoning the County portion as CPS which is a mixture of Highway-Tourist Commercial (HTC) and Service Commercial (SC); that the Service Commercial Zone would be more compatible with the County's CPS zone; that although he has an existing entitlement on the property for the use of a drive-through restaurant, no permits have been pulled; and that the HTC zone would be limiting the permitted uses of his property. In response to the Commission, Mr. Salkind voiced no objection to a continuance with regard to his property in order for staff to readdress the issue with him. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that she had received a phone call from Mr. Dick Kennedy requesting a continuance on behalf of Mr. Atwood with regard to the Automobile Dealership Landscape Standards. Ms. Ubnoske noted that Mr. Kennedy was not specific as to the concerns and that she had requested that a letter be submitted requesting the continuance and stated that she had not received such a letter. It was noted that she and Associate Planner Fagan will be meeting with the individuals tomorrow in order to address any concerns. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to continue this matter in order to permit Mr. Atwood to relay his concerns with regard to the Automobile Dealership Landscape Standards. After some additional discussion and due to the lack of a second, this motion was withdrawn by Mr. Miller. 4 Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the upcoming General Motors request (designed to comply with the Development Code Amendments) may be reviewed prior to any action being taken on the Development Code Amendments and, therefore, the proposed applicant would be inconsistent with the current Development Code. In order to address this issue, Planning Manager Ubnoske, as per Attorney Curley, noted that the proposed applicant may submit plans under the existing Development Code and that approval may be granted with the imposition of the following condition: ... subject to and contingent upon the City approving the amendment to the Development Code which will be requiring less landscaping. Ms. Ubnoske noted that the Commission may act on the matter this evening, noting that Mr. Kennedy and/or Mr. Atwood would still have the opportunity to address their concerns with the City Council. Clarifying that it would not be the City's intent to retrofit automobile dealership facilities which may propose minor changes, Planning Manager Ubnoske suggested the addition of specific language clarifying that the proposed standards would solely pertain to new construction and would not affect expansions of existing facilities. Providing additional clarification with regard to section g. of the Automobile Dealership Landscape Standards (buildings which are accessible to the public shall have landscaping around the perimeter to accomplish the following: break up the building massing, break up large areas of bardscape, provide visual interest and provide shade), Associate Planner Fagan noted that the intent of this section was to provide more landscaping around the access points to the public not to the service bays, loading doors, etc. Following additional discussion with regard to this section, it was the consensus of the Commission that the section be amended as follows: The showroom portion/main sales building which is accessible to the public shall have landscaping around the perimeter to accomplish the following: break up the building massing, break up large areas of hardscape, provide visual interest and provide shade. In order to further clarify this amendment, it was suggested by Planning Manager Ubnoske that a graphic be attached. Because the proposed landscape standards for automobile dealerships references a 20' landscape buffer, it was the consensus of the Commission to amend the existing City Design Guidelines from 15' to 20' with regard to the landscaping buffer in order to eliminate the potential of a conflict. In response to Commissioner Soltysiak, Associate Planner Fagan reviewed the added provision with regard to construction trailers, advising that a minor development plan would be required in order to give the Planning Department the ability to impose some conditions with regard to these trailers. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to adopt Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-Q170 (General Plan Amendments) and Planning Application No. PA98-0109 (Zoning Amendments - Development Code and Zoning Map); to adopt Resolution No. 98-013; and to adopt Resolution No. PC 98-014, deleting the Salkind property and continuing that item to the Planning Commission meeting of June 17, 1998. 5 RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 914- 811-001,914-811-002, 914-811-003, 914-811-004, 914-811-005, 914-811 - 006, 914-811-007, 914-812-001,914-812-002, 914-812-003, AND 914-812- 003 FROM VL (VERY-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL .2-.4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LM (LOW -MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3-6 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS, SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SHOPPING CENTERS, HEIGHTS OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE HR, VL, L-1, L-2, AND LM ZONES, REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, CLARIFYING SIDE YARD STORAGE FOR VEHICLES, MOTORCYCLE PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR WHEEL STOPS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, DELETING PALA VILLAGE FROM THE LIST OF SPECIFIC PLANS AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 914-811-001,914-811-002, 914-811-003, 914-811-004, 914-811-005, 914-811-006, 914-811-007, 914- 812-001,914-812-002, 914-812-003 AND 914-812-003 FROM VL (VERY-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL .2-.4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LM(LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3-6 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 944-331-001 THROUGH 944-331-025 FROM SP - SPECIFIC PLAN (A PART OF THE RANCHO HIGHLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN) TO H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13-20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND REASSIGNING NUMBERS (SP-1 THROUGH SP-8) TO THE VARIOUS SPECIFIC PLANS WITHIN THE CITY The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Associate Planner Fagan reviewed the staff report with regard to the Spanos Panhandle (of record). Attorney Curley noted that the Commission may direct staff to prepare a resolution to reflect the application of the Negative Declaration PA98-0170 and to draft a resolution similar to the previously approved resolutions, inserting the proper APN and deleting the General Plan Element. 6 MOTION: With regard to the Spanos Panhandle, Acting Chairwoman Slaven moved to continue this matter in order for staff to prepare a resolution to reflect the application of the Negative Declaration PA98-0170 and to draft a resolution similar to the previously approved resolutions, inserting the proper APN and deleting the General Plan Element. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval With the exception of Commissioner Miller who abstained. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that City Manager Bradley, Community Development Director Thornhill, and two Councilmembers are attending the International Conference of Shopping Centers in Las Vegas in order to negotiate additional leases for the Mall. B. Ms. Ubnoske also informed the Commissioners that a new Project Planner by the name of Tom Thornsley has been hired. COMMISSIONER REPORTS No additional comments, ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to the June 3, 1998, Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 P.M. Marcia Slaven, Acting Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #6 DISCUSSION OF TRASH BIN ORDINANCE ITEM #7 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: July 1, 1998 Commencement of Actions Necessary to Detach Certain Real Property from the City of Temecula, Located on the North Side of Winchester Road, at the City's Northern City Limit and Known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-140-007 (Sonny Salkind, Applicant) Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT DIRECT THE COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO DETACH CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF TEMECULA, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AT THE CITY'S NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-140-007" based upon the Analysis contained in the Staff Report. BACKGROUND At the June 17, 1998 Planning Commission hearing, the property owner of Assessor's Parcel Number 911-140-007 expressed his desire to detach from the City of Temecula and revert to the jurisdiction of Riverside County because his property is divided between the City and County and is isolated from the rest of the community. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution with a recommendation that the City Council support the proposed detachment. The resolution is included as Attachment No. 1. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 98-~- Blue Page 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\ST,AFFRPT~SALKIND,pC4 6/24/98 kJb 2 ATTACHMENT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT DIRECT THE COMMENCEaMF~NT OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO DETACH CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF TEMECULA, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AT THE CITY'S NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-140-007 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted studies and reviews of certain real property under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula in furtherance of its charge to ensure the currency and viability of the General Plan of the City of Temecula. As an element of such analysis specific real property owned by Mr. Sonny Salkind ("Owner") was reviewed at a duly noticed meeting of the Planning Commission. The subject real property is more particularly described and identified in Exhibit A hereto; WHEREAS, City staff and Owner presented oral and written evidence regarding the nature and circumstances attendant to the subject real property. The evidence demonstrates that the Owner owns a greater amount of real property. Upon incorporation of the City, approximately one-half of the Owner's real property holdings were incorporated into the City with the adjacent remainder continuing under County of Riverside jurisdiction. The General Plan and zoning designation are inconsistent for the two adjoining parcels, thus making the beneficial development of the real property difficult; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concluded that the City interests were not served by attempting to conform the City's General Plan and zoning to a designation harmonious with that applied by the County to the remainder real property. The Owner solicited input from the County of Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). LAFCO presented several options to the Owner; the Owner's preference was to detach from the City to regain consistent County zoning on both parcels. The Planning Commission, after review of the General Plan, concluded that detachment would be an appropriate course of action; WHEREAS, LAFCO has requested that the City Council manifest its consent prior to the commencement of the actions required to complete the one parcel detachment. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council issue such consent; WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this Resolution have occurred; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. The Planning Commission recommends after review and in satisfaction of California Government Code Section 65402 (a), that the City Council of the City of Temecula direct the Community Development Director and City Clerk to undertake all actions necessary to commence and complete the detachment of the subject real property, subject to any legislative actions that may be required by the City Council. Section 3. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 1st day of July, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of July, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFP, PI',SALK1ND.PC4 6/24/98 tdb 4 EXHIBIT A ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-140-007 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT A ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-104-007 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 1, 1998 ITEM #8 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Comm,~// Debbie Ubnosk~, Planning Manager July 1, 1998 Planning Applications PA98-0086 Development Plan - A proposal to construct and operate a 16,756 square foot, tilt-up building for office, manufacturing and warehousing uses on a 1.16 acre site (James Hundley) Prepared by: John De Gange, Project Planner At the June 17, 1998 meeting, the above referenced project was continued to this meeting due to there being too few Planning Commissioners to comprise a quorum and take action on the item. The staff report from the June 17th meeting is again being included for the Commission's consideration for this application. Attachment: 1. June 17, 1998 Staff Report - Blue Page 2 R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC2 6/24/98jd ATTACHMENT NO. 1 JUNE 17, 1998 STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98- 0086; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0086; and GRANT a Minor Exception in accordance to Section 17.03.060 of the Development Code for a reduction in the amount of required landscaping from 25% to 22%. ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0086 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: James Hundley REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Buckles, DEKKON Development PROPOSAL: To construct and operate a 16,756 square foot, tilt-up building for office, manufacturing and warehousing uses on a 1.16 acre site. LOCATION: 41635 Enterprise Circle North between Diaz Road and Jefferson Avenue) EXISTING ZONING: BP Business Park SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: BP Business Park BP Business Park BP Business Park BP Business Park R:XSTAFFRP'I~86pA98.PC 6/10/98jd 1 PROPOSED ZONING: N/A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 6P Business Park EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel Vacant, future Binaca building Industrial building (EnGen Corp.) Multiple tenant office suites (Executive Park office park) PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Site Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Parking Required: Office - 1,345 sq. ft.: Manufacturing - 11,559 sq.ft.: Warehousing - 3,852 so. ft.: Total = 16,756 sq. ft.: 50,633 square feet 16,756 square feet 11,123 square feet 22,753 square feet 6 vehicles 29 vehicles 4 vehicles 39 vehicles (1.16 acres) 33% 22% 45% Parking Provided: Building Height: 28 feet 41 vehicles BACKGROUND The application submittal was made on March 2, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on March 26, 1998, with staff providing written comments on March 26, 1998. The project was deemed complete on May 25, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the design and construction of a 16,756 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing spec building on a 1.16 acre (50,633 square foot) parcel with associated improvements including, bardscape, parking, landscaping and drive aisles. Landscape improvements include: parking lot landscape fingers, planter areas, and streetscape improvements. The building is designed such that it could potentially be divided into two separate leasable units roughly equal in size. ANALYSIS Site Design The project is sited on a rectangular parcel with offices fronting Enterprise Circle North and with two parking areas running the length of both sides of the building. There are two loading doors located in the rear of the building and two on each side of the building (for a total of six loading R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.FC 6110/98jd 2 doors). An employee outdoor lunch area has been located at the northeast corner of the project site. The site design is consistent with the existing development in the area. Access. Traffic and Circulation The project takes access through two driveways onto Enterprise Circle North. Truck access is provided through either driveway. The loading areas along the sides of the building and in the rear are accessible from either drive aisle. Customers and employees will utilize the parking on both sides of the building. Emergency vehicles have direct access to all portions of the site. Architecture The applicant proposes to highlight the office entries along the front of the building through the use of angled corners at the front of the building, recessed windows, projecting columnar features, and alternating painted bands and accents. The sides of the building use the same window and columnar features as the front portion of the elevations. The same color scheme is used along the length of the building. The applicant is also adding articulation to the sides of the building with the use of deep vertical and horizontal painted reveals forming a grid pattern which provides a certain amount of interest and helps breaks up the mass of the building wall. The placement of trees and shrubs within the landscape planters around the entire perimeter of the site and landscape planters adjacent to the building along the front elevation and the front portions of the side elevations complement the building and help break up the building's massing. The rear wall faces Santa Gertrudis Creek. Landscaping The project provides a minimum of 5 foot wide perimeter landscaping planter on all four sides of the parcel. A large portion of this landscape planter is 10 feet wide. The frontage along Enterprise Circle North will have a 25 foot wide landscape planter. There is also landscaping adjacent to the building along the southwest and southeast corners of the building which wraps around the building in order to add interest to the front of the building. Minor Exception The applicant is requesting a Minor Exception for a reduction in the amount of landscaping required in the BP zone from 25% to 22%. The amount of the requested reduction falls within the amount of deviation permitted in Section 17..03,060 of the Development Code (15%). Sionage This proposal does not include approval for signage. Though the applicant has placed a monument sign in the center of the 25 foot wide landscape planter along the front of the building on the site plan, approval of the project and the site plan shall not include this sign. A condition of approval which requires the applicant to submit signage to the Planning Department for approval (Condition # 21) has been included. Correspondence Received None. R:'~STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98 jd 3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP Business Park, as is the existing zoning. The proposed office, manufacturing and warehousing uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. In addition, the site has previously been graded/disturbed, improvements have been installed and as a consequence the project will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species, or the site will not serve as a migration corridor. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Negative Declaration for PA 98-0086 be adopted for this project and a Finding of DeMiminimus impact be made. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, compatible with surrounding development and uses, and conforms to the requirements of the City's Development Code with the exception of the total amount of landscaping being provided. To construct the building as proposed the applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Exception to allow the reduction in the total amount of landscaping provided for the site from the required 25% in the BP zone to 22%. FINDINGS (For Minor Exception) Granting of the Minor Exception will not impact the public health, safety and general welfare of adjacent properties and the City of Temecula as a whole. The reduction in the amount of landscaped area is less than the 15% of that is required by the Development Code. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by the strict application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property. The Minor Exception does not represent the granting of a special privilege which is not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. The granting of the Minor Exception to reduce the amount of required landscaping will not permit uses which are otherwise not allowed in the zone and adequate safeguards have been built into the approval of the project to protect surrounding properties. R:~STAFFRIzI~86PA98.PC 6/10/98 jd 4 FINDINGS (Project) The proposed uses are in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and street improvements have already been installed on site. Development has occurred on parcels surrounding the site, and the project can be considered infill development. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Initial Study - Blue Page 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37 Exhibits - Blue Page 43 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Floor Plans H. Conceptual Grading Plan R:\STAFFKPTX86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\STAFFRPTX86pA98.PC 6/I0/98jd 6 AT'FACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 16,756 SQUARE FOOT BUILr}ING ON 1.16 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, BETWEEN DIAZ ROAD AND JEFFERSON AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909- 281-010 WHEREAS, James Hundley filed Planning Application No. PA98-0086, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0086 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0086, on June 17, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0086; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. F_inding~ The Planning Commission, in approving a Minor Exception for Planning Application No. PA98-0086 makes the following findings; to wit: 1. Granting of the Minor Exception will not impact the public health, safety and general welfare of adjacent properties and the City of Temecula as a whole. 2. The reduction in the amount of landscaped area is less than the 15 % of that which is required by the Development Code. 3. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by the strict application of the code due to the physical characteristics of the property. R:\STAFFRFT~86PA98.FC 6/10/98jd 7 4. The Minor Exception does not represent the granting of a special privilege which is not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. 5. The granting of the Minor Exception to reduce the amount of required landscaping will not permit uses which are otherwise not allowed in the zone and adequate safeguards have been built into the approval of the project to protect surrounding properties. Section 3. _F_jxIdillgr~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0086(Development Plan), hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other ordinances of the City. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. 3. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) for the design, construction and operation of a 16,756 square foot building on 1.16 acres, located on the south side of Enterprise Circle North, between Diaz Road and Jefferson Avenue, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-281-010, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. R:\STAFFRPT\g6PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 8 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 17th day of June, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPTX86pA98.PC 6/10/98jd ~ EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.FC 6/10198 jd 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0086 - Development Plan Project Description: To construct and operate a 16,756 square foot, tilt-up building for office, manufacturing and warehousing uses on a 1.16 acre site. Assessors Parcel No,: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 909-281-010 June 17, 1998 June 17, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements Within Forty-Eight {48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier"s check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Plot Plan which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter R:XSTAFFRFF~g6PA98.FC 6/10/98jd 11 10. 11. diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "D" - Site Plan, and Exhibit "H" - Conceptual Grading Plans, approved with Planning Application No, PA98-0086, or as amended by these conditions, Parking lot perimeter landscaping shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width per the City's Development Code. Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or future property owner. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "F" - Elevations, and Exhibit "G" - Floor Plans, approved with Planning Application No. PA98- 0086, or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view behind the building's parapet wall. The colors and materials used for the project shall conform substantially with approved Exhibit "1" - Color and Material Board, or as amended by these conditions. Material Color Smooth finish concrete tilt-up building walls Concrete panel reveal Smooth finish concrete panel accent (along top of building) Smooth finish concrete panel accent (along top of building) Glass (both tempered and spandrel) Aluminum window frames Doors (entry/exit and roll-up loading) Galvanized metal downspouts Vista (49) White Vista (49) White Vista (55) Teal Vista (44) Dover Gray Evergreen Float Anodized Black Vista (49) White painted to match building An Administrative Development Plan application for all future signage shall be required. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. R:\STAFFRPTX86PA98.PC 6110/98jd 12 Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24, Habitat Conservation of the Temecula Municipal Code by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance, Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. Within seven (7) days after the approval of this project, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and colored architectural elevations if they are presented at the public hearing. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 16. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E" Conceptual Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One ( 1 ) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 18. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, R:XSTAFFRIrI'X86PA98 .PC 6/10/98 jd 13 displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from 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, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at-owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning (909) 696- 3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, and an Agreement that guarantees the removal of any maintenance and operations trailers, temporary parking, or temporary landscaping, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, and an Agreement that guarantees for one year from final certificate of occupancy the maintenance of the planrings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Upon the completion of one year, the developer shall request inspection of the site to verify that the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, at which time the bond may be released. 21. An application for signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department and shall be approved by the Planning Department. 22. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 23. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 24. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. R:XSTAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 14 25. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 26. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/F-I/S-1. 27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 28. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 29. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 30. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 31. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 32. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 33. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 34. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 35. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 36. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 37. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 313. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 39. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 15 General Requirements 40. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 41. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 42. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to-the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 43. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 44. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 45. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 46. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 47. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. R:\STAFFRI~\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 16 48. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District · Planning Department · Department of Public Works 49. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 50. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 51. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off- site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 52. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 53, Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: A. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. B. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. C. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. D. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. E. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. F. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.pC 6/10/98 jd ' 17 54. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 55. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 56. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 57. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 58. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 59. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 60. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 61. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 Y2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and R:XSTAFFRF1~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 16 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not mess than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 19 70. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) 71. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10} 72. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4) 73. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4) 74. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (UFC Article 81) OTHER AGENCIES 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control transmittal dated March 31, 1998, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date R:~TAFFPx1~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 20 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Managcr~::hicfEnginccr RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX City of Temecula Temecula, California 92589-9033 A.ention: DE G G r The Distd~ does not no~ally reammend ~ndi~ons for land divisions or other land use ~ses in in~orated cities. ~e Distd~ also does not lan che~ ~ land use ~ses, or provide State Division of Real Estate le~em or other flood heard repoas for sucfl~ses. Distn~ ~mment~recommendations for su~ ~ses are no~ally limited to items of sp~ific roterest to ~e Distd~ including Distd~ Master Dmina e Plan fadlities other re ional flood control and dmina e facilities ~ich ~uld be conside~ a Iogi~l ~m~nen~or e~ension of a master ~n s stem and Distdct Area 8m nags P an fees (development m ~gat on fees). In addition, info~at on of a general ng~re is provided. The Distdct has not reviewed the proposed proje~ in detail and the follo~ng checked comments do not in any way ~nstitute or imply District approval or endomement of ~e pro~sed proje~ ~th resp~ to flood h~ard, public health and safe~ or any offier such issue: ~is proje~ would not be impaled by Distd~ Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facili~es of regional roterest proposed. This project involves Distd~ Master Plan facilities. ~e Distd~ ~11 a~e t ownership of such facilities on ~en request of the CiW. Facilities must be ~nstm~ed to Dis~ stan~s and Dist~ plan check and inspe~on will be required for Distd~ a~ptance. Plan che~, insp~ion and admin s~at~ve fees wil be required. This proje~ proposes channels, sto~ drains 36 in~es or larger in diameter, or other fadlities that ~uld be ~ns~dered regional in nature anaor a I i~l e~ension of ~e adopted Master Drainage Plan. ~e Dis~ woL~ ~nsider a~pting o~e~hip of su~ ~olmes on wn~en request of the Ci~. Facilities must be cons~ed to Distd~ standa~s, and D~s~ plan che~ and insp~ion ~11 ./;Z"':,:;, .'::7::'177;'. ,, check or money order onl to ~e Fl~d Control Dis~ or C~ pdor to iss~ of building or grading pe~its, whichever ~mes ~t. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effe~ at the ~me of issuan~ of the actual petit. GENE~L INFORMATION ~is proje~ ma re uire a Na~onal PollSant Discharge Elimina~on System (NPDES petit ~om ~e S~te Water Resources Con~ol aoa . Clearance for grading re~rdation, or other final approva?should not be given un~l ~e C ~ has dete~ ned that the proje~ has been gmnt~ a petit or is sho~ to be exempt. If this pro'e~ involves a Federal Emergen~ Management Agency (FE~ mapped fio~ plain, ~en the Ci~ should require t~e appli~nt to provide all studies, ~lcuta~ons, plans and o~er ~nfo~ation r~uired to meet FE~ requirements, and should ~her require that the a pliant obtain a Conditional Le~er of Map Revision CLOMR) pdor to grading, recordation or other final approva~of the proje~, and a Le~er of Map Revision (LOMR~ pdor to occupancy. if a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im a~ed by this proj~, the Ci~ should r~uire the a light to obtain a Se~ion 160111603 Agreement from ~e Ca~omia Depa~ment of Fish and Game and a Clean ~ater A~ Section 404 Petit ~om the U.S. A~y Co~s of Engin~m or wn~en co~espondence from these a en~es indicating the proj~ is exempt ~om thee requirements. A Clean Water A~ Section 401 Water Quail Ce~on may be required from the Ioca California Regional Water QualiW Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Co~s 404 Ve~ t~ly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:XSTAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6110198 jd 2 1 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 10. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) City of Temocula, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 John De Gange, Project Planner, (909) 694-6400 41635 Enterprise Circle North (between Diaz Road and Jefferson Avenue) James Hundley 42346 Rio Nedo, Suite L, Temecula, CA 92590 BP Business Park BP Business Park To construct and operate a 16,756 square foot, tilt-up building for office, manufactunng and warehousing uses on a 1.16 acre site. The subject property is located lot in an area that is partially developed with existing office, warehouse, commercial and light industrial uses. Improvements to the street and adjacent properties are already installed. Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water Dismet, Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone R:~STAFFRPTX86PA98.FC 6/10/98jd 22 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [X ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this imtial evaluation: I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature r~_'~ C - ~t, Date: May 27, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6110198jd 23 ISSU5 AND SUPPORTING INFOP, IviATION SOURCES 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [] [] [] ~] b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agenaes with jurisdiction over the project? [] [] [1 [~ c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? [] [1 [] [~ Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. unpacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) [] [] [] [~ e. Disrupt or divide the physical errangement ofan established commumty (including low-income or minority community)? [1 [1 [] [~ DISCUSSION OF TH]~ ENVIRONMENTAL I]~PACTS 1.b The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). Impsets from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (BIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also have been given the opportumty to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposed office, warehouse and manufacturing building will not be incompatible with existing land use, and will not to be considered incompatible or impact the existing adjacent office and industrial buildings in the vicimty. The project has been designed to comply with the City-Wide Design Guidelines as well as the Development Code regulations in terms of size, bulk and mass, architectural design, landscaping, etc., to be compatible with the surrounding area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical an'angement of an established community (including low-income or minority cornmumty). The project is proposed on a vacant parcel that is zoned BP (Busthess Park) which does not allow residential development of any kind. Therefore, there are no established residential communities (including lowjmcome or minority communities) at this site, and significant effects are not anticipated as a result of this project. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) [] [] [] 1~ b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? [] [1 [] [~ R:\STAFFRFF\86PA98.PC 6/I0/98jd 24 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [] [] [] [~ DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 2.8 The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project will cons'a'uet ma office, manufacturing and warehouse building which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for the Business Park zoning classification, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b The project will not reduce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. A portion of the building is planned for use by a local business in need of larger facilities. The project may cause some people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing as the site is a vacant lot zoned for Business Park uses. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rapture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6) [1 [x] [] [1 b. Seisrmc ground shaking? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] c. Seisrmc ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) [] F] [] [1 d. Seiche, tsunami, or voleme hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e, Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? [] [1 [1 [~ g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) [] [1 [1 [~ h. Expansive soils? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ] (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page %8) I. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IM]?ACTS 3 .a,b,c,h The proposed development may have a significant impact on people involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, and seismic ground failure (including liquefaction). The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seisrmcally active. A fault hazard zone rims along a portion of the eastern section of nearby property. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Soil reports shall be submitted and reviewed prior to the issuance of permits. R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 25 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Recommendations contained m these reports will be used to determine appropriate construction practices. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (mcludhig liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from expansive soils. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. 3.d The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or voleme hazard. The project is not located m an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3,e The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a remit of this project. 3.f The site is an unpmved lot that was previously graded; therefore, unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill is not anticipated with the proposed development. 3.1 The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. The site is fiat and no unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and mount of surface runotf? [] [] [~ [] Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10 and Figure 7~4, Page 7-12; Source 5) [3 ~1 [1 [1 Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? [] [x] [] [] d. Changesintheamountofsurfacewaterin anywater b~y? [] [] [X] [] e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of wate? movements? [] [] ~] [] Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? [] [] [~ [1 g. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater? [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source 2, Page 263) [] [] [] [~ R:XSTAFFRPTX86PA98.PC 6110/98ja 26 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4,a The project site is a previously graded and improvexl lot. Some changes m absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously vacant property. However, due to the small scale of the project, changes anticipated with the proposed development are considered less than significant Hardscape and landscape improvements will be required for this development, and drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff once the building is constructed. 4.b. The project site hes within the 100-year flood boundary and within the identified dam inundation area of the City. Potential impacts due to flooding can be mitigated through elevated construction in accordance with proper building practices. With mitigation measures in place, no significant impacts are anticipated. 4.c The project may have a potentially significant effect on dlsoharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requacmants of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pernut from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be penrotted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any water body or Impact curm~ts, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional mount of drainage into the City's drainage system will not considered significant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f-h The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of gyound waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters. However, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.I The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Tamecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the mediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho Califorma Water Dislxict (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3, Page 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2) [] [] [] [~ b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [1 [] [~ c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, OF cause any change in climate? [] [1 [] [~ R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 27 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] DISCUSSION OF THI; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.a The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. With a proposed building size of 16,756 square feet, the project is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality unpagt established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (P age 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CERA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants nor sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5,c The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The single-story, limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment m this area~ No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project 5.d The project may create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] ~1 b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [] [] [1 [~ c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [] [] [] [~ d. hsufficiem parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Page 17-24-9) [1 [] [] [~ e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] [] [] [~ Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Page 12) [] [] [] [~ g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts7 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6.a The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that due to lhe small size of the project that it will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Jefferson and Winchester Road. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of sppmval for */he project. After imtigalaen measures are in place, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRFr~86PA98.FC 6/10198jd 28 si~,if,~t 6.b The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result oftl'fis project. 6.c The project will not result in inadequate omergeney access or access to nearby uses. The project is a warehouse and office building in an area with existing similar structures and uses in the Business Park zone. The project is designed to ctm'ent City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has provided a breakdown of anticipated uses proposed by this project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces provided in accordance with City Code standards. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyelists. Pedestrian access and bicycle facilities are mclncled in the design of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6,f The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Pedestrian access, bicycle and motorcycle facilities are included in the design of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g The project will not result m impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the mediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) [] [1 1] [~ b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [1 [] [] [~ c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [] [] [] [~ d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [] [] [] [~ e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 7,a DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed, graded and maproved. It is bordered on two sides by commercial development and fronts a principal collector roadway. The project can be considered an refill development. Currently, there are no major vegetation, nor umque, rare, ~t'a'eatened or endangered species of plants on the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of ammals or deteriorate exiating habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. R:\STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 29 ISSUES AND SUPFORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b The pmject will not result m an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temeeula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.c The project will not result m an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no weftand habitat on-site and the wetland adjacent to the site will not be disturbed. Refuence response 7.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e The project will not restfit m an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [] [1 [l [~ b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [1 [] [~ [] Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [] [1 [l [~ DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 8.a The project will not mapact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed /br compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resouree(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources, due to the small scale of the proposed development, these impacts ere not seen as significant. g.c The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:XSTAFFRPT\S6PAgg. PC 6/10/98jd 30 ISSUF~ AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Page 7-14) [] [] [] [~ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [] [] [] [~ c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health bazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Exposureofpeopletoexistingsourcesofpotentialhealth hazards? [] [] [] [~ e. increase fire hazard in areas with timable brush, grass, or trees7 [] [] [] [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 9.a The project will not result in a significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The applicant has indicated in the Statement of Operafious that no hazardous materials are used for the proposed fabrication and assembly of miniature pumps and electric heaters. The proposed use is regulated by both the Fire Department and the Department of Environmental Health. Both entities have reviewed the project. The applicant must receive clearance from the Deparmaent of Environmental Health prior to any plan check submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building pernut. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No pertrots will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant unpaots are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.e The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is an offme, warehouse and manufacmnng building in area of existing similar structures and uses in the Business Park zone. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] [xl R:\STAFFRPT\86PA98.PC 6110/98jd 31 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 10.a The proposal will result m a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result m increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses m the area. Less than significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-tenn. 10.b The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short ran). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered veO· annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8 -hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. IL PUBLIC ~ERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ] b. Police protection? [] [] [~ [1 c. Schools? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] d. Maintenance ofpublicfacilities, mcludingroads? [ ] [ ] [x] [ ] Other governmental services? [] [1 [1 [x] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I 1 .a,b The project will have a less than si~ificant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fa'e and police protection; however, it will contribule its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Tamecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.d The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, inehiding roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Tamecula from the State of Califomia. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. ll.e The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPTXS6PA98.PC 6/10/98jd 32 ISSUE,~ AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 12. UTHJTw-S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the foliowing utilities: a. Power or natural gas? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX] b. Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40) [] [1 [] [~ e. Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ] Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] g. Local or regional water supplies? [] [] [1 [~ DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 12.a The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12 .b The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c The project will not ~esult in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report C/Ell{) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their .senaces areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not signiticanfly impact wastewater sennces (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12 .f The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in the Source Reduction and Recychng Programs implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRFl'\86PA98.PC 6/10198jd 33 ISSUI~ AND SUPPORTING INPORM, ATION SOURCES 13. AESTIUgTICS. Would the proposal: a, Affect a scenic vista or scemc highway? [] [] [] [~ b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] [] [~ c. Create light or glare? [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 13 .a The project will not affect a secmc v~sla or scemc highway. The project is not located m a area where there is a scenic vista. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13 .b The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is a warehouse and office building in an area of similar uses. The building is relatively consistent with other designs in the area, and the proposed landscaping and architectural treatments will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. The project as designed will have no significant impacts. 13.c The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result m light/glare, aS all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palemar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With this condition in place, no significant Lmpacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280; Source 6) [] [] [] [~ b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283) [] [1 [1 [~ c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [] [1 [] [~ e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? [] [] [1 [~ DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 14.a,b The site tins been previously graded approximately 10 years ago and resources would have been disturbed at that rune. The project site is one of only three vacant parcels remaining in this area. The Eastern Information Center of the Umversity of California at Riverside has reviewed the project site and haS determined that it is unlikely that the site would contain significant artffacts. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.c The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No historic resources exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projecL R:\STAFFRFT\86PA98.FC 6/10/98jd 34 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORiVLA. TION SOURCES 14.d The pwject will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cthinc cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e The project will not insmet existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? [] [] [~ [] b. Affect exisfmg recreational oppommities? [] [] ~] [1 DISCUSSION OF TBI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IS.a, b The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it may result in an ineremantal impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of exisfmg recreational resources or opportumties. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or arumal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or aremat or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] [] [] [~ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ] [] [] [xl Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Ctunulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of othar current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [] [] [] [~ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [~ R:\STAFFRPTXg6PA98.FC 6/10/98jd 35 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. City of Temecula Development Code R:~STAFFRPT~86PA98.PC 6/10/98 jd 36 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPT\g6PA98.PC 6110198 jd 37 Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic Found shaking, seismic Found failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize cons~'uction techniques tt~t are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit ccinswuction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Depat hnent Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\CERA\g6PA98.MMt' 6/10/98jd 38 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface wamrs or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building and Safety Depat Iment. R:\CERA\86PA98.MMP 6/10/98jd 39 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use. Install on-site parking spaces. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety Department. Biological R~sourc~ General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habilats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department Energy and Mineral R~ourc~s General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Affect upon energy conservation plans. Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation. Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. R:~CERA\86PA98.MMP 6/10/98 jd 40 Public Service~ General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Depadment. A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Cede. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Department. R:~CERA\86PA98.MMP 6/i0/98jd AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Ensure architectural and design compatibility with existing structures. Submit architectural plans that conform with the existing development in terms of design, style, materials and colors. Prior to scheduling for public hearing. Planning DeparWaent. R:XCERA~86PA98.1¢I3.~ 6/10/98jd 42 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\CERAX86PA98.MMP 6/10/98jd 43 CITY OF TEMECULA ',TEMECU PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - BP Business Park / / I\ ~'O~'~..' BP H SP j LM EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP Business Park PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 IDevelopment PlanJ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 ~)s J CITY OF TEMECULA PROPOSED NEW BUILDING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA - SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK CHANNEL ENTERPRISE ZZD ZZD CIRCLE NORTH PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA . i: 'l i_, : EAST ELEV~,TION I'1 SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION ................ ~ ................T LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 FLOOR PLAN II CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0086 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT H GRADING PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 17, 1998 ITEM #9 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: July 1, 1998 Planning Application No. PA97-0349 - Amendment to Sections of the City's Development Code Pertaining to On-Site Storage of Vehicles (Including Recreational Vehicles) in Residential Zones Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of PA97- 0349 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. BACKGROUND The following background has been included for the benefit of the two newly appointed Planning Commissioners. All previous Staff Reports (including correspondence received) and minutes of those meetings regarding this matter have been included as attachments to this Report. At their September 23, 1997 meeting, the Council directed staff to amend the Development Code to delete Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) pertaining primarily to recreational vehicles. The Council's discussion focused on the appropriateness and need for the City to enforce a regulation that is generally incorporated into Home Owner's Association CC&R's In the end, the Council decided that the City should not assume any responsibility for enforcement of Home Owner's Association CC&R's. Since deletion of this Section of the Development Code would require an Ordinance Amendment, this item was placed on the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission agenda for Commission action. However, upon further consideration, the Council directed staff to conduct additional research on this matter. At the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested this item be continued to the December 1, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. Staff then requested this issue be continued off calendar at the December 1, 1997 meeting until the research was conducted. Staff placed this item on the Commission Business section of the February 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting and requested that the Commission provide direction to staff regarding three potential options for recreational vehicle storage in residential zones. After reviewing the R:\STAFFRFI'B49p,~97.pC4 6/24/98 options and receiving public testimony from seventeen residents, the Commission unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Soltysiak was absent) recommended to the City Council that the existing Development Code provisions remain in effect and be enforced with the existing penalties. They also recommended that additional staff resources required for effective enforcement be considered by the Council. Of the seventeen residents who spoke at the Commission hearing, sixteen were in favor of enforcing the existing provisions of the Development Code. This item was tentatively scheduled for the March 17, 1998 City Council meeting; however, staff was directed to remove this item from that meeting's agenda and not bring it before the Council until after a joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop could be held to discuss the item. A joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop was held on April 21, 1998. The Planning Commission was directed by the City Council to consider the information and direction provided to them at that meeting and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding an Ordinance regulating the on-site storage of vehicles in residential zones. Staff reviewed the comments and suggestions from that meeting and provided issues and options for the Commission at their meeting of May 6, 1998. The Commission reviewed the issues which were accompanied by potential options and received testimony from sixteen (16) residents at that meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission continued this item to their June 3, 1998 hearing and directed staff to bring back a draft Ordinance. A draft ordinance was prepared; however, the Commission directed staff to further refine the language and continued the item to their July 1, 1998 meeting. ANALYSIS Staff has clarified the following issues based upon the direction provided by the Planning Commission: definition of vehicle, types of vehicles which need to be stored on the side or rear yard, temporary parking of vehicles in front yards, definition of "actual yard," storage/parking of automobiles and motorcycles in front yards, paving materials required, difference between camper shell and pick-up shell, other clean-up items and creation of a grace period. Staff reviewed the previous revisions made to Section 17.24,040.D. of the Development Code and has provided a revised copy. Staff modified the first draft ordinance when preparing the current draft. Draft No. 1 additions are identified as redlined text with deletions appearing as strike outs. Draft No. 2 modifications appear as redlined, italicized text. The comprehensive draft has been included as Attachment No. 1 to this Report. Definition of Vehicle Automobiles, motorcycles, mopeds and "similar items" has been added back into the definition of vehicle. At the request of the Commission, recreational vehicle was also added to the list and house cars were deleted from the list. Section 17.24,040.D.1 has been expanded to include the definitions of both parking and standing (originally recommended to be located in Section 17.24.020.D. 1 .d). Vehicles Which Need to Be Parked or Stored on the Side or Rear Yard Section 17.24.040.D.1.d has been expanded to include language clarifying the types of vehicles which need to be parked or stored on the side or rear yard of a parcel. This list R:~STAFFRPT~49P~97.FC4 6/24/98 nil 2 includes: recreational vehicles including those defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment and other non*motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle. Automobiles (including pick-up trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles), motorcycles and mopeds are not included in this list. This Section further states that these types of vehicles may be parked or stored only in the side or rear yard; provided, that such area is screened from view from the street, public right-of-way and adjacent properties by a fence, wall, or equivalent screening material at least five feet in height. Temporary Parking of Vehicles in Front Yards Section 17.24.040.D. 1 .f has been revised to read: "Except as provided i~ herein, recreational vehicles including those defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment, other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle temporarily parked within public view within the Actual Front Yard, unscreened corner side yard or unscreened side yard abutting a street may be parked or left standing for periods of time not to exceed two (2) consecutive days for loading and unloading the vehicle. No vehicle parking or storage shall be allowed in the Actual Front Yard." This clarifies which vehicles are allowed to be temporarily parked in the actual front yard, the duration of time they are allowed to be temporarily parked and prohibits permanent parking in the actual front yard. Definitions of A ctua/ Yards Definitions of actual yards (front, side and rear) have been developed for inclusion into Section 17.34 (Definitions) of the Development Code. These definitions have been included as Attachment No. 2 to this Staff Report. An exhibit has also been created which depicts the actual yards. This will clarify the language contained in the definitions, Paving The type of paving required for parking of vehicles on the side or rear of the parcel was discussed by the Commission; however, staff did not have a definitive recommendation for the specific requirement. Based upon staff's analysis of this matter, staff recommends that the following language be added to Section 17.24,040.D.l.c: "..shall be paved with an impermeable hardened surface capable of supporting the weight of the vehicle." This will adequately address staff's concerns regarding the nature of the parking surface for those types of vehicles which are parked/stored permanently on the side or rear yard of the parcel. Camper Shells and Pick-Up Shells The Commission discussed differences between camper shells and pick-up shells. Camper shells, which are typically used for temporary habitable space, are regulated by this Section of the Development Code. Pick-up shells which are typically attached to a pick-up truck for purposes of providing all-weather protection to the contents of the pick-up truck, are not regulated by this Section, It is the intent of the Ordinance to regulate pick-up shells which are detached from the vehicle under the definition of those items which are detached from the vehicle, but require screening. R:\STAFFRP~349PA97.pC4 6/24/98 mf 3 Minor Repairs The Commission requested clarification as to the definition of 'minor repairs" which was included in Section 17.24.04.D.1.f of the Development Code. Staff recommends that this language be deleted from this Section since repair of vehicles is covered under Section 17.24.04.D.3.c of the Development Code. Other Clean up Items Staff has cleaned up several unclear items, including typographical errors contained in this section. In addition, staff recommends that Section 17.24.040.D.1.h be deleted. This is recommended because private, non commercial vehicles are covered under the definition of vehicle, and the discussion of other items (i.e., trailers, semitrailer and others ) are also previously covered in this Section. Grace Period The Commission discussed allowing a six month grace period, from the time the Development Code Amendments are adopted by the City Council to allow for people to come into compliance with the new regulations. Staff has included this language in the proposed draft City Council Ordinance (reference Attachment No.1 Exhibit A). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff will be conducting the appropriate environmental review based upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. This will accompany the City Council Staff Report and will be subject to the noticing requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FINDINGS Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities to implement such General Plan as may be in effect in any such city. There is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health, safety and welfare The proposed Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. R:~STAF3FI~Tx349PA97.FC4 6/24/98 mf 4 Attachments: 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Revisions to Section 17.24.O20.D. - Blue Page 6 New Definitions for Section 17.34- Blue Pa~e 12 Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 14 Exhibit A. Draft Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 17 Correspondence Received - Blue Page 23 Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 3, 1997 - Blue Page 24 Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 2, 1998 - Blue Page 25 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 21, 1998 - Blue Page 26 Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 6, 1998 - Blue Page 27 Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 3, 1998 - Blue Page 28 Planning Commission Minutes dated November 3, 1997 - Blue Page 29 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 2, 1998 - Blue Page 30 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Minutes dated April 21, 1998 - Blue Page 31 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 6, 1998 - Blue Page 32 Planning Commission Minutes dated June 3, 1998 - Blue Page 33 R:~STAFFRPT~349PA97.PC4 f~24/~g mf ~ ATTACHMENT NO. I A PORTION OF SECTION 17.24.020.D. OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE DRAFT REVISIONS NO. 2 R:~STAFFI~13349PA97.pC4 6/24/98 mf 6 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING 17.24.040.D PARKING REQUIREMENTS - DRAFT NO. 2 Location of parking and Loading Facilities. Parking--Residential Uses. The parking of vehicles in all residential districts shall be subject to the l',,l'.o~,hi~s provisions listed below "Vehicles" as used in ~'.i~i subsection DI shall include, but not be limited to, commercial vehicles. recreational velficles, as including tho,se defined in Section 18010 oflhe California Heallh and Safety Code. trucks. trailers motor trucks, semi-trailers, hi-she-can, campers, camper shells. boals or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment, a,id other non- motofized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle, automobiles, motorc3'cles, mopeds and any similar item. Parking shall he defined as the standing of a vehicle, .herher occupied or not. otherwise/halt ternporaril.)' fi~r the purpo.¥e of a,d while actuall)' engaged m loading or unloading ~terchtttldi.~e or l~ts:sengers as' de.~rihed below (d). .S~ontge .vhall be dqt}'ned to mean The design guidelines and regulations for parking areas shall conform to the provisions herein of the development code. Vehicle parking shall be within the enclosed garage, carport or other required or authorized off-street paved parking area. All parking areas within public view from the street, public right-of-way or a¢~laccnt properties shall be pax ed x~ ith a l:,c, .,anent l~avm..rmm~'rmi be paved with an tmpermeabk hardened .s'urface capable qf supfn~rtittg the .'eight ~.~[' the~ii~fticle. Such area shall be maintained in a usable condition free of potholes and broken sections sufficient to prevent mud and/or dust, without accumulation of loose material or other deterioration. ~htcle.s ~ inchtrine those defined m &'ctum 180 I0 q[ the Cal~[brnta Health attd Sq~,t)' C~xle, trucks; trailer& motor o'uck~ .vcmt-trailcrs. caml~ers. camper shells. b~t.s or other ktrge portable recreatitmaI trod le.gth or width that are &lathed from a motor vehicle t may be parked or stored o~y in the side or rear yard; provided, that such area is screened from ~ew ~om the street, public fight-of-way and adjacent properties by a tnce, wall, or equivalent screening material at least five tet in height occupied or not, oth~, .ise than t~,,,porafi~ Br the pu,pose d and x~ile R:\STAFFRFI~49PA97.PC4 6/24/98 raf 7 Vehicles parking within side and rear yard areas shall be limited to five percent of the total lot area or five hundred square feet, whichever is greater. Except as provided i., herein, vehid~ recreational vehicles iocluding those defined in Section 18010 of the Cali~>rnia Heuhh and SafeO, (;ode, truc:t;s'. trailers. motor trudc~, semi-trailers. campers, camper shells. boats or other large portable rec~eat~onal trod commercial equipment. other non-motorized vehicles; regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor ~?:;~!~i::iparked within public view iu required o~ authorized parking areas within the ~:i~l:ront Yard, iaiiilh~d comer side yard or ~ side yard abutting a street shall i~i'be pai-k~d or left standing for temlxn'a~ periods of time not to exceed/we !i~ consecutive days for Ioadingandunloadingtmd~,.idh~g,,.;nors~,~icethcvchicle Nopcrniaiic.,i vehicle parking or storage shall be allowed in the Actual Front Yard. "Vehicles" as used in this s;ction shall indade, but not be limited to, conu.,.i cial velficles, aat~.,obil~s, tracks, t, aile~s, nlotor hueks, s~.d-trailers, m~o~cycles, toopods, campers, ca,,.pcr shells, boats or other large portable rec~ eattonal and conunc~ ci~ equip,,.~nt. No commercial vehicles which exceeds a gross weight of one and one-half tons, or ex-eeecls a width of eighty inches; ~ ~!!height of seven feet or exeee~ a length of twenty-five feet; shall be parked on any portion of a residential lot unless: It is actively involved in making pickups and deliveries; ]i- iii. Hi:::iS:::in connection with, and in aid to, the performance of a service to, or on, the property where the vehicle is parked, while actively involved in such activity; or Iti~s in conformance with the conditions of approval for a valid home occupation permit as provided in Section 17.04.030 of the development code. No private, noneo...,.r~:ial vehicle ~hich exceeds a ~, oss weight of one/rod one-half tons, or cxc~xls a width of eighty inches, or exceeds a heigl ,t of seven fcct or cx'~ecds a le,,,/~th of twcnty-fi ~c feet; and no trailer, se,nit, ailer, boat or pol table ~ec. eational equip,nent shall be p~rkcd or stored within the fiont yard, ce..,.r side yard or side yard abutting a street unless. It is ncyt a co...~l cial vehicle and is pal ked for a ternpot ary period ofti.,~ n~ to exceed tv, enty-foar hours, It is involved in loading oi unloading activity; and R:XSTAFFRPT~349PA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf 8 It is pa~ked in compli&lce ~,ith Any crthei applicable city Guest Parking Spaces. Required guest parking spaces in residential areas shall be designated as such with signage and restricted to the use by guests. Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an infraction. In addition to the residential parking requirements, one off-street parking space shall be provided for each guest room of a bed and breakfast. Tandem parking shall be permitted. Guest parking shall not be permitted in required setback areas. A maximum of I or 2 truct& trailers, motor t~c~,. semi-trailers; ~, campers, ~ml~t' .s'~l~v, &~ttv ~ ot~,r I~, ~rtahle recreational and commercial e~tpmenl, --- ~ other non-motorized vehicle& regardless of length or width that are ~d~i~i~:~t~h~'~ ~ may be parked or stored ~r~~ a p~cel of land at any one time. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard. Only the parking and storage of recreational vehicles in proximity to residential users shall be permitted on lots of .5 acres or more unless part of a master planned development, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. All storage activities shall be screened from public view by a combination of block or masonry wall, berming, dense landscaping or building mass. Retail or wholesale activity, commercial dismantling, repair or storage wrecking activities or the storage of junk or salvage materials or dismantled parts are not permitted. Vehicles and Equipment Repair ~ZiStorage of Vehicles a~d Equipment under Repair The following provisions shall apply to any commercial vehicles, recreational vehicle,s rts including tht~s'e donned in 3~clton 18010 qf the Cal~fi~rnia llealth and Safer' C~de, t~ci~. trailer& motor tnic&,~; semi-trailers, hot,.~ c.,.,, campet:v. c~nitr .stmlZv, ~ts or oti, r l~ge ~rtable recrcatRmal aM commercial etptipmeltt, ,iiid other no.-motortzed vehicle& regardles:¥ c~f lc.gth or width that are detached ~~;~ehtCl~, m~ol ~el~cle, tecieational velficle, ca:nper, ca,.pct t/ailet, tibet, u~mi~nted c&.pcr, tr~lcr coacl~, motoi cycle, boat or si,~lar conveyance in all residential districts, ~d to all sites in any other district used for residential occupancy: a, Servicing, repairing, assembling, disassembling, wrecking, modifying, restoring, or otherwise working on any of the above conveyances shall be prohibited unless conducted within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. Storing placing or parking any of the above conveyances, or any pan thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating pan is removed, shall be prohibited unless conducted with a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall or equivalent screening. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (D)(3)(a) and (b) of this section, emergency or minor repairs and short-term or temporary parking of any of the above conveyances when owned by a person residing on the lot, may be conducted for an aggregate period of up to twenty-four hours in any continuous period of forty-eight hours exclusive of the screening requirements. For the purpose of this section, reference to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. Parking--Nonresidential Uses. Required parking for nonresidential uses shall be located: a. On the same lot or parcel of land as the use which the facilities serve; or On an adjoining lot or parcel of land under the same ownership as the lot supporting the use the parking facilities serve; or On a lot or parcel offand separated only by an alley (twenty feet wide or less) from the lot or parcel supporting the use the parking facilities serve, provided: I. The lots or parcels are under the same ownership, and ii. The lots or parcels would be contiguous if not separated by the alley, and iii. The direct vehicular and pedestrian passage between the lots or parcels would be possible if the alley were vacated, and The parking is located not more than three hundred feet from the use it is intended to serve. R:~TAFFRPTx349pA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf ] 0 d. Parking attendant structures shall be limited to thirty square feet in floor area. On a nonadjacent lot on the same block as the lot supporting the use the parking facilities serve; provided, that the nonadjacent lot is under the same ownership. Same ownership includes property that is subject to a binding recorded lease for not less than ten years from commencement of use. The parking spaces leased must not be required for, or available to, any other property and be within a maximum of three hundred feet from the property requiring the parking. Loading All Uses. Required loading facilities shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land as the use served. R:~STAFFRFIB49PA97.1>C4 6/24/98 mf ] 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 NEW DEFINITIONS FOR SECTION 17.34 OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE R:XSTAFFRPTB49PA97.pC4 6/24/98 mf 12 Yard, Actual From: Yard, Actual Rear: Yard, Actual Side: Section 17.34 = Definitions The space extending across the full width of the from of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front lot line or street right-of-way line and the primary structure on the lot. The space extending across the full width of the rear of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the primary structure on the lot. The space between the setback line of the main building and the side lot line, extending from the from yard to the rear yard; the measured distance of the yard shall represent the shortest distance between the side lot line and that portion of the main building nearest the line from which the measurement is taken. R:~STAFFRPT~349pA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf ] 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:XSTAFFI~PT~349pA97.pC4 6/24/98 mf 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RF-gOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0349, AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO ON-SITE STORAGE IN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES ~, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; WItEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City of Temecula City Council adopted the City's Development Cede; WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the Development Code; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WBFRF_.AS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0349, on June 3, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA97-0349, on June 3, 1998 to the meeting on July 1, 1998; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0349, on July 1, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval Planning Application No. PA97-0349; R:XSTAFFRFF349PA97.pC4 6/24/98 mf 15 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMF~NDING SECTIONS OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO ON-SITE STORAGE IN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chajrman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of July, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~STAFFRPTx349pA97.PC4 6/24/9S mf ] 6 EXHIBIT A DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 98- R:~STAFFRPT,349PAOT.pC4 6/24/98 n~ ] 7 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS OF ~ TEMECULA DEVELO~ CODE PERTAINING TO ON-SITE STORAGE IN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. F_i/ldix~. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities to implement such general plan as may be in effect in any such city; B. That there is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and C. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. Section 2. Section 17.24.020.D. 1 through 17.24,020.D.6 of the Development Code is amended to read as follows: D. Location of Parking and Loading Facilities. 1. Parking--Residential Uses. The parking of vehicles in all residential districts shall be subject to the provisions listed below. "Vehicles" as used in subsection D1 shall include, but not be limited to, commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles, including those defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment, other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle, automobiles, motorcycles, mopeds and any similar item. Parking shall be defined as the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers as described below (d). Storage shall be defined to mean to place or leave in a location for later use. a. The design guidelines and regulations for parking areas shall conform to the provisions herein of the development code. R:~TAFFRPTx349PA97.PC4 6/24/98 raft ] 8 b. Vehicle parking shall be within the enclosed garage, carport or other required or authorized off-street paved parking area. c. All parking areas within public view from the street, public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be paved with an impermeable hardened surface capable of supporting the weight of the vehicle. Such area shall be maintained in a usable condition free of potholes and broken sections sufficient to prevent mud and/or dust, without accumulation of loose material or other deterioration.. d. Except as provided for in Section F below, commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles including those defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment, other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached fi'om a motor vehicle may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard; provided, that such area is screened from view from the street, public right-of-way and adjacent properties by a fence, wall, or equivalent screening material at least five feet in height, e. Vehicles parking within side and rear yard areas shall be limited to five percent of the total lot area or five hundred square feet, whichever is greater. Except as provided Herein, recreational vehicles including those defined in Section 18010 of the Califomia Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment, other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle temporarily parked within public view within the Actual Front Yard, unscreened comer side yard or unscreened side yard abutting a street may be parked or left standing for periods of time not to exceed two (2) consecutive days for loading and unloading the vehicle. No vehicle parking or storage shall be allowed in the Actual Front Yard. g. No commercial vehicles which exceeds a gross weight of one and one-half tons, a width of eighty inches, a height of seven feet or a length of twenty-five feet; shall be parked on any portion of a residential lot unless: I. It is actively involved in making pickups and deliveries; ii. It is in connection with, and in aid to, the performance of a service to, or on, the property where the vehicle is parked, while actively involved in such activity; or iii. It is in conformance with the conditions of approval for a valid home occupation permit as provided in Section 17.04.030 of the development code. h. Guest Parking Spaces. Required guest parking spaces in residential areas shall be designated as such with signage and restricted to the use by guests. Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an infraction. R:\STAFFRPTX349PA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf ] 9 J. In addition to the residential parking requirements, one off-street parking space shall be provided for each guest room of a bed and breakfast. Tandem parking shall be permitted. Guest parking shall not be permitted in required setback areas. k. A maximum of 2 commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles including those defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment, other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle may be parked or stored on the side or rear yard of a parcel of land at any one time. 2. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard. Only the parking and storage of recreational vehicles in proximity to residential users shall be permitted on lots of .5 acres or more unless part of a master planned development, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. a. All storage activities shall be screened from public view by a combination of block or masonry wall, berming, dense landscaping or building mass. b. Retail or wholesale activity, commercial dismantling, repair or storage wrecking activities or the storage of junk or salvage materials or dismantled parts are not permitted. 3. Vehicles and Equipment Repair and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment under Repair. The following provisions shall apply to any commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles including those defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment, other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle, in all residential districts, and to all sites in any other district used for residential occupancy: a. Servicing, repairing, assembling, disassembling, wrecking, modifying, restoring, or otherwise working on any of the above conveyances shall be prohibited unless conducted within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. b. Storing, placing or parking any of the above conveyances, or any part thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating pan is removed, shall be prohibited unless conducted with a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened fi'om view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall or equivalent screening. c. Notwithstanding the provisions ofsubsections (D)(3)(a) and (b) of this section, emergency or minor repairs and short-term or temporary parking of any of the above conveyances when owned by a person residing on the lot, may be conducted for an aggregate period of up to twenty-four hours in any continuous period of forty-eight hours exclusive of the screening requirements. R:XSTAFFP~P~349PA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf 20 d. For the purpose of this section, reference to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. located: Parking--Nonresidential Uses. Required parking for nonresidential uses shall be a. On the same lot or parcel of land as the use which the facilities serve; or b. On an adjoining lot or parcel of land under the same ownership as the lot supporting the use the parking facilities serve; or c. On a lot or parcel of land separated only by an alley (twenty feet wide or less) from the lot or parcel supporting the use the parking facilities serve, provided: I. The lots or parcels are under the same ownership, and ii. The lots or parcels would be contiguous if not separated by the alley, and iii. The direct vehicular and pedestrian passage between the lots or parcels would be possible if the alley were vacated, and iv. The parking is located not more than three hundred feet from the use it is intended to serve. d. Parking attendant structures shall be limited to thirty square feet in floor area. e. On a nonadjacent lot on the same block as the lot supporting the use the parking facilities serve; provided, that the nonadjacent lot is under the same ownership. Same ownership includes property that is subject to a binding recorded lease for not less than ten years from commencement of use. The parking spaces leased must not be required for, or available to, any other property and be within a maximum of three hundred feet from the property requiting the parking. 6. Loading All Uses. Required loading facilities shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land as the use served. Section 3. Section 17.34. of the Development Code is amended to include the following definitions: "Yard, Actual Front: The space extending across the full width of the front of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the front lot line or street tight-of-way line and the primary structure on the lot." "Yard, Actual Rear: The space extending across the full width of the rear of the lot, the depth of which is the minimum horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the primary structure on the lot." "Yard, Actual Side: The space between the setback line of the main building and the side lot line, extending fi'om the front yard to the rear yard; the measured distance of the yard shall represent the shortest distance between the side lot line and that portion of the main building nearest the line from which the measurement is taken." R:XSTAFFRPTX349PA97.pC4 6/24198 mf 21 Section 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect six (6) months after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of , 199__. ATTEST: Ron Roberrs, Mayor Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199_~ and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk R:~STAFFRPTx349pA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf 22 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED R:~TAFFRPT~49PA97.pC4 6/'24/98 mf 23 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 3, 1997 RASTAFFRPT~49PA97.PC4 (/24/98 mf 24 IvlEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Prepared By: RECO/VIMENDATION: Planning Commission' Debbie Ubnoske; Planning Manager November 3, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0349- Amendment to Section 17.24.020(D)(l)(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Recreational Vehicle CRV) Storage in Residential Areas Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: BACKGROUND ADO~ the Negative Declaration for PA97-0349; ADO~ Resolution No. 97- recommending that the City Council approve an Ordinance Repealing Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the Temecula Development Code pertaining to Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage in residential areas based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. At the August 12, 1997 City Council meeting, Mayor Birdsall requested that staff prepare a report discussing recreational vehicle (RV) storage in residential districts. This report was presented to the City Council at their September 23, 1997 meeting. The issues discussed by the Council centered on those issues which were previously discussed by the Planning Commission at their January 27, 1997 meeting. Those Sections of the Code that were discussed related to City restrictions on parking vehicles in front yards. The specific Code references are as follows: Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) states: "Except as provided herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or authorized parldng areas within the front yard, corne~ side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for t~mporary periods of time not to exceed five (5) consgcutivc days." Section 17.24.0500) state_s: "In a residential zone, no portion of the required front yard areas shall be developed or used for vehicular off-street parking other than that portion occupied by the driveway. The curb cut for the driveway shall not exceed twenty four (24) feet in width. This restriction shall apply to automobiles, trucks, buses, trailers, boats, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles.' DISCUSSION At their September 23, 1997 meeting, the Counc'~ directed staff to mend the Development Cede to delete Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f). Most of the Council's discussion focused on the appropriateness and need for the City to enforce a regulation that is generally incorporated into Home Owner's Association CC&R's In the end, the Council decided that the City should not assume any responsibility for enforcement of Home Owner's Association CC&R's type of regulation. However, the Council felt that Section 17.24.050(1) should be retained to prevent residents from storing vehicles on landscaped areas. As a result, Staff has brought forward the proposed Ordinance to delete Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the Development Code. FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments: Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 3 A. Ordinance No. 97- - Blue Page 6 Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 9 City Council Staff Report (September 23, 1997) - Blue Page 18 City Council Minutes (September 23, 1997) - Blue Page 19 R:~,~TAFPRIrr~49PA97.PC1 10/21~97mf 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- ATrACHIVI~NT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOh!M'F~NDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA REPEALING SECTION 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) OF ~ TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; WHEREAS, on January 25, 1997, the City of Temecula City Council adopted the City's Development Code; WltEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the Development Code; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 3, 1997, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMIgSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOIVIMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE F_,NTrlI.F~F}: 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SECTION 17.24.020(D)(1)(i~ OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A. R:ISTAFFRPTLMgPA97.PC1 10120/97 mf 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of November, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretaxy ~IT A ORDINANCE NO. 97- EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 97- AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SECTION 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS TFrF. CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEh,IECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLII3WS: Section 1. ~. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following fmdings: A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities to implement such general plan as may be in effect in any such city; B. That them is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and C. That this Ordinance complies with all apphcable requirements of State law and local ordinances. Section 2. Section 17.24.020(I))(1)(0 of the Development Code is hereby repealed. Section 3. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining pans of this Ordinance. Section 4. F. ffective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summanj of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. R:xSTAFFRFF~49PA97.1~CI 10/20/97mf 7 Section 5. PASSi~, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 199_. day of , Patricia Birdsall, Mayor AITF_,ST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __. day of , by the following roll call vote: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS June S. Greek, City Clerk ATfACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRON'M~NTAL STUDY CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA97-0349 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Tamecula, CA 92590 Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 City-wide in the residential districts Same as No. 2. Multiple residential designations Multiple residential designations Amendment to Chapter 17.24 of the City's Development Code, appealing Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) which reads: "Except as provided herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the ~'ont yard, comer side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or leer standing for temporary periods of time not to exceed five ennsecutive days." N/A None. R:',STAFFRFB349pA97.PC1 10/20/97 mf ENVIRONI~iENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The gnvironmcntal factors check~l below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by thg checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Population and Homing [ ] Geologic Problems [ ] Water [ ] Air Quality [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [X] None DETERMINATION Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recrcation Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on tht enviroranent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. R:~TAFFRFF~gpA97.1~I 10r20/97mf 11 ISSLrES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCI~S 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the pr~posah a. Conflict with general plan designation or zonmS7 b. Con~ict with applicablc environmentn/ plans or policies ndopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existms land use in the vicinity? d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to sofia or farmlands, or impacts f~om incompatible land uses)? e. Disrupt or divide thc phyfxcal arrangement of an estnblished community Cmcluding low-income or minority eommumty)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a, Cumulatively exceed o~icial regional or local population projects? b. Induce substnntinl growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infr$)? c. Displace existmghou~mg, especially nffordable housmg? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? b. Seismic ground shaking? e. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunamh or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudllows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidenceofthelnnd? h. Expan~xve soils? I. urnqua. geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or rate and mount of surface [1 11 [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] (] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] [x] Ix] [x] Ix] R:',STAFFRF'E~349PA97.PCI 10/20/97 mf 12 NO b. Exposureofpeopleorpropenyt~waterrelatedh.Tards such as flooding'? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of s'uffaee water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through mtereeptinn of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? I. Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALrfY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or conWibute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive reeept~rs to pollutants? c. AJter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors7 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result fin: a. Increase vehicle trips or mltlic congestion? b. Hazards to safety t~om design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insu~icientparkingcapacityon-siteoroff-site? e. Hazards or bamers for pedestrians or bieyclists? [1 [1 [] Ix] [] [1 [] Ix] [] [] [] [] t] [] t'x'l [] [] [] [] [] [] tX] [] [] [] IX] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] pc] [1 [] [1 Ex'] [] [1 [1 [x'l [] [1 [] [x] [l [1 [1 [x] [3 [] [1 [x] [1 [1 [1 PQ [] [1 [1 [~ R:XSTAFFRFr~IgPA97.PCI 100.0/97 llft 13 f. Conflicts with edopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or ~ir lr~[ic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened orrare speeies or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, anmaals and birds)7 b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage Uees)? c. Loeally designated natural eommunities (e.g. oakforest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and me~cient manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a know~ mineral resource that would be offutore value to the region and the residents of the State7 HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pestieidcs, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency rewponse plan or emergency evacoation plan? c. The creation of my health hazard or potential health hazard? d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards.? e. Increase fn-e hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] R:%STAFFRFf~349PA97.]~CI 10/20/97mf ]4 10. NOISL Would the proposal result in: a. tncreasc in cnstmg noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governnaent services in any of the following oreas: a Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenancc ofpublic facilities, mcludmgroads? c. Other governmental services? II. 1JTILIrlES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Commumcafions systems? c. Local or regional water trcalmcnt or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? c. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? AESTHETICS. Would the prepessh a. Affcct a scenic vista or accmc highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative acsthctic effect? c. Create light or glare? CULTUl~L RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb palcontological resources? 13. 14. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x'] [] [] [x] [x] [] Ix] R:~TA~gPA~7.PC1 l(Y20/97mf ]5 b. Disturb archaeological resources? c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect umque ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing rehgious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION, Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or rcg/onal parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportumties? 16, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, Does the project have the potential to degrade the quulit~ of the environment, subsamtially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populatien to drop below se]f-slls~inlng levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal COmmllnity, red!Ice the number ofreslrict the range of a rar~ or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ~xamples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the meremental eff~ts of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects ofothe~ currant projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Does the project have anvwonmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direc~y or indirectly? 17. EABI ,I~,,R ANALYSES. None. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] NO R:~TAFFRPTL149pA97.FCI lOF20/~ a~ DISCUSSION OF THY~ ENVIRO~AL IMPACTS Based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Environmental Study, repealing Section 17.24.0'20(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code will not have an impact to the environment in the following areas: Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geologic Problems, Water, Air Q.~llty, Transportation/Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, H~7~rds, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Cultural Resources and Recreation. Staff determined there would be a l~ss than significant impact to Aesthetics as a result of repealing Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code. Potential impacts would be mitigated by the Home Owner's Associations (HOA) in the event that any of the CC&R's pertaining to this issue are violated. In areas where the Home Owner's Association is not active, it is assumed that residents located in those areas with the howledge that this type of enforcement by the Home Owner's Association would not occur. No mitigation measures are required. R:~qTAFFRFr~349PA97.IiC1 10/20/97mf 17 ATTACIIMF-NT NO. 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 R:~TAFFRPTL349PA9~.PC1 10/20/97mf 18 APPR~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council\City Manager Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director~''~' September 23, 1997 Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Districts Prepared By: Pebble Ubnoske, Planning Manager RECOMMENDATION: Provide Direction. BACKGROUND At the August 12, 1997 City Council meeting, Mayor Birdsall requested staff to prepare e staff report discussing recreational vehicle storage in residential districts. Currently, Section 17.24.050(I) of the Development Code restricts the ability of residents to store recreational vehicles in the front and street side yards in all residential districts. Since the implementation of this provision of the Development Code, this has presented some problems due to the size of the lots in most of the residential developments in the City not being large enough to allow storage in areas other than the front or street side yards. As the City's Code Enforcement Officers have attempted to enforce this provision of the Development Code, they have met with resistance from property owners who have no where else to store their trailers, recreational vehicles, and boats. However, the City is currently processing several applications for self storage facilities. These are expected to provide additional storage opportunities. The Sections of the Code that appear to be causing the most concern are as follows: Section 17.24.020(f) states: "Except as provided in herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the front yard, corner side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for temporary periods of time not to exceed five (5) consecutive days." Section 17.24,050(I) states: "In a residential zone, no portion of the required front yard areas shall be developed or used for vehicular off-street parking other than that portion occupied by the driveway. The curb cut for the driveway shall not exceed twenty four (24) feet in width. This restriction shall apply to automobiles, trucks, buses, trailers, boats, recreational vehicles, and motorc~/cles." The City's Development Code requires at least one residential side yard to be at least 10 feet wide. A 10 foot side yard setback is wide enough to allow vehicular access to the side and rear of the property for vehicle storage. In contrast, the previous County land use ordinance required only a five (5) foot minimum side yard. It is staff's opinion that Sections 17.24.020(f) and 17.24.050 (I) may not be reasonable given that so many of the City's residential areas have already been built with a narrow side yard on both sides thereby making it difficult to store recreational vehicles in any place other than the front of the residence. In addition, the Development Code contains no provisions for an exception/appeal process should such a process be needed due to prior conditions created by the County. FISCALIMPACT None. R:~STAFFRFI'~VrcJtSTOR.CC 9/15197 Idb 2 ATTACHMEANT NO. 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 R:X3T-A-FFRFFL~gPA97.PC1 10/20/~71xff City Council Minutes Seotembet 23, 1997 25. Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Zones Community Development Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. Mayor Birdsall stated she feels the City should not assume additional responsibility for Homeowners Association CC&R's. Councilmember Stone asked if other cities have been contacted to see how they address this issue. Community Development Director Gary Thomhill stated the vast majority of cities do not get into strong regulation of these issues. City Manager Ron Bradley explained the basic underlying authority on this issue is the California Vehicle Code whose provisions prevent long-term parking on public streets. He stated there are cities who adopt more stringent codes. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, seconded by Councilmember Ford to assume no additional responsibility for enforcement of Home Owners Association CC&R's and to direct Code Enforcement not to enforce Section 17.24.020(f) and Section 17.24.050(I). Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, explained that the language on 17.24.050(I) was meant to address vehicles being parked on front lawn areas, and suggested the motion be amended to come back with language that addresses this more clearly. Mayor Pro Tem Roberrs amended his motion, and Councilmember Ford amended his second to also direct that the matter of enforcement for vehicles parked in front lawn areas will continue to be vigorously pursued under the City zoning codes and applicable government code sections, until such time as language can be clarified. The motion carried with Councilmember Stone abstaining, stating he would like to have more information before voting on this matter. 26. City Council Meeting) Schedule - October. November and December 1997 Minutes~09%23/07 - 11 - 10/09/97 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 2, 1998 R:~STAFFRP'B349PA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf 25 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager February 2, 1998 OR G N.4L, SUBJECT: Storage of Recreational Vehicles In Residential Zones Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff Recommends the Planning Commission: Review the options presented by Staff, and direct Staff regarding the storage of recreational vehicles in Residential Districts BACKGROUND The City's Development Code was adopted on January 25, 1995 and included provisions for the City to regulate on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the enforcement was left to Homeowner's Associations (HOA's) in areas where they existed in the City. In areas where there were no HOA's, no regulations covered the on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones. Since the adoption of the Development Code, Code Enforcement staff have been enforcing this provision of the Development Code based upon complaints from residents. At the August 12, 1997 City Council meeting, Mayor Birdsall requested staff prepare a staff report discussing the issue of recreational vehicle storage in residential districts. Staff brought this report before the Council on September 23, 1997. At that meeting the City Council directed staff to delete Section 17.24.020(D)( 1 )(f) of the City's Development Code pertaining to recreational vehicle storage in residential areas. This Section, which intends to allow temporary on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones states: "Except as provided herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the front yard, corner side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for temporary periods of time not to exceed five (5) consecutive days." Since deletion of this Section of the Development Code would require an Ordinance Amendment, this item was placed on the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission agenda. However, upon further consideration, the Council directed staff to conduct additional research on this matter. Staff requested this item be continued at the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting to the December 1, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. Staff requeste this issue be continued off-calendar at the December 1, 1997 meeting. Since that time, staff has conducted research on this issue. The result of this research is provided below. ANALYSIS Research Conducted Staff contacted over one dozen municipalities to determine how they address the issue of on- site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones. It was determined from this research, that there are many approaches to regulate the on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones. The options presented below are in response to the comments made by residents and are based upon regulations of other Cities. Staff is open to any other options the Commission may suggest. Option No. I - Utilize Current Code Provisions: Prohibition This option would be to direct staff to utilize the current provisions contained in the Development Code to prohibit long-term parking/storage of recreational vehicles in front yards of residential zones. Recommendations received in letters from residents include: increased enforcement by the City and the inclusion of significant penalties for infractions. increased enforcement would require additional staff resources. As stated above, enforcement of the Code was primarily driven by complaints received from residents. According to Codr Enforcement staff, enforcement of this item required approximately 30-40% of their staff hour; and would require the same if they were to pro-actively enforce the Ordinance. In order to effectively enforce these regulations, one-half of a Code Enforcement staff person would be required at the current time. The cost to the City (in 1998 dollars) would be $27,259.00 annually. This figure would likely be higher in future years. It should be noted that, if an additional staff member is not added, other areas of code enforcement will be impacted. In addition, with the current residential growth in Temecula, at approximately 700 new homes per year, the limited staff resources would be stretched even thinher. Option No. 2 - Delete Section 17.24.020(Dlf1)(f) of the City's Development Code: No Regulation This option would delete the current Development Code language, and result in the City not regulating recreational vehicles on private property in residential zones. This option, which would result in the same condition which existed before the adoption of the Development Code, would place the burden for enforcement upon the individual HOA's, and would result in no regulation in areas of the City where HOA's are inactive or do not exist. According to several residents who have served on the Board of Directors for a HOA, enforcement is expensive, time consuming and ineffective. Correspondence from several residents (see Attachment No. 1 ) indicates that they are not in favor of this option, while one resident was in favor of this method of regulation. At the request of the Council, staff contacted the City of Irvine and was informed that they leave the enforcement of this regulation with the HOA's. Option No. 3 - Modify Section 17.24.020 (D) of the Development Code: Prohibition with Exemptions for Special Circumstances Several cities (Palm Springs, Palm Desert and Poway) allow parking/storage of recreation vehicles in a front yard, if it is not possible to store them in either the side or rear yard or a separate garage. These cities allow a recreational vehicle to be parked in a front yard if the area is paved. Palm Springs and Palm Desert require the owner to receive a permit to park the recreational vehicle in the front yard area. To receive a permit, the Planning Department of these cities provides written notice to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed location of the recreational vehicle. Should a written objection be received or should the Planning Department determine not to issue the permit, then the matter is referred to the Planning Commission which holds a noticed public hearing with respect to the issuance of a permit. This option would require additional staff time to process the applications. An application fee would be assessed to the homeowner to offset staff time, materials and postage for the public hearing. Code Enforcement staff also be required for violations. Given the current interest in stronger regulations to prohibit the storage/parking of recreation vehicles on-site in driveways, and the additional time requirements placed upon the current staff, this option does not appear to achieve that objective. On-Street Parking of Recreational Vehicles One resident discussed prohibiting the storage of recreational vehicles on the street. On-street parking is regulated by the State Vehicle Code and in enforced by the Police Department. The code allows on-street parking as long as the vehicle is legally parked and is not left standing longer than 72 hours. According to Code Enforcement staff, this regulation is directed more towards inoperable vehicles and is easily and regularly avoided by those who move their recreational vehicles within the time limits of the existing code provisions. Correspondence Received Since this item has appeared on the original City Council agenda, staff has received a number of letters from residents regarding this issue. In addition, staff has received telephone calls and talked to residents at the public information counter at City Hall. The letters have been forwarded to the Commission or Council as they have been received. All but one letter were in favor of maintaining the current regulations regarding the parking/storage of recreational in residential zones. The letters have been included as Attachment No. I to this Staff Report. Attachments: 1. Letters from Residents - Blue Page ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS cc: R. Bradley G. Thornhill October 24, 1997 Temecula City Council OCT :2 q t99z Dear Council: We have lived in Temecula for eight years and are proud to say there is very little to complain about. Our City Council listens and acts for all our behalf.. In today's politics. this is unusual and appreciated. The issue of RV and boat parking in our residential areas is of concern to us for two reasons: (1) If our City Council can elect to not enforce the Codes of Record what other laws and codes can they elect to not enforce? (2) W'tth the "announcement" that this code will not be enforced, we have in effect given an open invitation for more of what is already a blight on our neighborhoods. Many times the parking of RV's and boats on the driveways necessitates excessive automobile parking in the streets or cul-de-sacs. Policing is not a problem ff the fine for infraction is high enough and well pubfished. A $500.00 per day fine will clean up what is beginning to look like a resort parking lot throughout our beautiful city. Mr. Roberrs and Ms. Birdsell must start looking around more and listen to the electorate. This city is larger than just Meadowview! We applaud the efforts of Mr. Stone and Mr. Lindennan who on all issues have the pulse of our entire corninanity. Mr. Ford, you will do well to follow their examples. We urge all of you to reconsider this issue and perform the job you were elected to do. Please obey and enforce our laws; they are there for a good reason and it is not your job to excuse them. ~ incerely, 40221 Tuolomne Court 909/699-6968 TEMECULA CITY MANAGER AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Dear ~i~'~.C. /~~, We thank the board members for hearing our plea on Monday evening November 3rd, to stop permanent parking of RV'S and boats on driveways, lawns and streets in residential areas. City Council members Mr. Stone, Lindermans and Roberrs were not aware of the seriousness of this problem until they came to our neighborhoods. In faf~ness to yourself and us homeowner taxpayers, I urge you to give just 30 minutes of your time and persoally come out and see what has happened to this beautiful city. I recommend you drive the following streets; Calle Medusa, Chaunce~ Way, Yardley Ct., Wellington Circle and the worst of all Windsor Road. The answer to this problem is not Home Owners Associations. ItS evident that HOA can not enforce this unless the city invokes and enforces an ordinance to prohibit this sort of thing --- and please realize that about one third of the developments in our city do not have HOA,S. The California vehicle code governing residential street parking is not working. Also, niether is development code chapter 17.24 and chapter 10.32. They will never work until rewritten. The penalty must be stronger than "Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an infraction". We suggest it read "violation of any provision of this subsection shall be given a three day notice to correct the infraction or be fined $100.00 per day until corrected. After the third day the owner will be cited and fined at rate of $100.00 per day until the infraction is corrected. The vehicle, trailer, RV, boat etc may be impounded at the cities descretion and the fine shall continue until claimed and fine is paid." It should be published in all local newspapers that this ordinance would become effective in 30 days. Please help us keep this city beautiful. Edward V. and Evelyn D. Salitore 42733 San Julian Place Temecula. Ca 92592 December 1, 1997 Honorable Councilman, Karel Lindermans City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, Ca 92589-9033 cc: Gary Thornhill RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PARKING REGULATIONS OF MOTOR HOMES,TRAILERS BOATS Dear Councilman Lindermans: We purchased our Lake Village home in 1973,the year Lake Village was founded. In those early days beforethe Incorporation,Lake Village was a quiet,laid-back, slow-moving off the beaten path community. The idealsetting that my wife Evelyn and myself were looking for upon our retirement from the exciting and fast moving life-style demanded by our ownership and administrative involvement in News- paper and Text book publishing business in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Upon our retirement in 1978, we made the BIG MOVE to our small Rancho Calif. (Lake Village) retirement home,worlds away we thought then,from the hectic, never ending "Rat Race" of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. During most of our almost 20 years of living here in Lake Village, we have owned and parked our Motor Home in our driveway, without problems. We heartily disagree with the JOHNNY COME LATELY DISGRUNTLED DISSIDENTS,that our Motor Home is a blight and eyesore to our neighborhood. However,we would gladly park it behind our fence it it were possible to do so. unfortunately our lot is situated in such a way that it is impossible to park it behind our fence. We have a large investment in our Motor Home which is kept in excellent condition at all times and is considered as one of our most cherished possessions. It is furnished,packed and "ready to go" on short notice, which we take advantage of quite often for weeks and months at a time. Any thought of driving it to a storage lot, even if one were close by, between trips and subjecting our Motor Home to burglaries, and vandalism is entirely out of the question. -more- -2- Ed & Evie Salitore Temecula City Councilman IN CONCLUSION --FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 1)Motor Homes,trailers,boats, and recreational vehicles should be allowed to be parked on driveways, when it is not feasible or possible to park them behind the fenced or screened area of such property. 2) Most owners of Recreational vehicles are honest,law-abiding ,tax paying civic minded citizens and a credit to our Comunity. 3) JOHNNY COME LAZY DISSIDENTS should not be encouraged in their unjust and unwarranted self serving demands against all owners of Recreational Vehicles. They knew what the conditions were relative to the policy of the City of Temecula ,on Recreational Vehicles at the time they made the decision to move here. 4) Where flagrant abuse of reasonable regulations exist, the parties responsible for the abuse should be held responsible. In closing we are really happy to let you know we Voted for you and have been strong supporters of the actions and efforts of our City Council,including,and ever since Incorporation. Thanking you in advance for your kind indulgence, and it is our fervent hope that you and all your loved ones are blessed with a Happy, Healthy,and better than ev~ coming Holiday Season and New Year. Sincerely, Ed and Evie ore 42733 San Julian Pl.(Lake Village) Temecula, Ca 92592 Phone: (909) 676-6355 ENCL: CC: Photograph enclosed showing our Motor Home as it is,parked in our driveway. Council Members Birdsall Cormerchero Ford ~Lindemans R6berts Stone Planning Comm. Fahey 4 November 1997 Whom It May Concern City of Temecula Re: Attached Letter We request that copies of the enclosed letter be provided to each member of the City Council and Plmming Commission before their next meetings on this subject. 4 November 1997 Temecula City Council and Temecula Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Repeal of Section 17.24(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Areas At a 3 November meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission the referenced agenda item was withdrawn from consideration pending further study of the issue. However, before moving on to the next agenda item, the Planning Commission provided opportunity for the public to voice concerns about the proposed repeal. We would like to comment, in greater detail than the three minute Commission limit allows, on two issues raised during the public responses. Enforcement: Three comments here. First: Commissioner Guerriero asked about n-tubers of persounel needed to enforce the code. Why has the code not been forcefully enforced to date? Had it been enforced with vigor the number of personnel needed at this time would not be significant. Residents would have been made aware of the inconveniences involved in violating the code. Initial vigorous enforcement activities at this time might require additional personnel to be used, but a lower level would ultimately be required. The code enforcement must include significant penalties. Some people have to be hit over the head with a 2 x 4 to get their attention. Second: One speaker from a Homeowner's Association noted that asking the HOAs to enforce parking regulations pits neighbor against neighbor, leading to neighborhood feuds and hawed. He suggested that the City is the better regulatery agency. Comment: Our experience in 3 HOAs over the last 16 years is that the speaker is right. Asking the HOAs to enforce parking regulations on city owned streets can lead to feuds, anger, and, in extreme cases -- violence. The city owns the streets. The city has an enforceable code on the books. The city should enforce it. Without that enforcement the HOAs are forced into long, expensive, and sometimes losing legal battles with people who have little regard for their neighbors, their neighborhood, or property values. "Curb appeal" is a significant factor in home re-sale. A cluttered neighborhood reduces curb appeal. Third. Other cities can and do enforce the same or similar parking regulations. Temecula can either help maintain the beauty of its neighborhoods or remove the code and contribute to their deterioration. RV. Roats. Etc. Stora~re: We note that an agenda report concerning this item states that the City's Code Enforcement Officers "have met with resistance from property owners who have no where else to store their trailers, RVs, and boats. However, the City is currently processing several applications for self storage facilities. These are expected to provide additional storage opportunities." Comment: Are the majority of City residents to be penalized because some residents will not accept their responsibilities as citizens of Temecula and (where they live in HOAs) members of HOAs? Ignorance of the law has never been a legal defense. People with RVs, trailers, boats, tanks, giant earth movers, tar roofing trucks, elephants, and Siberian Yaks have a responsibility that we all share -- to conform to all established laws, codes, rules and regulations-- whether they like them or not. We appreciate your consideration of these items as you move to reconsideration of this issue. We urge retention of the code -- and its vigorous enforcement. Sincerely, Temecula, CA 92592 693-0929 cc: The Californian November 17, 1997 TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION: This is one more concerned citizen's appeal to PLEASE, PLEASE retain and enforce the City's Develop- ment Code pertaining to recreational vehicle storage in residential areas, and illegal parking on City streets. Please help the majority of the citizens,who love Temecula, to maintain and enhance this beaUTIFUL CITY. It will invite responsible growth and pride of owner- ship. Street clutter and ugliness of RVs parked on streets and in yards, add to deterioration of neighbor- hoods. Property values decrease. Citizens who enjoy Living i~ ~ll_~$D~ained, beautiful neighborhoods, with pride of ownership, will move out, and those who do not care will move in. Home values will hit rock bottom in these blighted neighborhoods. The appeal of John Lynn, published November 13th in the Californian contains many points of concern, which we share. The following portion of his appeal, bears repeating: "Thira: Other_cities can and do enforce the same or similar parking regulations. Temecula can either help maintain the beauty of the neighborhoods or remove the code and contribute to their deterioration." Thank you for considering our concerns. MRS. MARIE DUNN 30156 La Primavera, Phone: 676-3059 Temecula VXA F, AJ( October 1997 TO: CIty Council Menbets Ctty of Temecula SIJB~ECT: Chapter 17.24 of Development Code - Section 17.24,020 Off-Street Parking and Loadtog Ny name is Joanna Phillips and I reside, with my husband, 0liver at 30361 Tradewater Ct. tn the City of Temecula. The City Council has had various discussions recently regarding Off- Street Parking, and ere specifically as pertains to RYe, boats, etc.. Back on 6 August 1997 Z sent a FAX (copy attached) to He. Ctndy Kelrsey Code Enforcement Officer, for the City of Temecula - regarding a violation of the subject Code, Section 17.24,020. This specifically addresses the fact of motorhoems parktng on the street legally for a 5 day period and then being able to move it to the other side of the street and being able again to leave it there for another 5 days, etc, Zt Is hard for me to understand ho~ this can be allowed! Ne have a beautiful city and you, as members of the Cit Counct1, a~a"~g this tYDe of unsightly things to occur. HOrld ~A~I TNZS BE?????? We are members of the The VIllages H~e O~ners Association group and our CC&Rs restrict overnight parking in the streets - however, it can- not he enforce BECAUSE THE CZTY OF TENECULA XS NOT WXLL]NG TO BACK US UP, He, too,have a iN)toP home - tt ts parked behind gates (legally according to our CC&Rs) because we believe tn following the rules - ! knew rules are mde to be broken - but that ts not hw it should be, Zf e leave our motorhome out parked In our driveway for a day or t~o whtTe we are getting ready to go on a trip or are cleaning/washing same and the homeowners association comes by and sees tt there, we are Immediately notified to move same - and ft's on our own propertyl I belteve it is about time that our CIty Council look OUt for the vast majority of the cttlzens of this great city and dectde to put a law tnto affect that dtsallws overeight parking or continuous parklog of motor- homes, boats, big trucks, etc, on our streets, PLEASE TAKE NECESSARY ACTXON TO STOP THXS TYPE OF THXNG FRON RUXNZNG OUR CXTY AND CAUSXNG PROPERTY VALUE TO GO DOWN TO SAY NOTHXNG OF THE FACT THAT XT LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE - IF k/E k/ANTED TO LXVE LIKE TRASH ME SURE I~ULDN'T HAVE HOVED HERE. LZPS (676-4'166) ViA ff~ 20 October 1997 TO: Ctty Counctl He~ers CIty of Teecu]a SUBJECT: Chapter 17.24 of Development Code - Sectton 17.24.020 Off-Street Parking and Loading Hyname Is Joanne Pht]Itps and i reside, wtth Ry husband, 0liver at 30361 Tradewater Ct, tn the CIty of Temecula. The CIty CounCIl has had various discussions recently regarding Off- Street Perking, and more specifically as pertains to RVSt boats, etc.. Back on 6 August 1997 [ sent a FAX (copy attached) to He. Ctndy Ketrsey Code Enforc~nt Officer, for the CIty of T~cula - regarding · rio]orion of the subject Code, Section 17.24.020. This specfftcal]y addresses the fact of motorhomes parking on the street legally for a 5 d~y period and then being able to move it to the other side of the street and betrig able agatn to leave it there for another 5 days, etc. it is hard for me to understand hcN this can be allowed! We have a beautiful ctty and .you, as members of the Cit Counctl, this tYDe of unsightly thtnqs to occur. HOt/~AN THiS BE?????? We are members of the The VIllages H~e Owners Association group and our CC&Rs restrlct overnight parking fn the streets - however, it can- not f W be en orce BECAUSE THE CiTY OF TEHECULA ZS NOT ILLING TO BACK US UP. We, too,have a motor home - it is parked behind gates (legally according to our CC&Rs) because we believe tn following the rules - ! know rules are made to be broken - but that Is not how it should be. if we ]cave our motorh~ out parked In our drtveway for a day or two while we are getting ready to go on a trip or are cleaning/washing some ~nd the homeowners association comes by and sees ~t there, we are tmeedtately notlftod to move same - and ft's on our own propertyl Z belteve it is about ttme that our Cft~ Count11 look out for the vast majority of the cltizenS Of thtS great City and dectde to put a law tnto affect that disallows overnight parking or continuous porkleg of motor- hemes, boats, big trucks, etc, on our streets. PLEASE TAKE NECESSARY ACTZON TO STOP THXS TYPE OF THING FRON RUZNZNG OUR CiTY NtD CAU$ZNG PROPERTY VALUE TO GO DOkJN TO SAY NOTHING OF THE FACT THAT IT LOOK$ ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE - IF t~E NANTED TO LIVE LIE TRASH WE SURE WOULON'T HAVE NOVED HERE, LiPS (676-4466) -~c: G. Thornhill 2 December 1997 IAnda Fahey Chairwoman, Temec~da Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Ms Fahey: At the 1 December meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission discussion pertaining to a section of the City's Development Code was "continued off calendar". That section has to do with storage of recreational vehicles in residential areas. A review of the doc~,ments provided to the public at that meeting indicates some Planning Commission and/or staff collfusion regarding the subject. - The December 1 agenda provided to the public provides the following regarding this subject: "Proposal: Redpeal Section 17. 24(D )(1 )(D of the City's Development Code Pertaining to RecreatWnal Vehicle (RV) Storage in Residential Areas" - A memorandum to the Planning Commission from Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager provides the following concerning the same subject: Subject: Planning Application No. PA97-0349 - Amendment to Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(D of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage in Residential Areas" Ms Ubnoske -- in her "Background" section of the memo states that "The City Council originally directed staff to amend Section ............... " The subject was titled "Repeal" at the 3 November Planning Commission meeting -- now it appears that a decision has been made without public notice to modify the original subject to one of "Amendment". Further, the section of the Development Code cited is different. Did we miss notification by the Planning Commission that the original subject had been changed? Has it been changed? Was the original subject in error? Is the staff in error? The public has a right to accurate information concerning proposed changes; if for no other reason than to be able to respond intelligently to those proposals. Response to a proposed reneal is very different from that for an amendment. In regards the same subject -- but with a different focus: When several people show up at a meeting of the Planning Commission anticipating a discussion of a topic and are then notified that the subject is being "continued off calendar" it can -- it does -- make those people suspicious of the reason(s) for the continuance. For example: - Is the Pl3zming Commission just waiting for people to lose intorest so that they can do what they want without being in the spotlight of public pressure? - Are members of the Commission or their staff predisposed to repeal or rimend the section regardless of public opinion? - Is pressure being exerted by the City Council? I don't accuse either the City Council or the Commission or its staff of any of these motives. I only list them as ways the public can -- and often does -- think about their government. I would like to think that the reason for the continuance has to do with an overworked staff who just haven't have enough time to complete their task Might I suggest that some explanation to the public is warranted when a subject is "Continued off calendar"? There is a lot of public suspicion of government today, both locally and nation wide. You could help reduce that suspicion in Temecula by the simple act of providing a rational explanation of the reasons. A copy of my original letter to the City Council and the Planning Commission is included. I wish to ensure that my views as a citizen of Temecula are considered when the subject is again considered. Sincerely, B//"~)elair Temecula, CA 92592 693-0929 Enclosure cc: p/~/emecula City Council The Californian 4 November 1997 Temecula City Council and Temecula Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Repeal of Section 17.24(D)( 1 )(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Areas At a 3 November meetAng of the Temecula Planning Commission the referenced agenda item was withdrawn from consideration pending further study of the issue. However, before moving on to the next agenda item, the Planning Commission provided opportunity for the public to voice concerns about the proposed repeal. We would like to comment, in greater detail than the three minute Commission limit allows, on two issues raised during the public responses. Enforcement: Three comments hero. First: Commissioner Guerriero asked about numbers of personnel needed to enforce the code. Why has the code not been forcefully enforced to date? Had it been enforced with vigor the m~mber of persormel needed at this time would not be significant. Residents would have been made aware of the inconveniences involved in violating the code. Initial vigorous enforcement activities at this time might require additional personnel to be used, but a lower level would ul~mately be required. The code enforcement must include significant penalties. Some people have to be hit over the head with a 2 x 4 to get their attention. Second: One speaker from a Homeowner's Association noted that asking the HOAs to enforce parking regulations pits neighbor against neighbor, leading to neighborhood feuds and hatred. He suggested that the City is the better regulatory agency. Comment: Our experience in 3 HOAs over the last 16 years is that the speaker is right. Asking the HOAs to enforce parking regulations on city owned streets can lead to feuds, anger, and, in extreme cases -- violence. The city owns the streets. The city has an enforceable code on the'books. The city should enforce it. Without that enforcement the HOAs are forcod into long, expensive, and sometimes losing legal battles with people who have little regard for their neighbors, their neighborhood, or property values. "Curb appeal" is a significant factor in home re-sale. A cluttered neighborhood reduces curb appeal. Third. Other cities can and do enforce the same or similar parking regulations. Temecula can either help maintain the beauty of its neighborhoods or remove the code and contribute to their deterioration. RV. Roars. Etc. Storage: We nots that an agenda report concerning this itsm states that the City's Code Enforcement Officers "have met with resistance from property owners who have no where else to store their trailers, RVs, and boats. However, the City is currently processing several applications for self storage facilities. These are expected to provide additional storage opportunities." Comment: Are the majority of City residents to be penalized because some residents will not accept their responsibilities as citizens of Temecula and (where they live in HOAs) members of HOAs? Ignorance of the law has never been a legal defense. People with RVs, trailers, boats, tanks, giant earth movers, tar roofing trucks, elephants, and Siberian Yaks have a responsibility that we all share -- to conform to all established laws, codes, rules and regulations-- whether they like them or not. We appreciate your consideration of these itsms as you move to reconsideration of this issue. We urge retsn~ion of the code -- and its vigorous enforcement. Sincerely, M/M John Lynn 32237 Placer Belair Temecula, CA 92592 693-0929 cc: The Californian ~Tuesday Decmr 9, 1997 12:/~m -- From '310 z~aB, -- Pege 1[ 12/09/97 13:23 FAX 310 3. 4468 CI~Z OF R.H.E. ~]001 OCTOBER 28, 1976 pAM~ OF ~ATION V~i~CLES ~N THE CITY t~JNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1827(h)(1) 'NO MOTOR V~HICII CA~ BE STORED OK PARKED EXCEPT ~N AN ENTIKELY ENCLOSED SPACE,' HUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 1827(h)(3) 'SUCH PARKING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE REAK OF l~ul FRONT Skl'uACK LINE, EXCEPT IN MOUNTATN AREAS OIL HILLSIDE LOTS WHERE GA~ES HAY BE LOCATED IN ~ FRONT YARD Wll~N APPRBVED BY ~ PLANNINe CG~HISSION.' At the meeting of the City Council on October 26, 1976, the foliosring policy of enforcement of the foregoing. Sections fo the Fmntclpal Code (Zoning Code.. ,DIrected the City Mmnager: TO ENFORCE THE ZONING CODE PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO PARF. ING OF RECREATION VKHICLES IN FRONT YARD SETHACKS', SKI'rlNC THR POLICY THAT IF SUCH VEHICLE IS PARlID IN T~ SIDE OR BACK YARD BEHIND TIIB FRONT YARD SETI~ AND IS ADEQUATELY SCREENED FROM VIEW BY FENCE, Wax.x. DE SHRUBBERY IT WILL BE PERHITrED, This policy statement to be placed In the Zoning Code in front of Article IX, Section 1827(h). 7671 November 15, 1997 Marcia Wag 30152 lr/lia A/rums Drive Temecu/a, California 92592 (909) 676~920 NO V 2 0 1992 Mr. Ron Bradley City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear ML Bradley: The issue of Recreational Vehicles (Campers, Boats, Trailers, Fifth Wheels, and Motor Homes) in our residential area is of concern to me. On Villa AlPam Drive, where I live, there is a Recreauonai Vehicle parked in a driveway on blocks to keep it level -- as it is being used as an extra bedroom! Just a few houses beyond the mobile bedchamber, a welding business is opt~'ating out of the garage, and unsightly old cars am being worked on in the street and driveway. This was once a lovely neighborhood in a beauliful city, but is now just one of many Temecula su'eets that is beginrang to look run down and ragged. I want to see the City Code enforced, but the existing laws don't appear to be clear or enforceable, as wntten. Perhaps the vchicle code governing residential parking needs t~ be rewnnen so that it is CLF_d.R AND PRECISE and cames a HEm MONETARY PENALTY; one STROA~ ENOUGH ta~ daer violators. Let's strive to keep The City of Temecula a city we can all be proud o~ Sincerely yours, Marcia Watkins ATTACHMENT NO. 7 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APRIL 21, 1998 R:~TAFFP-PT,349PA97.1~C4 6/24/98 mf 26 APPR~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO; FROM: City Council/City Manager Planning Commission , Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director DATE: April 21, 1998 SUBJECT: Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones Prepared By: Matthew Fagan. Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends the City Council and Planning Commission: Receive the Staff Report and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones BACKGROUND At the August 12, 1997 City Council meeting, Mayor Birdsall requested staff prepare a report discussing the issue of recreational vehicle storage in residential districts. Staff brought this repor~ before the Council on September 23, 1997. At that meeting the City Council directed staff to delete Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code pertaining to recreational vehicle storage in residential areas. This Section, which intends to allow temporary on-site storage of recreational vehicles in residential zones states; "Except as provided herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the front yard, corner side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for temporary periods of time not to exceed five (5) consecutive days." Since deletion of this Section of the Development Code would require an Ordinance Amendment, this item was placed on the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission agenda for Commission action. However, upon further consideration, the Council directed staff to conduct additional research on this matter. At the November 3, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested this item be continued to the December 1, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. Staff then ~'equested this issue be continued off-calendar at the December 1, 1997 meeting until the research was conducted. Staff placed this item on the Commission Business section of the February 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting and requested that the Commission provide direction to staff regarding three potential options (discussed below in the Analysis Section) for recreational vehicle storage R:~STAFFRPT~RV-PC-CC.NOI 4/10/98 klb 1 in residential zones. After reviewing the options and receiving public testimony from seventeen residents, the Commission unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Soltysiak was absent) recommended that the existing Development Code provisions remain in effect and be enforced with the existing penalties. They also recommended that additional staff resources required for effective enforcement be considered by the Council. It should be noted that of the seventeen residents who spoke at the Commission hearing, sixteen were in favor of enforcing the existing provisions of the Development Code. This item was tentatively scheduled for the March 17, 1998 City Council meeting; however, staff was directed to remove this item from the that meeting's agenda and not bring it before the Council until after a joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop could be held to discuss the item. ANALYSIS Ootions Presented bv Staff Staff presented three options to the Planning Commission at their February 2, 1998 meeting based upon the research conducted on this issue. O~tion No. I - Utilize Current Code Provisions: Prohibition This option would be to direct staff to utilize the current provisions contained in the Development Code to prohibit long-term parking/storage of recreational vehicles in front yards of residential zones. Recommendations received in letters from residents include: increased enforcement by the City and the inclusion of significant penalties for infractions. Increased enforcement would require additional staff resources. Enforcement of the Code has been primarily driven by complaints received from residents. According to Code Enforcement staff, enforcement of this item has required approximately 30-40% of their staff hours and would require the same if they were to pro-actively enforce the Ordinance. In order to effectively enforce these regulations, one-half of a Code Enforcement staff person would be required at the current time. The cost to the City (in 1998 dollars) would be $27,259.00 annually. This figure would likely be higher in future years. It should be noted that, if an additional staff member is not added, other areas of code enforcement will be impacted. In addition, with the current residential growth in Temecula, at approximately 700 new homes per year, the limited staff resources would be stretched even thinner. Ol3tion No. 2 - Delete Section 17.24.020(D)(1)[f) of the City's Development Code: No Regulation This option would delete the current Development Code language. and result in the City not regulating recreational vehicles on private property in residential zones. This option, which would result in the same condition which existed before the adoption of the Development Code, would place the burden for enforcement upon the individual Homeowner's Associations (HOA's), and would result in no regulation in areas of the City where HOA's are inactive or do not exist. According to several residents who have served on the Board of Directors for a HOA, enforcement is expensive, time consuming and ineffective. Correspondence from several residents (see Attachment No. 1 ) indicates that they are not in favor of this option, while one resident was in favor of this method of regulation. At the request of the Council, staff contacted the City of Irvine and was informed that they leave the enforcement of this regulation with the HOA's. OI3tion IVo. 3 - Modify Section 17.24.020 [Di of the Develol2ment Code: Prohibition with Exeml~tions for SlTecial Circumstances Several cities (Palm Springs, Palm Desert and Poway) allow parking/storage of recreation vehicles in a front yard, if it is not possible to store them in either the side or rear yard or a separate garage. These cities allow a recreational vehicle to be parked in a front yard if the area is paved. Palm Springs and Palm Desert require the owner to receive a permit to park the recreational vehicle in the front yard area. To receive a permit, the Planning Department of these cities provides written notice to prol~erty owners within 300 feet of the proposed location of the recreational vehicle. Should a written objection be received or should the Planning Department determine not to issue the permit, then the matter is referred to the Planning Commission which holds a noticed public hearing with respect to the issuance of a permit. This option would reduire additional staff time to process the applications, An application fee would be assessed to the homeowner to offset staff time, materials and postage for the public hearing. Code Enforcement staff would also be required for violations. Given the current interest in stronger regulations to prohibit the storage/parking of recreation vehicles on-site in driveways, and the additional time requirements placed upon the current staff, this option does not appear to achieve that objective. On-Street Stora~le/Parkin~l The issue of on-street storage/parking of recreational vehicles was raised by several residents and was also discussed by the Commission. The residents understood that on-street parking is regulated by the California Vehicle Code; however, they stated that the intent of this regulation was being circumvented by people who regularly move their vehicles within the prescribed 72 hour period. Their concern was that if the City were to strongly enforce the existing Development Code regulations, then there would be a proliferation of on-street parking of recreational vehicles. Some residents stated they would like to see the City involved in stronger on-street parking regulations. Citv of Fu/lerton RV Code Provisions At the direction of the City Council, Staff contacted the City of Fullerton and received a copy of their Zoning Code which regulated recreational vehicles in residential zones. This is included as Attachment No. 3 to this Report. Based on their code, recreational vehicles are allowed in residential zones if all of the following conditions are satisfied: the vehicles are not used for living purposes, the vehicles are limited to those owned by the occupant of the dwelling unit and they are not parked or stored whereas to constitute a "clear and demonstrable vehicular traffic hazard, or be a threat to public health or safety." In addition, the recreational vehicle cannot be stored within the front yard where there is an existing driveway or other access leading to the rear yard of the residence that car~ accommodate such vehicle. Lastly, parallel parking to the front property line is prohibited except where a curved or circular driveway exists. In those cases, suitable screening of the recreational vehicle shall be provided. R:~STAFFRFF~RV-P'C-CC,NOI 4/10/98 klb 3 Con'e~oM~ence Received Correspondence received regarding this matter which has been addressed to the City Council has been distributed to the Council as they have been received by Staff. Correspondence received prior to March 17, 1998 is included as Attachment No, 1, Any correspondence received since then, but prior to April 21, 1998 is included as Attachment No. 2 to this Report. Attachments: Correspondence Received Prior to March 17, 1998 - Page 5 Correspondence Received Prior to April 21, 1998 Workshop - Page 6 City of Fullerton RV Storage Ordinance - Page 7 R:XSTAFFRFT\RV-PC-CC.NOI 4/10/98klb 4 ,.z:Y':'rACHMENTNO. 1 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED PRIOR TO MARCH 17, ,1998 co: Rot Bradley Gary Thornhill SANDRA L. RUMSEY 30845 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO TEMECULA, CA 92591 909-676-6946 March 16, 1998 The Honorable Councilmen City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecuta, Ca. 92590 Honorable Councilmen; I am writing concerning an issue to be discussed on your March 17, 1998 agenda, the parking of R.V.'s on your property. Why are R.V.'s that are maintained any worse than corrals with horses, goats, etc.? I have neighbors with animals and that is their right, but so is an R.V. A well- maintained R.V. is a sign of fluency for an area. Many of the residences of this area bought their property for the purpose of being able to park their R.V.'s, boats, etc. and have animals on their property. Many of these people have lived in the area for 15-20 years and now you say they possibly can't park their R.V.'S next to their homes. Have you taken into consideration that many of the R.V.'s have cost more than many homes cost? As i drive around our area, I have not seen many R.V.'s that were not maintained and had an unsightly area around the R.V. First, I must state that I don't like an association dictating what i must do on my property. What has happened to the individuals property rights that were written about in the Constitution. We have individuals that walk the neighborhood to find the R.V. parked on the home owner's property. They then sight these individuals. It is rather rude not to attempt to contact the homeowner, but a formal letter from their attorney arrives and says that you have x amount of days to correct the infraction. Though I d~sagree with the assoclation actions we were able to finally come to an agreement on screening our R.V., but it was not without problems, as we had only weeks before taken photographs and taken them to the association and asked their approval. No, we did not have this approval in writing, but felt a verbal approval was adequate as it had been in the past. we also fe!z that the request they made was unsafe for ullin . p g out of our driveway. We also are located on both the Edison easement and the Eastern Municiple easement and can't put permanen~ serucZures in these areas. We did finaliV agree on plants. Even though we agreed to the associatlzns demands, I feel thaK iu is not the place for the association or city council zo mandate R.V. parking on a persons property. i know if I were to move I would noz purchase a home with an association nor would I consider moving To a city that has these mandates. Are we losing our freedoms and becoming a de pot to the environmental activists? Of course, these freedoms need to be within a reasonable realm. i am reminded of a letter sent to "The Californian" a few years ago. A gentleman was saying, and I paraphrase, a friend zhaZ was a former Temecuia resident had moved to an area north cf Dallas, Tx., going in for permits zo bui!C his home. They had no reguiazions but ask if he wanued to build a house thaE did toe have proper plumbing, correct eiecErical, and was going to fall down. He said no, they then say that enough was said. The regulations of local, state, and federal governments are preventing freedom of our people. Yes, some regulations are required, but the regulations are becoming oppressive to these freeUoms. To conclude, I wish to again state that i am not in favor of the City Council taking action on R.V. parking. i always thought that this country was formed as a democracy, but are we becoming a country of the few ruling the many as in a de pot or totalitarian gover.~aent. Are uhese few causing harm to the freedoms of our people? Sincerely, Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula CA 92589-9033 30300 Churchill Court Temecula CA 92591 March 11, 1998 SUBJECT: City Council Discussion Regarding Parking/Storage of RVs in Residential Zones Dear Mr. Fagan: Since I have spent 6 straight years as the President of the Villages Home Owner Assoc. which includes some 1000 members, I applaud the City Council in taking up a discussion of parking and storing RVs in residential zones. I would ask that the discussion be broadened to include RVs, trailers, boats, and commercial trailers. (example; concrete mixers, searchlights, landscapers' trailers, etc.) We should also include the parking of commercial vehicles in excess of 20 feet. The action by the above people has turned parts of city into zones of blight. They are not concerned values or quality of life, to say nothing about the danger to children who dart out from behind these vehicles into the street. Almost all HOAs have CCRs against the above actions, but unfortunately they are almost unenforceable. If they are in the street, the hands of ~he HOA are tied, according to 2 law firms from whom we have requested legal advice. If they are parked on private property, there are months of warnings, then fines, and finally the courts .... at great expense and time. Meanwhile the homeowner or renter continues to ignore the rules. If they are parked on the street, they merely move it a few feet or across the street for another 72 hours. Some suggestions; no parking an any street or in front of a home on private property without a permit. Permits will be our fair about property issued by the city for visitors up to 4 days, all others for 24 to 48 hours to clean, load, or unload. NO REPAIRS ALLOWED. A simple call and the permit will be mailed or picked up at City Hall. The window permit would have an expiration date. Initially, there would be a 30 day warning period city wide, after that the vehicle will be ticketed or towed. The largest amount of commercial vehicles are found on the weekend, so there must be a planned drive-by enforcement. There is now and will be more adequate storage areas. Although this is an inconvenience it is hardly a hardship. Any way that I can be of help, please feel free to call or write. Sincerely, D'~vY~ e a 676-7220 P.S. My wife would like me to tell you of our experience in Naperville, illinois. We stayed at a cousin's there while we were traveling with our RV, and all it took was a call to the city to advise them where we were and hhow long we would be visiting, and they kept a computer printout for the police. They were very warm and hospitable about it, and it made for a very pleasant experience for us. I would like for visitors to Temecula to have that same sort of hospitable experience. 40847 Calle Medusa Temecula. CA 92591 March 10. 1998 Temecula City Council P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033 Re: RV Parking On Private Property. We recently received a flyer regarding the above and would like to voice our opinion on this matter. We have a motorhome on our property. We bought our house because it has a large side yard which could accommodate our motorhome. We went through great expense to cement the side yard in order to park our RV as far back into our yard as possible and installed a six foot gate in front of this. The motorhome is barely visible from the street. We sympathize with people who do not have room for their motorhomes on their side yards but also realize that it is not very appealing to a neighborhood if the RV is constantly parked on the street or in the driveway. If this was our problem we would definitely rent a space at a storage lot since we do not think it would be considerate of our neighbors and most of all it could also be a safety hazard. We love our RV as I'm sure most people that own one do, We hope that the few who do not comply with street or driveway parkincl do not sDoil it for the rest of us who have gone to great expense and trouble to conceal our RV's as best as we can on our own property. Hope that this matter can be fairly resolved for all concerned. Josel~h & Sylvia Santos '_~{909) 694-1854 cc: Matthew Fagan Planning Dept. Edward V. & Evelyn D. Salitore 42733 San Julian Place Temecula, Ca 92592 Phone: (909)676-6355 RE: CITY OF TS~ZCULA PARKING AND STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES Our concerns relative to the issue of Parking and Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Temecula's Residential Zones stems from the recommendation of ~he City Planning Commission to the City Council to strengthen and vigor- ously enforce the existing ordinance,which we feel has serious flaws in as well as Legal and Constitutional implications. The Commiscio~? ~-~?~menHn~inn if accepted by the City Ccun=i! vcu!d sucouzb to the dictates of the Anti-Rv'ers with little recognition for the Legal Residential Parking Rights of the great numbers of Recreational Vehicle Owners in Temecula. Without question this is one of the most controversial issues presently facing the Temecula City Council.There are two sides to this issue and both deserve to get serious consideration. The Anti R.V. group havelegitimate complaints about dangerous and careless Recreational R.V. Parking on Public Streets deserve relief. Where flagrant abuse of saftey regulations exist and can be proven, the parties responsibl~ should be held accountable. Demands Khat ALL Recreational Vehicle owners in Temecula should be penalized and punished along with the few law-breakers is discriminatory,ludicrous and grossly unfair. CONCLUSION--FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 1) >lotor Homes,trailers boats_and Recreational Vehicles should be allowed to be parked on driveways, when it is not feasible or possible to park them behind the fenced or screened area of such property. 2) It is important to note the fact that Recreational Vehicle owners in Temecula are Voters,many pay Homeowner Association ~ues as we!t ~s Preparty taxes, costly'Vehicle,Gas and License taxes and deserve the same considerations given to Automobile owners. Respectfully, Ed & Erie Kali~ore / cc: Council Members Mayor,Rot Roberrs, Jeff Comerchero,Karel Lindermans,Steve Ford,jeff Stone City Manager, Ron Bradley Assoc. Planner, Matthew Fagan Jeri D. Witt 30321 Tradewater Court Temecula, CA 92591 March 9, 1998 Matthew Fagan, AICP Associate Planner City of Temecuta 43200 Business Park Drive PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Parking/Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones Dear Mr, Fagan: Thank you for your letter dated February 25, 1998 giving notice that the City Council meeting has been rescheduled. I will be unable to attend the meeting. However, I have enclosed several pictures of a recreational vehicle belonging to a neighbor who regularly parks it on Tradewater Court. The photos show the recreational vehicle parked in front of another neighbor's home. The owner of the vehicle avoids the Code, which stipulates no parking longer than 72 hours on residential streets, by moving the vehicle from one side of the street to the other. This recreational vehicle has remained on the street for over a week at a time. Unsightly As you can see from the photos, the recreational vehicle is unsightly. It is out of place in a residential community. It belongs in a RV park or an appropriate storage facility designated for such vehicles. Neciatively affects Home Values Because recreational vehicles are unsightly. they negatively affect the home values of the neighborhood. A prospective home buyer would arguably turn away from living in a Page '2- Matthew Fagan, AICP Recreational Vehicles neighborhood which is accepting of the storage of recreational vehicles on residential streets. Furthermore, such action encourages other owners of recreational vehicles to emulate the violator's actions. This opens the flood gates resulting in trashy looking neighborhoods which cause decreasing home values. Safety Hazard As shown by the photos, Tradewater Cour~ has a bend. The combination of the parked recreational vehicle and the curvature of the street makes it unsafe for both motorists and children playing in front yards. It is difficult to see around the recreational vehicle while entering or leaving Tradewater Court. This poses danger to drivers who do not see each other coming around the corner. Moreover, this poses danger to children who dart out from behind the vehicle into the street. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ir All Councilmembers received the same letter March 9, 1998 Mayor Ron Robeas City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Dear Mayor Roberrs: cc: R. Bradley G. Thornhill My husband and I moved here in May of 1995 from Ariahelm. We selected this area because of its clean/iness and beauty and low crime rate. We were dismayed when our neighborhood began to look like a ghetto last summer. At one time, out of the first seven houses on our street (we are the sixth house), there was a large boat on a trailer in one driveway, a camper shell jacked up in another driveway; next door blocking our view was an older model 1970's truck with a large camper at,,/,I on it parked in the front side yard and the other side of us was a burned-out shell of a car in the driveway. Needless to say, we were heartsick that we had moved to what we had considered a lovely neighborhood. One day the code enforcement officer appeared and cited the homeowners. The offending objects disappeared within a few days. We were once again able to enjoy the beauty of our neighborhood. That didn't last long. When the Press-Enterprise article appeared saying that the City Council would no longer seek enforcement of that code, some of the blight reappeared. At the present time, the old truck that won't pass a smog test and has an expired 1996 out-of-state license still sits in the neighbor's front side yard blocking our view. We do not have a home owners association. I believe it is the duty of the City to enforce and regulate a recreational vehicle code. As a former real-estate sales person, I know from experience that the property values of a neighborhood are lowered when these vehicles are allowed to be stored in the yards, driveways, and streets. Clients will not even look at properties for sale that have R.V.s, etc. parked near them. I hope the council will take a serious look at this concern. With the new dam and recreational site being built nearby, we could be facing many more such vehicles and boats being brought to our city. We need to have a code addressing this problem with strong enforcement and stiff penalties for violations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Betty Condrcn 4074 1 Callc Katetint Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 694-0375 'O THE PLANNING CDMWiSSISK. TC Tale H,SNORAEL£ Ci'v ]S'j'jSlL: PLE,aSE. P'_Ea5£. as repfesen=etives -= ~= we implcre )ou zo enact sno ENFORCE res~r/zti~g o2-s!ree~ ~Ts off-s~reet zsrKl~g o5 ~z. nez in,D ai! man~er cf .'enic!e~. ahich are ~o~ --elcnz~rtsccs. 3even years aoo c. wr 2-slory, 2600 sq.ft.5-oedroem, home ,~as appraisec an 3285.008. Our home is piczureC raise,. TC'_'S,. doe i~ p~rt ts ZD.? reeDant carki~c ant s'.cra=e of ~umersus sell_as iF crive,.,,avs, ,l,- Zme street, and in Some vard~. the . ~1,_~ z; 9~2 -sine anO c!-,ezl in E=,e ~eigmDarnsoC ~ss greaii'., .Tezrel/atso in ~a_ue. _~z [.:c cars are ~e,,ez left ~arkea :~ 1998 colicwing !s a recent mnoto of our sncr: cui de was LSKen from Lhe midc!e cf ~ne street iq front ct jwr ~sne. T-e znjte Zce5 not even snow man), of tpe ve~izles D3r~e2 ~ri...ewavs. ~9u ,iii ooser',,e t~,D motorhomes aionc ~.ith 3/:F:jDS 3PC ~JCKS. ~l!OWi~g this tyoe cf clu~te: ra~ :oswlted in ~ecreasing 3roper:y values, is degrscin ci:>,'3 aaoearance, and i~ a ~,o;ard to 2nildren walking ir ~me street, ~e have no sice~al~s.) E: is 3aid t~st 5 picL,a:.~ :oee.'s a :houserio words. We hooe t-a: c .'ie~i-g tm, ese oi,ztjre 2.a ~.,_~1 see st hanc" cur serious :_~cteri-~ ;roblem. -2- we are irformeo inac :-e City's Coco Enforcement 2fficers, when reBOrnring to a ciEizen's complaint aDost oarking viols:ices. SOyions tne violator tnat all he must do to comDl/with toe coco is simply to move the cffenOing ,vehicle a few inches e.,ery 'r hc~_ra. This Coos not solve tne crab!am of rampant g:ree: catkin9. ant .~e feel certain :his is not :me intent cf ~ne lav~. ~ie m'Ja: rave an, .on-street DarKin~ Law chat clears a~av the :l,o::e:. a~o ~ne la~ mus~ ce enforced. 2ECD'.jO: increasingly, large motor names ant coats are sarkea L, ~_ive~ays Dr c:ner ~:nsi~n:ly areas cf the orooer:y in f~ZI .in,,, ,07 :no ~tree: amd neighbors. ~lso motor yenloins are cocker meyer moved) in crive~ays for man:no. It is anticiPateS t~,e accumulaticr; o= ='/s and large boars ~it~ :no comelotion 3~ -^= Domlragcri ;errear!Gnat wake near Heme[. v~e nee3 :D szcr :hi3 oar;in: practice nOW. ',our uganda report atones tnat :ne Ci:y's Coco £nfcrcemen: '=firerr "-ave me: ',.~Ln resi=,ance ~'r m proDerr',, .own, era ~nc nave nc~nere else :e store them. Tnere are storage ~aciliLies (.cne off ~ala Paso for instance). ~iso these oFfenoing ~enic/es mav ::crag ..,..itnin an egoloser area cr the 2~ners' lore, ~ sen .iew ;r~ :me elfeel and ~rom neighboring ian~ or;nero. if .iola::,rs ,:an a=for¢ 350,000 co $7D.200 for ~v's. :2=y can ~F;CiD t3 ;.lace Lmem in storage Facilities or auiiO ~n enclosure =:r :n~n The/ nave a ou:y 3~ a~ev tn= I w · · ._ a ~as oc all ellirene2 ,^et-,er the,/ Like in or no:. CCXCL_'EZZN: ~e wa,,e [he r. ucle,~s =~- a oeau~:f:! ~LEASE - · _~ _~ J ,City. _el ,s .el! '-'e aDore,aisle .Duo 22qsiders:iln Of C, Jr concerns. _rOe ::ri:: :at<in,g trainantes - arts .~igcross eqfor:eme-:. Sincerely ? MA~iE DUNN ~0158 La Primavers 'emecula, Ca. ?2592 676-3359 -3- cc: Ron Bradley Gary Thornhill Mr. Norman J. Taylor 30048 Via Velez Place Temecula, CA 92592 March 6, 1998 I have been a resident of this great city for 18 years. My wife and I are newly retired senior citizens wishing for a wonderful retirement life. Two years ago we purchased a very small 19 foot RV which we dearly enjoy. I have been informed by fellow RV'rs that the city is proposing a ban on having them parked in our own driveways. As a senior citizen on a retirement and social security I cannot afford the monthly storage fees. I can understand the elimination of the street parking but having it parked in ones own driveway seems reasonable. As I stated above I have a beautiful 19 footer, no longer than a large pick-up truck or even a minivan. I went to every home owner on my street asking them if having my RV in my driveway offended them all said ABSOLUTELY NOT. I am asking you to consider not letting this proposal pass. tn my case t would be forced to sell my P,V, the greatest joy of our lives. Respectfully, Norman J. Taylor Copies sent to all councilmember ca: R. Bradley G. Thornhill . Feb.urarj. City Council City Hall ,T~mecui=,J~. i ':n n~ppJ to hear %n=% you =='e ge%tlng tough sn the people in=z ~i'e p=i'K~ng RV's =no z~,, iraliens, c~mpe;~ spells in =_'ire =no ~n s%reets. in iz'un= ui humes in resi{lenti~i~=r~s. This m~Kes me sis~ ~hen i see this mess zna= %he neighbofs are p=:'King in Lf my mall D~xes. ~ in ~'~n~ ~f my house. A~sp ~nese loses ~n~ are par~e.a ~u~,~n ou~ street.Why you afent taking 2f ~hls problem ~ithout. having someone repor~ this to you, me.I Live in portifino. ana ~ur t~xes are really high, ',t'e Said ~SC,0OC.. f~r our house plus aii our upgraaes, black -all, s~=~e, etc. !/.e ~ave naQ = i~t uf repos in this fiel~hDcrhooQ aria Zf_u~nz ~wn the value ~f vur name really o~. .,e nave ~uf alma ='-- sale ri'-hz na~ ~- ~ver 7 months..le~ DeoDie see tnls mess a~br ~a us , lhey ~usz afire ri~t by. ',~'ho wanls z~ Live next is that. ?e =re havin~ = nar~ ~ime seilin~ because of this. ~ e ~s having this same Ff~olem ~ith the n=c Friue uf o~nership =nu Kep~ zh=Z huase pal'lea;. They put him ~n the S~.at Team, scne h=u Z~ sell ~nu move ~a San Die~. This nice family Scu~n~ the house,~ leon ~ers. Bu~ he uwns a ~=r~ge in Temeclua =no ne b~ings those cars name ,,~izh him and parks in zronz ~2' nsuse. They Gull in the affl'/e .~y .nero lney h~ve = camper snell there ~arage is full _f el=?, s~ ~he~a fk in the garage Ss ~ne,' z=fK ~ '~ Sloe -1 also. .~iK ~o site ..... als-race SomInlnG n=s ~ ee y~u Keel sa/in~ ;^e ai'e = rich Citj', ~hy can't ~'~u pu% ~n mare people zz z=Ke care ~. these proziems ??? ~iaen Circle is a mess. '...e iave on [eer Meaa~.~ Russ. Many trollerr =i'e p~rKe.a in crlve ways in our neighDo. an.: ar.n't think zhls Is lair ~ zne airier ~- ~wners '..hI can't ~ne!, ~=sK l~ trailer D~rKS? ~.' nave Security in those 31aces. My busDana just na~ D a~epasses ~nu a heart vaive suz in. He ~'~ ~e~ lnt~ ~fguemen~s ,.lzn the neighbors This is j.~ur jLo, axE_fee z~& rules. Ch~i'Gin~ these peupie for permits t~ park isn't :L=Irin~ ~ne mat~e~' ~ny. y~u '-ill m~Ke m~re mJney =n~ ,~= -ill =!i sr De very ~n~pp~' neighairs. This mus~ De %=Ken c~re Gf. Thej m~veq 'i:Li~ zhls naus~ ~n j=n.3,~99o, zhej sn~u!~ De ~np=ckez zy -~- o z]~S~ acid us ~u~ Two more things I ~ to mention to you. I n ' electec Sam p~'att to speak for me. I wish someone w~ul~ put tha% old Basta~m in his place. I want tha% En%ertaiD2nent centez' ouilt in our City. We ~aitea ~ long time fur i% %o come here. Clc Town bill just tie without it.people wan~ to close %he aoof ~n growth, ~i~er ~ney get in:o the cl~y, they con wan% ~ le% any on~ els~ in, T~o BaG, ke neea OUStMesS and DoOr here. i% ~uid be a sname if Murrie~a s~le ~his =~=y !tom us. ?ign~ h=rc i~r 1~. The other thing I want t~ks-~ou, When are you g3ing to. open up ~i.General Kearney Roa~.????? It was ~aken o{f tne general plan. '..,e in pcr~i~ nees ~ha~ road opened ups, tha~ gives us a straight shot ~o zne sh~pping Mall ~.e i~re caugnz in a-h~le here, ~nly-w~y~ut is a~-Chapperal school of ~alley Macusa. ~l! the neignoors here want that s~reet~built. Thank you for your help, I will De wai~ing t~ see i2' anything is oeing cone aooul zhe campers ,Trailers anc RV's around here. -Mrs. L.R. McN~ny 30165 Deer Temecul=~ Ca.. 9259~-16~7 909-699-417~ TRASH Contznued ~n an attempt to mmzmlze risk to r~e c~n' Mejia notzces. seel<ing voluntam.' compli- ance, m me p~[ two wee~ to resident, ~esmen5 who refuse to comply face a ~fine for me flint mfrac- uon an~ $100 for me secona. A tmr~ oge~ a m~emeanor~ Meiia says parerim usually ar~e that mey are doing good by keep- mg melr kids at home. but eventu- ally comVly w~t~ me c~' by mov- ing mexr hoop bacg to the drive- way. "They ~v 'We're keeping our kzCs from lonenng,"' Melia "but mev ~on't welg~ the co~e- quences ot me h~rd they cre- ate." Mumeta resident Valene Smit~ veal her daugnter's has~et to ~e _~walk when her daughter want- cu to increase the range of her shots. Smzth didn't realize she was violating a count)' coae at the time, ana said srle now will remove the basket from the sidewalk before :.~e c:ty gives her a notice. BILL GRAY 40414 YARDLEY COURT TEMECULA, CA 92591 Feb~tary20,1998 Mx. Ronalcl H Robens. Mayor P. O. Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589-9033 Ref: Permanent Parking of RV's. Boats etc. in Neighborhoods Dear Mayor Rob~rts, The purpose of this loner is to voice objections to the pra~c of permanently parking RV's. boats and trailers in ch'/vev,~ys and on our residenUal streets. I do appreciate you. Mar. Stone and Mr. Linder- man.s for recognizing the serious problem and agreeing to send it back to the Planrang Coramisaon for evaluauon and now bnngxng it back to the City. Council. I'm vet3,. pleased that the Planrang Comn~ssion determined that the cod~, written several years ago. that regulates driveway parking is a good law and very. mu~h neeae. d. I appeal to you and other members of the Council to reinstate this cod~. effe~'tive immediately. The existing code that governs street parking is inadequate. ViolamE now avoid the intent of the law ~' moving their vehicles a few feet a~er the 72 bout period. I suggest the City Council send this Cocle hack to the Planrang Cormmssion and then in ntrn ask Mr. Mat?hew F~E:*- Associate Planner. or other members of the staff to resoax~h this problem and detenmne how other raumcipalities effecavely address this issue. The re~sed code must incfud~ not only cars and trucks, bat also RV's, boats, Iratiers. farm eqmpment, etc. 1 would recommend that the praztice of towing offen,'ting vehicles be elinunatett as that lends itseff to lawsrots against the City. I think unless the vehicle is abandoned. frees similar Io those for driveway offenses is more practical and would be cost effective to enforce. The Code must be clear and precxse w~th no loopholes. The message to all ~itizens should be. if you break the law you will be pro~cuted. The importance of these nvo laws axe ev'~dont. They. axe ne~.d to insure that our cir,.' remains beautiful. They. will prevent home values from further dc~.aluatjon. They. will curtail the unsightly and junky appearance in out neigl~borhoocis. Th~ will correct a safety hazard that now exam when haclang out of clnveways and chfidten playing in their front yards. The laws will be m place as out ciw. grows and also will prevent an increase of more RV's and boats when the Domemgofu reservoir and the Vail Lake Projects are completed. I do think that people owning recreational vehicles shouJd be allowed to paxk in their dti,,,~'ay or street, for a demrauned period nfhouts, when ser~c'mg prepanng. or returning from a trip. The concern for the vast majority of our c-inzens ~ our city goveromem is commendable. We thank aH of you for ~owding the leadership that has made Temeeula a desirable place to live. With Regards, co: Stevcn J. Ford, Mayor Pro-Tern Jeffrey. E. Stone. Councilman Karel F. Lindermans. Councilman Jeff Comerchero, Couincilman Rounld E. Bradley, City M,nager ~ Manhew Fagan. Associate Planner Bill Gray cc: Gary Thor PAUL D KNOWLEe 40760 CALLE KATEnINE TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92591 (909) 676-2653 February 19. 1998 City Council ,,,,- Attn: Ron Roberts~ Mayor City of TeJnfe~uta 432q0-Business Park Drive Dear Mr. Roberrs: I am registering my concerns regarding front yard/street parking of RV. boat and other extracurncular equipment. I attended the Planning Commission meeting on February 2, 1998 and heard both the pros and cons of the issue. I am clearly on the pro side of enforcing tt~e current code. My concerns are included in my letter to the Planning Commission - copy enclosed. I urge the Council to enforce the provisions currently in place, and/or to take the steps necessary to make them appropriately enforceable. Thank you for serving us, Paul D. Knowles CC: Steve Ford, Jeff Stone, Jeff Comanchero, Karel Lindemans. non Bradley, · Susan JonesT' Mayor - pro tem Council Member Councd Member Council Member City Manager City Clerk FElj g 0 799 CITY ~Vl/-~,~I ~t--F~ Planning Commission Attn: Linda Fahey City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula. CA 92589-9033 PAUL D. KNOWI.,ES 40760 CALLE KATERINE TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92591 (909) 676-2653 February 19,1998 Dear Chairman Fahey: I want to express my appreciation for the general tenor of the PC meeting on February 2, 1998 re: RV, boat and other oPjects 'dane m our beautiful community, I am hopeful that the City Councit sees the thing as cleady This is about keeping our town a visually beautiful place in which to live. I have concerns for those whose recreational pursuits require other accoutrements to accomplish, however they knew the resmctions before they bought here, and if they didn't they should have done their homework! In Mr. Fagin's report to you, I had this immediate idea. With all the retired talent of professional law enforcement living in the Temecula Valley, the City could easily find a pan time Code Enforcement Official, have 1099 relationship with them. This could be done at a cost far less that the 27+K figure quoted under option1. I also realize Mr. Fagin's charge or place was not to make those types of recommendations to the Commission. Just a thought of mine. I trust your report to the Council bore out the concern of the majority of the people in th~s matter, I will be an ~nterested attendee to their meeting on March 10.1998 to wew the proceedings Keep up the good work! Best regards. Paul D. Knowles co: Marcia Slaven Rich Soltys~ak Ron Guemero Timothy Miller Ron Pa~s JACK LEATHERS 42623 REMORA STREET TEMECULA, CA 92592 February17,1998 Mr. Ronald H. Roberrs, Mayor P O Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re[ Parking of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Areas Dear Mayor Roberrs, It is my understanding that the Council will have the above named subject on their agenda on March 10. 1998. for action. Since I will be out of town I want to voice my opinion to you via letter. I have artended the meetings of the Planrang Commission concerning this subject and testified in front of them. My friend, Mr. Bill Gray, and I have also met with Mr. Manhew Fagen concerning this code, and expressed to him our feelings about this maner. Many people are concerned about the increased parking of RV's, boats, and house trailers on driveways and in the street. We are also concerned why the code that already exists has not been enforced. I have been president of our Alia Vista Community Association for three years in the past, and soon found that we had a problem with all these vehicles being parked on driveways and in the street. We do have CC&R's that prohibit this unless they are parked behind a fence in their side yard. The problem is the procedure that we have to go through to enforce these rules. If the violator wants to be difficult it could take many months to a year to get this resolved Meanwhile the Association has had the expense of an anorney, held many hearings, issued frees, and finally when the fines aren't paid placed a lien on the properW. As you can see. this could also cause quite a disruption in the community So I am saying to you that this mute is not the answer! The main reasons why I think these vehicles should not be allowed to park in driveways and on the street are as follows: I Properties are alevalued 2. Safety when neighbors back out of their adjacent driveways and are unable to see moving traffic and kids playing. 3. Undesirable views from one's home if you live nearby. 4 A junky appearance tends to develop not only around that residence but also in the community. 5. Future development such as the East Side Lake will bring many more recreational vehicles into this community, and the code will certainly be tested. If we continue to have additional parking of these vehicles, the communities will really look junky and property values will decrease, I think that people owning recreational vehicles should be allowed to have them at home long enough to service them and load them. A reasonable amount of time should be allowed for this. Having a unit parked on the street, and moving it a few feet just to avoid the Code being reinforced is not proper. This is a loophole that should be closed. Ifa property owner has a friend visiting with an RV, a permit should be required for them to park. for any considerable length of time. As for as the cost of enforcing of the rules, I feel that the City carreSt afford not to get involved, and the cost whatever it is, should be allowed. If the fines are large enough and the rules made known to everyone, it won't take long until the violations will be at a minimum. If it takes an additional code enforcement officer, then so be it. We spend money to make our parks look well kept and the appearance superior, so why not spend money to make our total City look the same. It will be appreciated by most of the resi- dents! I want to thank you, the total City Council, the City Manager and all the staff for all the work that has been done to make our City what it is today. We are proud of you and of it. May your success continue to grow. CC~ Steven J. Ford, Mayor Pro Tem Jeffrey E. Stone, Councilman JeffComerchero, Councilman Karel F. Lindemans, Councilman Ronald E. Bradley, City Manager MaRhew Fagan, Associate Planner February 16, 1998 FEB g :] 1998 All Councilmembers received the same letter. Ron Roberrs, Councilman City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA. 92590 CC: Ron Bradley Gary Thornhill Dear Sir; I have been a homeowner in this city since 1989. My wife & I are retired and on a fixed income. We have a 25 ft. travel trailer that we could keep in our driveway but we pay to have it stored at Lake Skinner in their storage facility. I am concerned about the downgrading in the appearance of our neighborhood with the proliferation of motor homes, boats, etc, that are being parked in driveways and on the street. Some; being used as another bedroom as well. I play by the rules I expect others to do likewise or pay the price - and I expect the 'price' to be very high. If a person can afford an RV, they can afford to store it in a storage facility. I trust my city councilmen and X trust that they will answer the call and do their duty. Sincerely yours, 40466 ChaUncey Way Temecula, CA 92591 Alta Vista Community Association P.O. Box 890143 Temecula CA 92589-0143 (909) 676-1465 cc: Gary Thornhill Ron Bradley Febrtmry4,1998 FEB 10 1998 City of Temecula Arm: City. Council 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula. CA 92590 Dear Councilmembers: RE: RV Parking and Storac, e We are writing this letter on behalf of the AIm Vista Community Association. We are located just north of Rancho Vista Road and east of Mira Loma Drive. by Vail Elementary. School. CC&Rs and Rules & Regulations guyera our homeomen association. These documents contain rules prohibiting the parking or storage of recreational vehicles, including travel trailers and motorhomes, within the association unless specific conditions are met. Despite the rules, we find that there ~s an ongomg problem wnth RV parlong. We have always appreciated knovang that the City-of Temecula also had rules regarding RV parking and that we could call on Code Enforcement for support whenever our own efforts at enforcement became too time consuming Unfortunately. our process can take several months before a lawsuit can be filed. We would like to urge the city council to continue to enforce Temecula's existing laws regarding RV parlOng and storage. If there is a problem with caseloads, perhaps a part-time employee can be hired for this specific job. Alternatively, the law could be enforced when cases were reported to Code Enforcement. Either way, I am sure that the majority of Temecula's cmzens, including those that do not have the benefit of an active homeowners association would appreciate this. Sincerely, Vice-President Secret~ Helen Cappellia Treasurer 3 February 1997 City Council City of Temecula cYo Temecula City Hall P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 FEB 0 4 1998 Y ~w~I',J~GER R. Bradley G. Thornhill Re: Parking of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Areas Note: As used in our letter, "RV~' includes trailers, boats, c~mpers, and recreational vehicles of all kinds. As you are aware, lastnight the city Plarming Commission voted to continue the present code provisions concerning the subject vehicles. Almost unammously the audience in attendance (and there were many) indicated their preference to continue the present code. Council member Comerchero, who was present at the meeting, can attest to that. All four commissioners present also indicated their interest in continuing the code. Many of the commissioners indicated an interest in not only continmng the code, but actually strengthening it, specifically in the areas of fines and length of time allowed for temporary parking. Additionally, one commissioner indicated an interest in adding provisions concerning on-street parking of those vehicles. (As you know, the present code addresses parking of subject vehicles on private property, but does not address parking of the vehicles on the city streets. ) We wish to endorse those attitudes and provide the following rationale: Fines and the Fine Structure: One commissioner asked if fines levied against violators of the code could be a way of mitigating the added cost of additional Code Enforcement personnel. A representative of Code Enforcement answered. indicating that it could, indeed, be a way of recovenng some of the expense. But. he cautioned, Code Enforcement uses fines "very spanngly". We ~vonder why frees are used sparingly. If the city wishes to stop violations it must enforce the code and fine violators. We can support an initial warning to violators, even though they have a responsibility to both themselves and their neighbors to know the law -- but thereafter we believe that increasingly sever fines must be levied against repeat offenders. It is only through continued enforcement pressure that violations will be reduced. And Temecula can certainly afford to hire additional Code Enforcement personnel as it grows. _Length of Time for Temporary Parking: Most commissioners would suppor~ a reduction in time allowed for temporary parking. Indeed, one would have totally eliminated any overmght parking. We believe that it is reasonable that some time be allowed for temporary parking. But washing and/or cleamng of the vehicle, boat, etc. should not take even 24 hours, and we believe that maintenance shouldn't be performed in the neighborhoods. Stocking of RVs, etc. for trips certainly doesn't take more than a few hours. So we support a time limit of 12 hours for temporary parking. We would, however, exempt visitors with RVs from the 12 hoar limit. Parking of RVs on City Streets: Currently, on-street parking is regulated by the State Vehicle Code, and enforced by the Police Department. The problem is with people who wish to circumvent the code by simply moving their vehicle before the 72 hour lirmt is exceeded. Sometimes this is done by moving the vehicle to an adjacent street, other times by just driving around the block and parking again near the original spot. In any case the owner is using a loophole in the code to counter the intent of the code; namely to prevent long term use of the streets for the parking of RVs. At one time, in another city, we had a neighbor who parked his tar roofing truck in front of our home; not the most attractive curb appeal we wanted -- or you would want. We support a change in the code that would track and fine persons using the 72 hour loophole. Additionally, we support a widening of a new code to include business vehicles, nuisance vehicles (old, rusted, or unused), and RVs. A question was posed by a commissioner as to how much it costs RV owners to store their RVs in approved storage facilities. The answer was approximately $250 per 6 months. We believe that this is not an issue for Council consideration however. When you buy an RV you ass-n~e responsibilities, one of which is to abide by the codes in force where you live, another is to accept the costs of such ownership -- including the cost of its proper storage. Our concerns are driven by our desire to protect our property values, the beauty of our neighborhoods, and the beauty of Temecula in general. Unless the City establishes a firm policy in regards to RVs and commercial vehicles the problem will only be exacerbated as our population grows. A street littered w~th RVs, and/or nuisance vehicles, and/or commercial vehicles is not an attractive street. Please strengthen the code and publish frequent reminders that Temecula will not tolerate offenses to the code. We appreciate your consideration of these items as you deliberate on the issue. Sincerely, 32237 Place~el~r Temecula, CA 693-0929 CC: The Califorman Mr. Bill Gray Mr. Bob House, President. Chardonnay Hills HOA From: To: Date: Richard Sarraffe <richsar@iname.com> TE~ECITY.TF~ECULA(HOTEINE) 1/30/98 4:54pm RV Parking in Temecula cc: G. Thornhill R. Bradley To: Temecula City Council I understand that the Temecula City Council will soon be reviewing it's position regarding the parking of RYe and Campers on city streets within a residential area. I strongly urge that the city take some initiative in prohibiting residents from parking their RVs on residential streets. There needs to be some means of code enforcement so that private Homeowners associations can deal with the problem if the city does not. As a committee member of the Villa Avanti HOA, here in Temecula, it seems that we are powerless to keep our community free of the unsightly parking of these vehicles becau- the streets belong to the city. We have some residents who continually play the game of moving their RV six inches every 72 hours so that they comply with the city law. I know that you, as a council, are committed to keeping our city attractive and I urge you to give this matter some real thought and help the Homeowners Associations to legally deal with blatant violations of this nature. Thank you, Richard Sarraffe Tel. (909) 694-3459 Richard Sarraffe mailto:richsar@iname.com ~c: G. Thornhill 2 December 1997 Linda Fahey Chart'woman, Temecula Plarm/ng Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Ms Fahey: At the 1 December meeting of the Temecula Plarming Commission discussion pertaining to a section of the City's Development Code was "continued off calendar". That section has to do with storage of recreational vehicles in residential areas. A review of the documents provided to the public at that meeting indicates some Planrang Comnnssion and/or staff confusion regarding the subject. - The December 1 agenda provided to the public provides the following regarding this subject: "Proposal: Repeal Section 17.24(D)r1)(r3 of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Recreatwnal Vehicle (RV) Storage in Residential Areas" - A memorandum to the Planrang Commission from Debbie Ubnoske, Planrang Manager provides the following concermng the same subject: Subject: Planning Application No. PA97-0349 - Amendment to Section 17.2 4.020(D )(1)(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Recreatzonal VehWle (RV) Storage ~n Residential Areas" Ms Ubnoske -- in her "Background" section of the memo states that "The City Council originally directed staff to amend Section ............... " The subject was titled "Repeal" at the 3 November Planning Commission meeting -- now it appears that a decision has been made without public notice to modify the original subject to one of "Amendment". Further, the section of the Development Code cited is different. Did we rmss notification by the Planrung Commission that the original subject had been changed? Has it been changed? Was the original subject in error? Is the staff in error? The public has a right to accurate information concerning proposed changes; if for no other reason than to be able to respond intelligently to those proposals. Response to a proposed reneal is very. different from that for an amendment. In regards the same subject -- but with a different focus: When several people show up at a meeting of the Planning Cormmssion anticipating a discussion of a topic and are then notffied that the subject is being "continued off calendar" it can -- it does -- make those people suspicious of the reason(s) for the continuance. For example: - Is the Planning Commission just waiting for people to lose interest so that they can do what they want without being in the spotlight of public pressure? - Are members of the Commission or their staff predisposed to repeal or amend the section regardless of public opimon? - ls pressure being exerted by the City Council? I don't accuse either the City Council or the Commission or its staff of any of these motives. I only list them as ways the public can -- and often does -- think about their government. I would like te think that the reason for the continuance has to do with an overworked staff who just haven't have enough time to complete their task Might I suggest that some explanation to the public is warranted when a subject is "Continued off calendar"? There is a lot of public suspicion of government today, both locally and nation wide. You could help reduce that suspicion in Temecula by the simple act of providing a rational explanation of the reasons. A copy of my original letter to the City Council and the Planrang Cornrmssion is included. I wish to ensure that my views as a citizen of Temecula are considered when the subject is agmn considered. Sincerely, ~Belair Temecula, CA 99-592 693-0929 Enclosure- cc: V'~emecula City Council The Califorraan Edward V. and Evelyn D. Salitore 42733 San Julian Place Temecula, Ca 92592 December 1, 1997 Honorable Councilman, Karel Lindermans City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, Ca 92589-9033 co: Gary Thornhill RE: CITY OF TEMECULA PARKING REGULATIONS OF MOTOR HOMES,TRAILERS BOATS Dear Councilman Lindermans: We purchased our Lake Village home ~n 1973.the year Lake Village was rounded. In those early days beforethe Incorporation.Lake Village was a quiet,laid-back. slow-moving off the beaten path community. The ideal setting that my wife Evelyn and myself were looking for upon our retirement from the exciting and fast moving life-style demanded by our ownership and administrative involvement in News- paper and Text book publishing business in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Upon our retirement in 1978, we made the BIG MOVE to our small Rancho Calif. (Lake Village) retirement home,worlds away we thought then,from the hectic, never ending "Rat Race" of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. During most of our almost 20 years of living here in Lake Village, we have owned and parked our Motor Home in our driveway, without problems. We heartily disagree with the JOHNNY COME LATELY DISGRUNTLED DISSIDENTS,thac our ~lotor Home is a blight and eyesore to our neighborhood. However,we would gladly park 2t behind our fence ic it were possible to do so. unfortunately our lot is situated in such a way that it is impossible co park behind our fence. We have a large investment in our Motor Home which is kept in excellent condition ac all t~mes and is considered as one of our most cherished possessions. It is furnished,packed and "ready to go" on short notice, which we take advantage of quite often for weeks and months at a time. Any ~hought of driving it co a storage lot, even if one were close by, between trips and subjecting our Motor Home co burglaries, and vandalism is entirely out of the question. -more- -2- Temecula City Councilman Ed & Erie Salitore IN CONCLUSION --FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 1)Motor Homes,trailers,boats, and recreational vehicles should be allowed be parked on driveways, when it is not feasible or posslble to park them behlnd the fenced or screened area of such property. 2) Most owners of Recreational vehicles are honest,law-abiding ,tax payxng civzc minded citizens and a credit to our Comunity. 3) JOHNNY COME LATELY DISSIDENTS should not be encouraged in thelr unjust and unwarranted self servlng demands against all owners of Recreational Vehicles. They knew what the conditions were relative to the policy of the City of Temecula ,on Recreational Vehicles an the tlme they ~de the declsion to move here. Where flagrant abuse of reasonable regulations exist, the parties responsible for the abuse should be held responsible. In closlng we are really happy no let you know we voted for you and have been scronE supporters of the actions and efforts of our City Council,including,and ever slnce Incorporation. Thanklng you in advance for your kind indulgence, and it is our fervent hope [h; you and all your loved ones are blessed with a Happy, Healthy,and better than e~ coming Holiday Season and New Year. Sincerely, Ed anQ Erie Salitore / 42733 San Julian Pl.[Lake Village) 7emecula, Ca 92592 Phone: (~09) 076-6355 ENCL: co: Photograph enclosed showzng our Motor Home as zt is,parked in our driveway. Councll Members Birdsall Cormerchero Ford ,Lindemans Roberrs Stone Planning Co~. Fahey November 37, l??~ TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION: This is one more concerned citizen's appeal PLEASE. PLEASE retain and enforce the City's ment Code pertaining to recreational vehicle in resioentiai areas, and illegal parking on tO DovelaD- storage City sLreets. :lease nelD the majority of the citizens,who love Temecula, to maintain ana enhance this beaUTIFUL CITY. It will invite responsible grow~n ana pride of owner- sniP. Street clutter and ugliness of RVs parkea on streets and in yarGs, aad to deterioration of neignDor- nodas. Promarty values decrease. Citizens who enjoy Living i~ ~ell_~a~C~sineG, beautiful neignbornoods, wit~ priae of ownersnip, will move out, and those who do not care will move in. Home values will hit rock bottom in these Diign~eO neignDornooas. The appeal of John Lynn, publishe~ NovemDer l]tm in the Californian ,contains many points oF concern, wnicn we snare. The foliowind portion of his aopea!, Dears repeating: "Thirc: Dther,clsies Can anO Co enforce 3he same cr similar DarKing regulations. Temecula can ei~er nelp maintain the beauty of the neighOornooos or remove the code anO contribute to their Oeterioration." Thank :zou For ,:onsiderino our concerns. MRS. MARIE DUNN 30156 La Primavera, Temecula Phone: 676-3059 November 15, 1997 Marcia Wattdns 30252 ~lla Aimms Dr/re Temecula, California 92592 (909) 676-4920 NOV 2 0 1992 ';17'Y Mr. Ron BradIcy City. Manager City of Tcmccula 43174 Business Park Drive Temccula, CA 92590 Dear Mx. Bradley: The issue of Recreauonal Vehicles (Campers, Boats, Trailers, Fifth Wheels, and Motor Homes) in our residential area is of concern to me. On Villa Aimms Drive, where I live. there is a P,~creauonal Vehicle parked in a driveway on blocks to keep at level -- as it is being used as an extra bedroom! Just a few houses beyond the mobile bedch,lmber, a welding business is operating out of the garage, and unsighdy old cars are being worked on in the stree~ and driveway. This was once a lovely neighborhood in a beautiful city, but is now jus~ one of many Temecula sneers that is beginning to look run down and ragged. [ want to see the City Code enforced. but the existing laws don~t appear to be cleat or enforceable, as wnnen. Perhaps the vehicle code governing residential parking needs to be rcwntten so that it is CL.E4R.4N'D PRECISE and caxncs a HEF7T.',tONEI~4Rf PENALTY; one STRONG ENOUGH to deter violators, Let's stove to keep The City of Temecula a city we can all be proud of~ Sincerely yours, - Marcia Watluns 4 November 1997 Whom It May Concern City of Temecula NOV 10 1997 Re: Attached Letter We request that copies of the enclosed letter be provided to each member of the City Council and Planrang Comnussion before their next meetings on this subject. 4 November 1997 Temecula City Council and Temecula Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Repeal of Section 17.24(D)( 1 )(f) of the City's Development Code Pertaining to Recreational Vehicle Storage in Residential Areas At a 3 November meeting of the Temecula Planning Comml ssion the referenced agenda item was withdrawn from consideration pending further study of the issue. However, before moving on to the next agenda item, the Planrang Cormmssion provided opportunity for the public to voice concerns about the proposed repeal. We would like to comment, in greater detail than the three minute Commission Limit allows, on two issues raised dunng the public responses. Enforcement: Three comments here. First: Commissioner Guernero asked about numbers of personnel needed to enforce the code. Why has the code not been forceMy enforced to date? Had it been enforced with vigor the number of personnel needed at this time would not be significant. Residents would have been made aware of the inconveniences involved in violating the code. Initial vigorous enforcement activities at this time might require additional personnel to be used. but a lower level would ultimately be requxred. The code enforcement must include significant penalties. Some people have to be hit over the head with a 2 x 4 to get their attention. Second: One speaker from a Homeowner's Association noted that asking the HOAs to enforce parking regulations pits neighbor against neighbor, leading to neighborhood feuds and hatred. He suggested that the City is the better regulatory agency. Comment: Our experience in 3 HOAs over the last 16 years is that the speaker is right. Asking the HOAs to enforce pro'king regulations on city owned streets can lead to feuds. anger, and, in extreme cases -- violence. The city owns the streets. The city has an enforceable code on the books. The city should enforce it. Without that enforcement the HOAs are forced into long, expensive, and sometimes losing legal battles wxth people who have little regard for their neighbors, their neighborhood, or property values, "Curb appeal" is a significant factor in home re-sale. A cluttered neighborhood reduces curb appeal. Third. Other cities can and do enforce the same or similar parking regulations. Temecula can either help maintain the beauty of its neighborhoods or remove the code and contribute to their deterioration. RV. Boats. Etc. Storage: We not~ that an agenda report: concerning this item states that the City's Code Enforcement Officers "have met w~th resistance from property owners who have no where else to store their trailers, RVs, and boats. However, the City is currently processing several applicat~ns for self storage facilities. These are expected to provide additional storage opportunities." Comment: Are the majority of City residents t~ be penalized because some residents will not accept their responsibilities as citizens of Temecula and (where they live in HOAs) members of HOAs? Ignorance of the law has never been a legal defense. People with RVs, trailers, boats, tanks, giant earth movers, tar roofing trucks, elephants, and Siberian Yaks have a responsibility that we all share -- to conform to all established laws, codes, rules and regulations-- whether they like them or not. We appreciate your consideration of these items as you move to reconsideration of tkis issue. We urge retention of the code -- and its vigorous enforcement. Sincerely, Temecula, CA 92592 693-0929 cc: The Califorman co: ~. Bradl~ G. Thornhill October 24, 1997 Temecula City Council OCT 2 199/ Dear Council: We have lived in Temecula for eight years and are proud to say there is very. little to complain about. Our City Council listens and acts for all our behalf. In today's politics, this is unusual and appreciated. The issue of RV and boat parking in our residential areas is of concern to us for two reasons: (1 } If our City Council can elect to not enforce the Codes of Record what other laws and codes can they elect to not enforce? (2) With the "announcement" that this code will not be enforced, we have in effect given an open invitation for more of what is ah'eady a blight on our neighborhoods. Many tnnes the parking of RV's and boats on the driveways necessitates excessive automobile parking in the streets or cul-de-sacs. Policing is not a problem ff the fine for infraction is high enough and well published. A $500.00 per day fine will clean up what is beginning to look like a resort parking lot throughout our beautiful city. Mr. Roberrs and Ms. Birdsell must start looking around more and listen to the electorate. This city is larger than just Meadowview! We applaud the efforts of Mr. Stone and Mr. Lindennan who on all issues have the pulse of our entire con,r,,anity. Mr. Ford. you will do well to follow their examples. We urge all of you to reconsider this issue and perform the job you were elected to do. Please obey and enforce our laws: they are there for a good reason and it is not your job to excuse them. ~S.~ncerely, ('~.J.B. Porter Betty Jo Porter 40221 Tuolonme Court 909/699-6968 VIA FAX October 1997 TO: City Counctl Memers City of Temecula SUBJECT: Chapter 17.24 or Development Cede - Sectlon 17.24.020 Off-Street Parklng and Loading My name is Joanna Ph111ips and [ restde, with mY husband. 0liver at 30361 Tradewater Ct. In the CIty of Temcula. The CIty Count11 has had various discussions recently regarding Off- Street Parking, and more specifically as pertains to RVs, boats, etc.. Back on 6 August 1997 [ sent a FAX (copy attached) to Ms. Cfndy KetrSey Code Enforcement Officer, for the City of Temecula - regarding a violation of the subject Cede, Section 17.24.020. This specifically addresses the fact of motorho, ms parktng on the street legally for a 5 day peHed and then being able to move it to the ether side of the street and Petng able agatn tO leave it there for another 5 days, etc. Zt is hard for me to understand hov(thts can be allowed! We have a beautiful city and you, as members of the Cft Council, this ~y~e of unstqhtly thtnqs to occur. HO~ ~AN THIS BE?????? We are members of the The Villages HOme Owners Association group and our CC&Rs restrlct overnight parktng fn the streets - however, It can- not be enforce BECAUSE THE CITY OF TEIvECULA IS NOT NILLING TO BACK US UP. We, too,have a metor home - it is parked behind gates (legally acc0rdtng to our CC&Rs) because we believe In following the rules - I kno~ rules are nmde to be broken - but that is not how it should be. If we leave our motorhm~e out parked tn our driveway for a day or t~o while we are getting ready to go on a trip or are cleaning/washing same and the homeowners association comes by and sees tt there, we are immediately notified to move same - and ft's on our own propertyl I belteve tt iS about ttme that our City CounclT look out for the vast majority of the cttizens of this great city and decide to put a law Into affect that disallows overnight parking or continuous parking of motor- homes, boats, btg trucks, etc. on our streets. PLEASE TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO STO~ THIS TYPE OF THING FROM RUINING OUR CITY AND CAUSING PROPERTY VALUE TO GO DOWN TO SAY NO/HZfiG OF THE FACT THAT IT LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE - IF WE ~ITED TO LIVE LIKE TRASH WE SURE WOULDN'T HAVE MOVED HERE, LIPS (676-4466) TEMECULA CITY MANAGER AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS We thank the board members for hearing our plea on Monday evening November 3rd, to stop permanent parking of RV'S and boats on driveways, lawns and streets in residential areas. City Council members Mr. Stone, Lindermans and Roberrs were not aware of the seriousness of this problem until they came to our neighborhoods. In fairness to yourself and us homeowner taxpayers, I urge you to give just 30 minutes of your time and persoally come out and see what has happened to this beautiful city. I recommend you drive the following streets; Calle Medusa, Chauncey Way, Yardley Ct., Wellington Circle and the worst of all windsor Road. The answer to this problem is not Home Owners Associations. Its evident that HOA can not enforce this unless the city invokes and enforces an ordinance to prohibit this sort of thing --- and please realize that about one third of the developments in our city do not have HOA,S. The California vehicle code governing residential street parking is not working. Also, niether is development code chapter 17.24 and chapter 10.32. They will never work until rewritten. The penalty must be stronger than "Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an infraction". We suggest it read "Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be given a three day notice to correct the infraction or be fined $100.00 per day until corrected. After the third day the owner will be cited and fined at rate of $100.00 per day until the infraction is corrected. The vehicle, trailer, RV, boat etc may be impounded at the cities descretion and the fine shall continue until claimed and fine is paid." It should be published in all local newspapers that this ordinance would become effective in 30 days. Please help us keep this city beautiful. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED PRIOR TO APRIL 21, 1998 WORKSHOP ..... .~ ,, ~..., .... YCUF-WC,~X SHOP YY;AT WZ Z}T DEZE ;':ZADC;." RCAD,Z]; TE:':~ZULA .-~P.E ','ZRY U"=AFEY ABC!'T ALL "~E R.V. 'c ALD 5CATS ...... PARSED C:7 ~"~ 2TT. ZZYZ. ........................... _n . .,~ .~.. ~u~ '_ WAYS AUD ~"' .~';;AWY ','.iT=.' iU.T?TzRE ALE ~ARKS CUE THEir '~'=.ERZ TiYEY SA:: RENT STAGES YEAR F:F. Un~ZZR TRAZZZZE,--~.-,_~,n_,..'CMTHFvC, Z',Z'ST .................... .ZZ,_'' 'v A BZAUTZFUZZ Az'.ZA ZS BZC, CZ.iE.CZZUG A jUZ.]E YA_'].D. ;,Z h'AVZ ::C ASSCZZ.-kTZZ:7 ==.'~_. '/~_' _=ATZ 3.';&R'~ .7,._ ..~, ~.~ ZNFLRSZS _.':.=l':. ,f-, ,~-u;.~ · z..,b.~ .'.--.. SAZZ Z:':UZ.zT .... : """ ~ EZZZ 5ERMZ'SZ3 Y~ m~w ~ZLFZZ TC ,~Z.Z,.W ~HZM ~^ _~ 7ARK '?' 'UP. l.d...~.a.,.~ .-,. S~.Z.CZCNZ ZZSZS ',,RECK CUT .., .-. .a, ~.z, , NOT ALL ..,,.. HCMZS ARE ............... HAVE i'-;_R}ZZD lR[ THEIR DRIVEWAYS? THiS iS A GISGRACE, T-",XZCULA IS T~ == .... z .,,,~ ',',Z DCN'T ~,AZCT T~ Tun.. "'~ ......... PERKiS.THAT o ~ :,.._~. S,;':T>.'ZNG 5LITER E-' Z,i'/i R=AZZY SL. CN ~=~ ~= T " TiC LATE. __,C;,_ T ','.-~ Ti:ii Ri=LiY SUCD ~"'= "= CUR F'~PERT' ........ :~ ~ ~ EEAU~iFUL! ,WE FAID A ' Y Y U-=- =' TZ_._':<ZS= jUZiZEiCS .;~w.. ZCWERi:[~ "=" VALUE t.' Z. UZ ' ' _ .._ ' ' FRC' EF, TY. WE -:Y UY= [<-=AKTii'Z ..n ~ ~ ZAi[_ SURE vr E:'CW HCW ',Vi ~t'=- .... = "'~ .... .,S._ WE D. MiSS '== '-[Y,K .~ _iVZ ~ D EZ :? YR X TiTl ~7~';ANY'3 AT -~iu~DZZZ :'ZZ=D'W -D. ',.F.,T ---'-. .... i-u ill] ,i ~, .... ~ ~ ~ ZiS~.Y ~ET~_'ZI~ COME CUT A'VD jNEZZ iT CUT FiR YCURSEZVES.ASK .all T?.'E NEIGHBORS ~CUT IT. )x: a >, /T'. //Z c- / -; April 4, 1998 ,Mr. M. Fagen .Ass. Planrung Corrtrmssioner City of Temecula Dear Sir, I would like to address the new street parking regulations you and your _group plan to discuss on Tuesday April 21. Having served on "The Villages H.O.Assoc. Board" in various capacities and am currently the president of this board, I certainly know how difficult it is to enforce the C.C&R's as well as any laws or regulation"s. Commercial vehiciles.boats.campers.large motor homes as well as simi-tractor trailers certainly do not enhance either our residential or commercial street. It is my understanding that vehicles of this nature are simply cited by our police dept.,with a 72 hour notice to remove. What happens is the owner of the vehicle moves them within the allotted time frame across the street or down the block. A solution for this on going problem might be as follows. Issue permits by mail or in person for a day or two to load or unload these vehicles or for out of town visitors. To cover any expense for issuance could be $5.00. These permits would have to be artached on the vehicles windshield with an expiration date clearly visible Traffic tickets and fines would be issued on the expiration date. No more "Warmrig Citations" of 24 or 72 hours. Lets not move Vehicles across the street but out of the residential neighborhood to insure a pleasing sight and also improve the safety of our streets. Additionally large simi-tmck-trailors should be illegal on any residential street at any time,with the exception of residential moving vans for home owners goods pick ups or delivery I do hope to attend you work shop and am grateful the city is taking a rea/interest in this ongoing problem. Mrs. M.C.Sawyer Temecula Norman Taylor 30048 Via Velez Place Temecuta, CA 92592 Subject: Parking/Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members: Recently the Temecula City Council agreed to give the so-called "pioneer businesses" a break worth a million dollars or more. Why not give RV'rs a break at no cost. We bought and brought our RV's here to Temecula long before the city proposed this new unfair ruling on RV's. We RV'rs agree to have them removed from our city streets. To make us remove them from our own property and driveways is absurd. I want to give you an example of how pathetic this whole situation is. an official complaint to the city that a train caboose is sitting over in a neighborhood and I think it is an eyesore to My City? Can I file Sincerely, Norman Taylor 10 April 1998 City Council and Planning Commission City of Temecula c/o Temecula City Hall P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: The RV Problem A prior out-of-state commitment prevents me from attending the joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on the RV problem. Since I cannot be there to express my views I am enclosing a copy of my letter to the City Council, dated 19 March. Please give it the same attention you would if I were there to express it in person. Sincerely, J 3__37 Placer Belair Temecula, CA 92592 693.0929 e-mail: j&jshow@vmicro.com cc: Mr. Bill Gray Enclosure: My letter to the City Council of 19 March 1998 19 March 1998 City Council City of Temecula c/o Temecula City Hall P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: The RV Problem RV owner Ed Salitore has recently been quoted in the newspapers expressing his concerns on the subject "problem". We would like to again present an opposing view. · Temecula has an ordinance concerning parking of RVs, boats. etc. If you live here you should obey the local ordinances. And. Councilmember Ford, enforcement of the ordinance doesn't imply that we're a "trailer police" city anymore than enforcement of speed limits means that we're a "speed limit police" city. Enforcement of city ordinances helps maintain the attractiveness of our neighborhoods and the city in general. We have ordinances because some people aren't considerate. That's sad, but very true. FOr an ordinance to be effective it must be enforced. We do not understand why the city has suspended enforcement of the ordinance until the matter is resolved. The ordinance is on the books. It should be enforced. The longer it goes unenforced the more RV owners will believe that they have a right to ignore it. · We agree that RV owners need to be able to load and unload their vehicles, along with limited servicing. But 5 days parking in front of private residences encourages people to violate the intent of the ordinance. Why should loading, unloading or limited servicing take 5 days? And some RV owners now move to the street after 5 days. Then -- · Many RV, etc. owners get around the 72 hour street parking time limit by moving their RVs, etc. to another location before they are ticketed; then leaving it there for a few days before moving again. This defies the intent of this ordinance, which is to prevent long term storage of RVs, etc. in our-neighborhoods. That's tacky. That situation should be corrected. Owners need to be able to load and unload their vehicles, along with limited servicing. Why should that take more than 12 hours? -- if even that? Five days parking in front of private residences again encourages people to violate the ordinance. · Mr. Salitore has to pay fees to his homeowners association for parking his vehicle in that association? That's between ~im and his association. He should have read the CC&Rs before deciding to live there or acquire an RV. Has he ever heard of a concept called accepting responsibility for his own actions? Has he ever heard of a concept called being informed? In a city we all live close to one another. The unfortunate fact is that what you and I do on and around our property impacts our neighbo- nd neighborhoods. The RV owner has rights? Sure. but they also have responsibilities, including care for their neighbors, neighborhood, and property values -- theirs and ours. Sometimes we all have to subordinate our own rights to those of the community. The city can help the owners of RVs by trying to attract more RV storage business to the city and giving them "fast track" approval. Heavy emphasis on security should help ease the fears of the RV owners. Sincerely, Temecula, CA 92592 693.0929 e-mail: j&jshow@vmicro.com cc: Mr. Bill Gray The same E-mail was sent =o all CouncilmembeTs From: To: Date: Subject: "Chuck Hankley" <hankley@vmicro.com> TEMECITY.TEMECULA(ROBERTSR) 3/18/98 12:40pm R.V. Parking To: Mayor of Temecula From: Charles and Donna Hankley 31745 Via Cordoba Temecula, 92592 (E-Mail "hankley@alphainfo.com") re: Recreational Vehicle parking in residential CC: areas. R. Bradley G. Thornhill We are owners of a Recreational Vehicle and strongly feel that they should not be parked or stored on residential properties for prolonged periods. They should only be in a residential area, limiting the time, for maintenance or to prepare for a trip. Before purchasing our home in Temecula we investigated the regulations concerning Recreational Vehicle parking, as any prudent person should. We found the rules compatible with us and the city*s desire to maintain the ambiance of the city. We came from a city where Recreational Vehicles were parked every which way - on private property on the street - or wherever. Some were one step from the junk yard. Some were lived in at the residence for prolonged periods. This was either allowed with no restrictions or the regulations were overlooked, the area looked blighted. Particularly as more families acquired these adult toys. Please keep this from happening in beautiful Temecula. Don*t let the residential areas of Temecula become a Recreational Vehicle yard. We don,t feel that our neighbors should have to share our Recreational Vehicle desires or tastes by having to stare at our Recreational Vehicle parked in our driveway. we are not opposed to R~creational Vehicles parked in residential areas so long as they are completely out of view from the street or the view of their neighbors. The lot sizes and driveways of most homes in Temecula are small and are not conducive to parking large vehicles. we pay for storage and feel this is the responsibility of the RV owner. Remember something that would appeal to one can be an eye-sore to another. To repeat - If you can afford a RV, you should De able to pay for public storage. Living with the results of relaxed rules would be harder for the majority of residences to live with than the City,s current ability to enforce the exiting rules. Thank You Charles and Donna Hankley George ~larshaZl ~Z880 Cor~e Posi~.a Tomsouls, California April 13, 1998 Mathew Fagan Associate Planner city of Tamecola 43200 l~Usiness Park Drive Tomecola. Ca 92589-9033 Sub oct, Parking of recreational vehicles - Boats - trailers and)or like kind on city streets in residential zones. Dear Mr. Fagan, In order to establish a more Positive control over the narking of subject vehicles on city streets in residential zones within the city of Tomecola, it is respectfully requested that a city ordinance be drafted to clearly define the regulations and limitations under which this practice will be Permitted. This ordinance should include, but not limited to the following, ~'arking of recreational vehicles. boa%s, trailerS, and/or like kind objects. are limited to a. period of no more than 2~ hours. Owners of vehicles who exceed this time limit will be subject to a fine of 50.00 dollars for the firs~ offense and 100.00 dollars for the second offense occuring within a time frame of 3 years. In those ins~ancee where a third offense occurs, vehicle impound action will be taken. and all related including, but not limited to, fines and impound fees must be Paid by the owner prior to the release of vehicle ~nyolved. In certain excep=ional cases where compliance with the 24 hour time limitation cannot be met, such as for visitors, the homeowner must obtain an "Extended Parking Permit= from %he city of Temecula for a fee of 50.00 dollars. which allows parking time not to exceed a maximum of (7) seven days. This seven day time period commences on the f~rs~ da~ the vehicle is in a parked POSition, and must be Doe rioned in front of the homeowner's residence. This "kx~ended Parking Permit' may be renewed for one time only for an additional fee of 5~.00 dollars. ~LI6-969-606 [~:~I Subject ~ :ha, ge 2 A~ril 13, 1998 Parking of recreational vehicles - boats ~ trailers - and/or like kind on city streets in residential zones In ~he event the permit time is exceeded, impound action will be taken and all related cost, including, but not limited to. fines and impound fees must be paid by the owner prior %o release of vehicle involved. Due to ~he construction of the Metropolitan Water District Reservoir, special at~en%ion %o this subject merits ~articular importance. as a major influx Of these types of vehicles into our city is imminent. In view of the aforementioned comments and suggestions. perhaps a Ballot Initiative for our next General Election could be develoned, to allow all our eligible citizenry an opportunity to ~articinate in the final.decision Process of the policy related to this subject. Your Drom~% action in this matter is appreciated. (Si,~natorys are members of the Board of %he Villa Avan~i Sincerely, Homeowners Association - -'~4' "'~/'~'~al~ Austim Felden ~ 7~.7~ cc, Council Members - F~I No. City of Temecula: Jeff Comerchero Steve Ford Karl Lindermans Ron Rober~e (Mayor) Jeff Stone Lindm Fahey (Planning Commission - ChairDerson) 69~-1999 N~ezfb ATTACHMENT N0.3 CITY OF FULLFRTON RV STORAGE ORDINANCE 1f.17.030. Conditions d petmi~t',~ use~. The foUov. ng quaJiffY. limitanons. and condi- uons shaJI be app"caJNe Io tbe usea desczibed m Table 15A7.020 De. These shaXJ be in ~clcLifion to a~y quali- ficanons. Lm~taz.,ons. or condi,,ons set farth m the use defrauds of Cha~t~ ~5.04 of mis Ut)e: A. Multiple-family dwdlings shai] include coopera- tively ownel apm u,,~n~ arid condonlj~ums; B. Mobi~ home parks shall comply with ~ dcve|- opment standards mctudczl in Secaon 15.17.040 and Secnon 15.17.050: C. The tenang of merits or the proviclmg of board. orbcth, shalib~LL, mp_d~atotalofttm~petsonsper dwetLmg unit in R-I. R-1P. R-2 and R-2P z~nes; D. ,~,',',"'~'-vbtfildlng~.saxuctw~.andusespenmlIext m me R-I. R-IP. R-2ami R-2P zonc~ awll be limit~i to: 1. Pdva~ garages, Toothouses. worksheds. a~tetma~,a~d greenhous- es (priva~ and noncommetc~J). P-arimg and/or swragc of F~.~onal or utility veMcles. motori?,d or nonmotonz~ is pernuned pwvided a13 of ~e foBowing conditions ~'t sans- fled; a. Such v~icles shaiI not be occupied for bring pu~ozs. b. Such vehicles siulJ be limited to thcr~ owned by the cr. cupaat of the dwcRthg UmL Rtcrznnona3 vehicles sh~ not be paf~ or sued whe~c such parking or consutu~ a clear and de~le v~hicuL1r tra/fic huanrcL or be a tttr,.at to public he. aich A r~mmonaJ vehicle sha].l not be paxk:.d or szor~d within me f:wnt yard where me~/s an e:Us~ng driveway or ether accss }t..ntiing tO the R~r ~ of the residence that can accommodaz~ such vehscle. Parking panlie1 m the from property line is g~hibin~t except whe'e a curved or cn'cutar driveway ex~. In mose cases. suitable sn'mning of the r~orunonai ve.~cl~ sha~ be E. Privaz F,n'k~g a~ sh~ cotdon~ to ere fol- lowing condilions: Such azas sttalJ be traproved and mamuUned in accord;race with the provisions of Secuec 15.56.150 of u'Us U~e. cxc.~t ~ me mqtttr~ f~:e~-foot _~,,~+e~k f:rom any street shall be land- scapedin~enuz~tyandnotlessttan~vepe~- cent of the rmum6~- of me parting ,~ stxaH Along any common bound. a:7 wiffi Ix'opez~/zon~ R-I or R-1P, a m-foot high ornan~nuU masorn7 waliorwoodenfenccstx~llbep.wvidedandmam. rained. Where a diffe~,nnai in grade e:tms be- tween the two propernes, the height of the ~U shall be reduced one ftxx for each two feet of grade di~er..m~t. provided thas in no a.sa. cxe','pt un~Mn fiftee~ feet of the m~et line. shall sach ~ be le~ U~ s~ fe~t in height as m~asu~ born ~e commercial side and forty-two toches in height as me. asum:t fi'om the r..s~iential sicP. Gr4de cl~fa~nti~l sh~lJ be detn'mmed from ~e budding pad elev'a~n. i[ known, and ~ not elevano~, Along aay "R' zone boundary not otherwise p usct~ by a masora-/wall Iccaz~ on me paxt:mg lot skie there shall be ins~led and mama a conc~ cm'b or umber bexTicr not le~ t~n six inches in height and lO~,td~H not l~s ~ two feet 4, No such area shal/be us~l for the commerc~l s'~rage of cars. Irucks, boa.s, or rapiers. 5. NO tubitablc mcmx~ shall exist on the parcel dus~ng t~ use as a pariang axta= 15-32 Edward V. & Evelyn D. Salitore 42733 San Julian Place Temecula, Ca 92592 Honorable Mayor Rot Roberrs City of Temecula ,Calif. Dear Mayor Roberrs: We really appreciate your kind letter of recent date, recognizing our valid interest in one of the most controversial i~sues facing our City Council and the citizens of our outstanding City Re: Parking/' storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones. Along with the valuable and important cooperation of the Good Sam Club which has a membership close to one million families who own and en3oy Recreational Vehicles,the "We Love RV's" club of Temecula has put together for the City Council a R.V. information Packet labeled "FOOD FOR THOUGHT" which we hope the City Council will take the time to carefully consider for lnpuL ZO include in an R.V.Park- ing Ordinance free of Leg~ and Constitus-hal implications. FOOD FOR THOUGHT"' The Planning Commissions recommendation not only to endorse ret- aining the existing Ordinance but also strengthen and vigorously enforce it,totally ignores the Parking Rights of Recreational Vehicle owners, as well as having Legal and Constitutional implications There are 2 sides no this "Hot" issue,the Recreational Vehicle owners, and the anti-RV'ers. Both have inalienable rights which must be protected. Anti RV'ers who base legitimate pro~'eable claims in a Court of Law which adversely affect the Health,Safety,at!l! Welfare of our Co;~3~unlKy have our comDiete sympathy,and support. Part~c= --esponslble for the abuse should be held accountable,and dealt with ac!.'~'dingly. However we heartily disagree with the '~ini-RV'ers who condemn Recreat- ional Vehicles as eyesores,Crappy looking,Property degraders,ere.These complaints are illegal and should be dlsregarded."Beauty is in the eyes of the Beholder". Denying RV'ers the privilege and right of properly parking the;~ vehicles on their own property is discriminatory. -more- Mayor Roberrs -2- Salitore's It is difficult to find a case where an RV properly parked on private proper=y has resulted in decreased property value. As a rule most Realtors will point out the fact that RV parking is a plus when proper~y is sold. Most RV owners have substantial investments in tkBir vehicles and take pride in them and their homes, to ask them to park elsewhere we feel is taking away their Rights as property owners. Please find enclosed 2 letters and copies of other Cities Recreational Vehicle ordinances which we hope will be helpful in resolving Temeculas' Recreational Vehicle parking in residential zones. Sincerely, Ed and Erie Salitore Encl. cc: Council members Edward V. & Evelyn D. Salitore 42733 San Julian Place Temecula, Ca 92592 Honorable Councilman City of Temecula RE: Tuesday April 21st Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop--Discussion of Parking/Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones. Dear Councilman Enclosed are copies of other Cities Recreational Vehicle Ordinances, which we hope will prove helpful to you as well as staff as input in resolving Temeculas' Recreational Vehicle Parking in Residential Zones. Sincerely, Ed and Ev~' Salitore lncl: Response to Mayor Roberrs letter dated March 20,1998 CASE HISTORIES and ORDINANCES FOR: ~resno, Ca Fullerton,Ca La Mesa,Ca Mission Viejo,Ca Pasadena, Ca Salinas,Ca San Bruno,Ca San Diego,Ca San Rafael,Ca Santa Clara,Ca West Covina,Ca ~tid.Ohio btrongsville, Ohio MIKE RAMEY LETTER OHIO, Euclid One of the most significant decisions involving RV parking took place in Euclid. Ohio. in 1977. This was a major victory for RV owners for two reasons: tile focus of the case was on aesthetic values, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Following is a synopsis of the events that led to this landmark decision; the text was prepared by Corinne Shuiman. a California attorney The case is known as City of Euclid v. Fitzthum. et al.. 48 Ohio App. 2d 297, 357 N.E. 2d 402 (1976), cert. denied 429 U.S- ~n94, 51 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1977). }me years ago, Euclid. Ohio, ,..opted an ordinance that pro- hibited the parking of "any ~ype of truck, trailer. auto trailer or trailer coach" in residential areas. on either public or private pn~p- erie, unless such unit ~'as "parked or stored in a completely closed structure." In 1974, nine RV ~wners were cited for parking their RVs on their property, and they and others banded together in a determined effort to fight tile ordinance. The matter was tried at the municipal court level as a criminal offense and tILe owners were found guilty and filled. the trial court finding tILe ordinance constitutional. THe RV owners appealed and '~e Ohio Court of Appeals versed their convictions, lindlug the ordinance unconstitu- tional. It is that decision. made Februarv 1976, to which we've referred you. for subsequent petitions by the City of Euclid. first to the Ohio Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, were both denied and the c~pinion of the Ohio Court of Appeals is now final. The state appellate court said that in Ohio, zoning restrictions for purely aesthetic reasons are unconstitutional, and that the ~rdinance, to be constitutional. must be a valid exercise of police power, the power to regulate for tile public health, safety, morals, and welfare. The court then stated that: TIle vice of the present ordi- nance is that the record will support neither an applica- tion of the ordinance which bears a substantial, and therefore reasonable, rela- tionship to public health, safety, morals or welfare nor tile imposition of a taxonomic scheme based on any state of facts that may reasonably iustify it. Part of the lack of reasonableness is exposed bv evidence of al~ uneven regulatory application. Reviewing the facts illustrated tile "constitutional inadequacies of the ordinance." The city had produced testimony to show that a trailer parked in a driveway would interfere with access for fire-fighting equipment, ~vould _~erve as a conduit for fire, was more difficult to move than a car, lowered property values, and under certain circumstances, could create a safety hazard by obstructing the view of street traffic. The RV owners had produced evidence to show that automo- biles (which were not prohibited from driveway or street parking) could be conduits for fire and/or cause fire hazards and may be unsightly when stored outside. But the state appellate court properly disregarded this evi- dence. following a generally rec- ognized rule of law that it is for the trier of the fact (here the ' court) to resolve conflicts in dence. The court then posed and answered the constitutional ques- tion: Where. then, are the Due Process and Equal Protec- tion vices of the ordinance? They lie in the indisputable fact that enclosing vehicles classified as trailers does not change the fire hazard pro- pensities and it does not enlarge health safeguards. Indeed it is clear beyond per- adventure that enclosure may diminish health and safety factors by trapping sewage spillage from portable sani- tarv facilities and collecting highly flammable esca~L~ propane gas which w othenvise be dissipated ih ..,e air. These are factors too obvious to be resolved on mere credibility determina- tions. ' 35 CALIFORNIA, Fresno RVers in the central California ci.ty of Fresno are attempting to change a citv ordinance that requires RVs in single-family res- idental neighborhoods to be parked and stored in an entirely enclosed area or in a rear or side vard that is enclosed bv a wall or solid fence not less than five feet in height. In addition, the city ordinance allows for front vard parking for loading/unloading not to exceed 72 hours in anv month. Even for RVers who keep their rigs in storage, the 72-hour-per-month 'imitation is not adequate for chose who use RVs frequently. Not satisfied with the ordi- nance, RV owners formed Fresno RVers for Fair Play and approached the city about making changes in RV parking regulations, but the city refused to negotiate. That's when RVers took advan- tage of the state code that allows street parking for up to 72 hours at which time the vehicle must be moved. Although the city ordi- nance prohibited RV parking on residential streets at any time, unless adequate signs are posted advising residents of the restric- tion, the city could not enforce the local ordinance. (For a more thorough explanation of this code, see Salinas, California, on page 18.) RVers who had received tickets for parking their RVs on the street challenged the city in County of Fresno Municipal Court on April 19, 1993 (People v. Mitchell, No. 473534). The court ruled that the city ordinance was valid, but to be en/orced, signs must be posted before tickets can be issued. Rather than going to the expense of posting signs, the city changed its street-parking ordi- nance to agree with the state code. However, RVers would prefer to have their vehicles on their private property, and are cSnti. oing in their efforts to encourage the city to change the existing ordinance. CALIFORNIA, Fullerton Early in 1990, the Planning Commission of Fullerton, California, recommended an ordinance that would have pro- hibited the storage of RVs and utility vehicles within required front yard setbacks, including drivewav5 and accessways. According to tile terms of the proposed ordinance, RVs could be parked on a dust-free surface behind the front yard setback in an area having direct access from a street or alley, but the vehicle had to be stored perpendicular to the front property line. First to speak at the initial hearing regarding the ordinance was Gil Gilbert, who was at that time Good Sam Southern California State Director. Gilbert asked for a reasonable use of property, offering, as examples, compromise ordinances from two other California communities. He also recommended that a citizens' committee be formed to study the problem. The commission agreed, and a committee was organized. It took approximately one year of meetings for the task force to draft and submit an ordinance to the city, but the wheels of gov- ernment turn slowly, and it wasn't until February 1992 that the city finally adopted an ordi- nance that is acceptable to RVers. RV owners called the ordinance a victory, anti-RV homeowners called it a waste of time and a city council member called it a "lesson in civics." In essence, an ordinance from the 1960s was revised to be more liberal for RV owners. ORDINANCE NO. 2800 AN ORDINANCE OF TI-IE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF FULLERTON AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE FULLERTON MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE ON-SITE STORAGE AND PARKING OF RECREATIONAL AND UTILITY VEHICLES IN R-I, R-2 AND R-2P ZONES AMENDMENT A-1368 CITY OF FULLERTON THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FULLERTON HEREBY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Subsection 15.17.030.D.3 ot tile Fullerton Municipal Code currently reading: 3. Storage of recreational vehicles provided all the following conditions are satisfied. a. Such stored vei~icle shall not occupy any part of a required front yard. b. Such stored vehicle shall not be occupied for living purposes. c. Storage shall be limited to vehicles owned by the occupant of the dwelling unit. is herebv amended to read as follows: 3. Parking and/or stora,ge of recreational or utility vehicles, motorized, or non-rnotorized, is permitted provided all of tile following conditions are satisfied: a. Such vehicles shall not be occupied for living purposes. b. Such vehicles shall be limited to those owned by the occupant of the dwelling. c. Recreational Vehicles shall not be parked or stored where such parking or storage shall constitute a clear and demonstrable vehicular traffic hazard, or be a threat to public health or safety. d. A recreational vel~icle shall not be parked or stored within the front yard where there is an existing driveway or other access leading to the rear yard of the residence that can accommodate such vehicle. e. Parking parallel to the front property line is prohibited except where a curved or circular driveway exists. In those cases, suitable screening of the recreational vehicle shall be provided. PASSED BY THE FULLERTON CITY COUNCIL ON February 4, 1992, SIGNED AND APPROVED ON February 5, 1992. CALIFORNIA, La Mesa Back in 1988, Jack Chambers led Good Samers residing in this Southern California communitv dunng a successful campaign to fight anti-RV parking legislation. However, the situation reared its ugly head again in 1992. Good Samer Reed Sauter went into action and asked that headquar- ters send a letter to Art Madrid. mayor at that time. asking that he modify his views on RV parking. Also monitoring the situation and offering advice was Mae Jo Slager who organized RV's United for Fair Play in nearby San Diego, where she had led a successful campaign against unfavorable odds (see page 20). While the La Mesa RV ordi- nance was being considered, Ruth Sterling ran for the city council on a pro-RV ticket and ~'on her election. After the elec- tion, the city council bowed to pressure from RVers and voted against the anti-RV ordinance. It was Councilwoman Sterling's first vote in her new position. Mayor Madrid, who cast the only dissenting vote, continued to argue against the more lenient bill, and even claimed that the council's vote was illegal, but the majority ruled. RVers in that community hope that the issue has been resolved once and for all. ORDINANCE NO. 2615 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 12.51 OFTHE LA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE, RESTRiCTED PARKING FOR OVERSIZE VEHICLES AND UNATTACHED TRAILERS The Citv CounciI of the City of La Mesa, California, DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 12.51 of the La Mesa Municipal Code, "Restricted Parking for Oversize Vehicles and Unatt,~ched Trailers," is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 davs after its adoption and the City Clerk shall certnv to tile adoptK~n of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published at least once in the La Mesa Fireira within 15 days after its adoption. INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, Califorma, held tile 8th day of December, 1992 and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said Citv Council held the 12th day of January., 1993. CALIFORNIA, Mission Viejo After spending just one night in their new home in Mission Viejo, California, Gary and Sharon Hilde were facing serious problems from their neighbors. Although the Hildes knowingly moved into a planned commu- nity with restrictions, prior to purchasing their home thev took the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions ICC&Rs), a docu- ment outlining the standards established for the neighborhood, to their attorney and were assured that their motorhome would be legally parked. Thev had selected a home on a comer lot with ample room for the ng on one side of the property. On the day the Hildes moved into their home, they parked their motorhome on the street with the intent to move it onto the property within a few davs, but within 24 hours, neighbors complained and called the police, who ordered the Hildes to remove the ng from the street immediateIv. However, even with the rig legally parked on their proper.w, the neighbors con- tinued their unrelenting assault on the Hildes with verbal com- ments and obscene gestures. The unfriendly neighbors took their grievance to the homeowners' association, but the association board ruled in favor of the Hildes, saying that they had not violated the CC&Rs and had a right to park their RV on their proper.ty. When the homeowners' associ- ation refused to cooperate, the irate neighbors turned to the city of Mission Viejo, requesting that the city draft an anti-RV ordi- nance that would encompass the entire ci.t'y. City officials said thev had no plans to enter into what thev considered a civil dispute, but thev did propose an ordi- nance on the recommendation of an ad hoc committee, specifying that the ordinance was not to replace or supersede CC&Rs in private communities. The pro- posed ordinance allowed RV parking of any size in side yards provided thev were substantiall screened from view behind a 0- foot fence. wall or gate, and allowed RV parking in rear varc with a site plan to be approved by the director of communi~' dbvelopment. The final ordi- nance passed by the citv counci affects RV parking in front ot re idences and in drivewavs, but i, the most part, it represents a vic torv for RV owners. Pressure from their neighborG was so great that, at one time, tl' Hildes had their home up for sale, but since they had done nothing illegal, they took their home off the market and decide to stand their ground. Eventual the neighbors who were causin the most trouble sold their horn and moved awav, and the rest c the neighbors have relaxed thei views on the issue. Gary Hilde said that it took a good year for the dust to settle, but finally, all peaceful in the neighborhood. ORDINANCE NO. 89-28 NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MISSION VIEIO ADDING CHAPTER 9.04 TO THE MISSION VIEJO MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NUISANCE ABATEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 9.04 is herebv added to the Mission Viejo Municipal Code, which shall read as follows: 9.04.020 Nuisances designated. It shall be unlawful and it is herebv declared to be a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or hawrig charge of any residential prop- erty within tile City of Mission Vieio, to maintain such property in such a manner that any of the following conditions are found to exist thereon: (22) Recreational vehicles parked or stored on any street, in the front yard area, or any other location on the propert?.' where tile recreational velUcles are visible from the neighboring property or any street. The foregoing applies even if the vehicle or item is used primarily for some purpose other than recreation. Any recreational vehicle without a valid registration or license is considered to be stored. For the purposes of this section: a. "Front Yard Area" shall mean the area between the plane of the front elevation of the main portion of a dwelling unit extending to the side property lines and the front property line abutting the street, including the driveway; b. "Property Owner" shall mean the legal owner of the residential property; c, "Owner" shall mean the registered owner of a recreational vehicle and/or other recreational items, which inclodes, but shall not be limited to, the property owner, renter/lessor, and/or other residents or guests residing permanently or temporarily on residen- tial property; d. "Recreational Vehicle" shall mean a vehicle, boat, vessel or other type of portable structure, with or without a mode of power, and without permanent foundation, which can be towed, hauled, sailed or driven, and is designed primarily for recreational, camping, sailing and/or travel use, such as, but nt~t limited to, travel trailers, motorhomes, buses converted to recreational or other non-comn~ercial uses, vans, trucks witli or without camper shells, campers, camping trailers, motorcycles, off-road vehicles, aircraft, boats or other vessels. (23) Use of parked or stored recreational vehicles, as defined in Section 9.04.020 (??)(d), as temporary or permanent Iivmg space; 9.04.025 Exceptions. Notwithstanding Section 9.04.020, the followrag shall not constitute a public nuisance: (5) Parking of a recreational vehicle described in Section 9.04.020(22) on the street in front of the owner's property or m the driveway thereof, prnvided tile sidewalk is not blocked, while actively engaged ill loading ~r unloading of said vehicle, but in no event longer than 72 hours; (6) The legally ct~ll/t~l'Inn~g ,llld approved storage or parking of a recreational vehicle described in Section 9.{14.0211{22) in zones or designated planned development areas permitting such storage or parking, and appmved by the City; (7) The parking or storage ~f recreational vehicles, as described in Section 9.04.020(22), in the side yard or rear yard of property upon approval of a site plan, provided such vehicles or items ar~' substantialiv screened from view from any street or neighboring property of the same or substantlallv similar grade behind a solid six (6) foot high fence/gate or wall and where ade- quate screening or shrubbery is also provided along the neighboring property line. Boats, ves- sels or other water craft having a mast must be parked or stored with tile mast in a horizontal position regardless of Iotatitan it the mast is visible from the street or neighboring property. Site plans under this provisior~ shall contain a vehicular parking/storage, fencing, wall, gate and landscape plan. TIle site plan shall be submitted by the property owner to the Director of Community Developn~ent, who may approve or deny the plan or refer it to the Planning Commission at his or her discretion. All site plans approved under this exception shall contain a condition that if walls, tenting, gates or landscaping required by the site plan are not main- tained, fall into disrepair. ~,r are altered or changed withoot approval the site plan approval shall be revoked: (8) l'roperty m~'ners of residential property which, by its physical characteristics may allow tile constructjim ~1 a ctm~pletcly enclosed addition to the main living structure in the front area may apply lot d pernUt to boild such an addition for the purpose of parking or storage ot rccreation,~l vehicles !.,royideal that such addititm will not result in any exception to the zoning laws or require a variance. The addition shall be compatible with the existing main living structure and shall be designed so recreational vehicles are not visible from the street or any neighboring property. Site plans under this provision shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval; (9) ValidIv licensed four wheel drive vehicles, pickup trucks without camper shells or with camper shells which do not extend more than one (1) foot above the height of tILe truck cab, and vans mav be parked in driveways, provided tile total height of tILe top of the vehicle as measured from the ground does not exceed ten (10) feet, excluding air conditioning units and vents, and provided no part tff the vehicle extends into the sidewalk area. This exceptloll does not apply to pickup m. lcks with sideboards, storage devices or racks extending more than one (1) foot above the cab height or to any other recreational vehicle not specifically listed in this subsection; (10) Validly licensed four wheel drive vehicles, pickup trucks without camper shells or with camper shells which do not extend more than one (1) foot above the height of the truck cab, and ;'ans may be parked in the street in front of tile owner's residence as long as the total height of the vehicle as measured from the ground does not exceed eight (8) feet in height, excluding air cnnditionmg units and vents; the width of the vehicle is less than ninety (90) inches, the length of the vehicle does not exceed twenty-two (22) feet. This exception does not apply to p~ckup trucks w~th side boards, storage devices or racks extending more than one (1) foot above the cab height or to ally other type of recreational type vehicle not specifically listed in this subsection. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF June, 1989. CALIFORNIA, Pasadena The ci.ty of Pasadena, California, is familiar to the thousands of Good Samers who have enjoyed taking part in Good Sam's am~ual Samboree in conjunction with the Tournament of Roses Parade everv New Year's Dav. But while RVers were enjoying gan~boree activities, the city was waging a campaign to completely remove RVs from private property in that community. The proposed ordi- nance referred to RVs as "visual blight." Making the situation worse was the fact that Jess Hughston, who was serving as vor of the city at that tm~e, s an RV owner and member of the Good Sam Club, but he sup- ported the anti-RV ordinance. Even a letter from Sue Bray, Executive Director of the Good Sam Club, reminding hirn much money is pumped into the ciw coffers everv year by Samers and other RVers attending the Rose Parade, failed m swav the mayor on the subject. At ti~e initial hearing on the subject, the council delayed lis- tening to the RVers attending the meeting until 10 p.m., at which time only two remained to voice their objections to the ordinance. At a subsequent meeting, about 200 RVers showed up with 20 speaking against the ordinance while only throe speakers in favor of the ordinance addressed the council. The council showed signs of backing off on some of the terms of the ordinance that referred to motorhomes, but refused to change their views on boats and trailers. But all was not lost; there was to be one more hearing on the subject. Again, the RVers showed up en masse at the council chambers and pursuaded the council to revise the ordinance to be more favorable to RV owners, including those with boats and trailers. Because of the excellent organiza- tion demonstrated by the RV owners, council members reversed their views on the subject. When the issue first came up, there was a 20-year-old ordi- nance on the books that the council determined needed to be updated. Members thought they could quietly and discreetly change the ordinance with little fanfare, but some alert RVer saw the required notice of the in' to change the ordinance; it ~ published in a small newspaper rather than the city's leading publication. That got the wheels turning, and the RVers organized their winning campaign that resulted in an ordinance that is favorable to RV owners. Mathew Fagan, Assistant City Planner April 14, 1998 Sir: I understand you are considering restrictions on the parking of recreational vehicles within the city limits of Temecula. I live in Meadowview and have my R.V. ~earked on a cement slab behind my garage. My lot is completely fenced in accordance with the CC&R's for Meadowview. I strongly urge your support in continuing to allow property owners to keep their R.V.'s within the confines of their property. S~ncere Thanks, Ronald A. Barbeau 2974~ Del Rey Rd. Temecula, CA 92591 CALIFORNIA, Salinas For 25 years, the city of Sailhas, California, had an ordinance that prohibited the parking of RVs city streets; the ordinance speci- fied that RVs were to be parked on private property and screened from sight. Few RV owners were aware that the ordinance existed until 1989, when tile city hired a code enforcement officer who started issuing tickets to filegaily parked RVs. Most were on private prop- erty, but they were not screened from sight. A hue and cry from RV owners 'ompted the city to put a tem- 3rary moratorium on enforcing the ordinance while a committee studied the issue, hot thc promise the city proposed didn't change anything or improwe tile situation for RV owners. :\t the time the RV parking ~ssuc erupted, Bob Taylor, a lawyer. was the only pro-RV aletuber ~lt' the Salinas City Cc~uncil. but he did not carry enough clout come to the rescue of RV owners. Not satisfied with the citv's actions, RV owners formed RV Owners of Salinas and engaged the services of Tador, who was no longer a member of the c~tv councii. The RVers appealed the council to reconsider tile issue. but their plea fell on deaf ~ars. The RV owners then put tilt, .,q-parking iSSLle on a ballot, but the issue lost bv a landslide. That's when the RVers, under the guidance of Taylor, took a new approach. In California, the city has only the authority given to it bv the state legislature over streets and highways. If a city chooses to impose parking restrictions beyond the 72-hour street-parking limit provided for by tile state, there is a state code section that requires the city to post these parking ordinances on signs before they can be enforced. Taylor claimed that the city's ordinance prohibiting RV parking on streets could not be enforced since the required signs xvere not in place. To legally enforce tl~e ordinance, the city would have to post signs every 250 feet on streets where the restrictions were to apply. Armed with this information, RV owners took their grievance to the administration hearing iffficer, but, as anticipated, they lost. Undaunted. they appealed to tile Mumcipat Court where a trial was held, but again tile RVers lost. The next step was an appeal to the Superior Court, and it was there, during a hearing before three judges. that the RVers won a sweet victory. The Superior Court overturned the Municipal Court's ruling and said that the city cannot prohibit street parking without posting the signs as required by the state code. As Taylor pointed out, at a cost of 5150 to purchase and install each sign, it would be an extremely costly venture that would irritate taxpapers footing the bill. That leaves the city with the option of changing the existing ordinance and allowing RVers to park their vehicles on their prop- erty, or having the rigs parked on the streets, which is not a desir- able option to RV owners, who must move their vehicles every 72 hours, or to non-RV owners or the city. The Good Sam Club does not encourage or condone long-term street parking for RVs. It does encourage reasonable street- parking limits for loading/ unloading vehicles (usual hours), but the Club discou,,,ges RV owners from demanding the right to store their vehicles on city streets. However, RVers have moved their rigs to the streets in an effort to encourage the city to cooperate with RV owners in providing reasonable ordinances for parking their vehicles on their own property. Since RV storage facilities will not accommodate the vast number of RVs in Salinas and many other California communi- ties, it was the only recourse, short of selling their rigs, left to RV owners. The Salinas situation bears watching. After the Superior Court ruled in favor of the RVers, the city approached the st/' about enacting a law that v ,t have eliminated the need for posting signs in order to enforce a city parking ordinance, but the issue was not introduced to the legislature. CALIFORNIA, San Bruno When the Citv Council of tl~e San Francisco Bav community of San Bruno, California, reaffirmed the council's support for a con- troversial law that had been passed the preceding year aimed at restricting boat and RV storage on private property, Jack Bartalini took it as a personal assault and waged war on the council. Council members soon learned that Bartalmi was not a person to be taken lightly. The battle that ensued led to many bitter debates and, finall,,', to a general election that found ',rtatini leading RVers to a vic- y over the citv officials. It was one of the more interesting and hard-fought campaigns m the history of RV parking le,,.1'islation. The battle heated up eariv m 1992 when Bartalini was quoted m the local newspaper as saying that what the council was trying to do was "un-American." He claimed that the council passed the anti-RV ordinance without the knowledge of RV owncs. However, when the cooncil attempted to enforce the ordi- nance, the protest from RVers was so loud that the council put a moratorium on enforcing it until October 1, 1992, allowing some time for discussion. It was public knowledge that the mayor and most of the council members were against RVs. Bartalini organized a picnic and rallv at a local park, inviting RV owners and the press to a trend the rally and organize their efforts to fight the issue. It was a move that brought RVers together to form a united front against the city government. In response, the council put the RV issue on the November ballot, convinced that it would lead to ao anti-RV vote. Since it was a pn.,sidentiat election year, a good turnout for the election was guar- anteed. There were two measures concerning RVs: One asked the vl}ters if thev wanted to continue with the anti-RV law as it was, wl~ich included prohibiting self- propelled vehicles from parking on driveways, and the other was an advisory measure that would allow parking of certain boats and RVs less than 6 feet 6 inches in height and fewer than 25 feet m length on private property. Bartatini launched his cam- paign to defeat both of these measures. He distributed 10,000 voter-information pamphlets, going door to door in every, neighborhood in San Bruno, a communitv with a population of 40,000. He drove up and down every street, looking for boats aod RVs, to provide owners with information and ask for a nom- inal donation to finance the cam- paign against the issues on the ballot. He enlisted the aid of others in carrying on a telephone campaign. He was relentless in his efforts to protect the rights of RVers m San Bruno. On election day, the efforts expended by gartalini and other RV owners paid off; both of the measures on the ballot were defeated. The RV owners were victorious, and the anti-RV ordi- nance has been erased from the books of the city of San Bruno. 3. "Self-transported" shall mean capable of being moved from one place to another over streets, roads and highways by means of motor power which is an integral part of the main equipment. 4. "Self-transpt,rted recreational vehicle" shall mean a recreational vehicle with at least four t4) balloon-tired wheels which is self-transported such as a n:creational van or motor- home. 5. "Store" shall mean to place a recreational vehicle for the purpose of preserving, protecting and securing it for a period in excess of twenty-four (24/hours. B. Garage Parking and Storage. Any such recreational vehicle may be parked or stored in a parking garage on the zoning lot if such vehicle is of such a size as to permit it to be conve- mently stored in such garage with the garage door closed. C. Self-Transported Recreational Vehicle Parking and Storage. A self-transported recre- ational vehicle may be parked or stored in a front, side or rear yard on a lot in a R1-75, RI-100 or R2-F Zoning District subiect to the requirements set forth in this section. D. Other Recreational Vehicle Storage and Parking. A recreational vehicle which is not self-transported may be stored or seasonally parked on a lot in an R1-75, R1-100 or R2-F Zoning District subject to the requirements of this section and the following conditions: 1. From April I to November 15 in any calendar year, one such recreational vehicle may be parked in a front yard on a vehicle access driveway or hard surfaced parking area. 2. One such recreational vehicle may be stored on the zoning lot in the rear yard or the side yard. 3. If such recreational vehicle cannot be stored in the rear yard because access for such vehicle through the zoning lot to the rear yard is prohibited by a permanent structure per- mitted on the zoning lot, and s~.lch vehicle cannot be stored in the parking garage, such vehicle may be stored m a front t~r side vard on a vehicle access driveway of hard surfaced parking area, provided that such vehicle does not exceed 28 feet in length. E. Front Yard Requirements. Any recreational vehicle parked in a front yard shall comply with the toilowing requirements: 1. Such vehicle shall be parked in the vehicular access driveway or hard surfaced parking area. 2. Such x't:hicle ~,hall be parked as close to the front building line as is possible, no nearer t~ any side lot line than 5 feet in a R1-75 and R2-F zoning district, no ,~earer to any side lot line than 10 feet in a R I-I00 zoning district, and no nearer to any public right-of-way than 20 feet. E Rear Yard Requirements. Any recreational vehicle parked or stored in a rear yard shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Such vehicle shall be stored no nearer to the main structure on the lot or an adjoining lot than 20 feet, and to any side or rear lot line than 5 feet. 2. The total area covered by accessory structures and recreational vehicles in a rear yard shall not exceed 30I:; ot the required rear yard. 3. The grading of the lot shall not be altered and the drainage of the area shall not be obstructed or altered unless approved by the City Engineer. G. Side Yard Requirements. Any recreational vehicle parked or stored in a side vard shall not be subiect to specific side yard requirements except as set forth in paragraph H below. H. General Requirements. Any recreational vehicle stored or parked in any residential zoning district shall comply with the following requirements. CALIFORNIA, San Diego Until 1991, Mat Jo Slager was a senior citizen ~vho lived a quiet life in San Diego and enjoyed RVing v,ith her husband. Today, Mat Jo is best known as the gutsy lady who took on tile countrv's sixth largest citv and won. It was a major accomplishment. To achieve a decisive victory m San Diego took a lot of effort the part of Slager and tile RVers who responded to her leadership. It was in 1990-91 that tile city decided to enforce an RV ordi- nance that had been on tile books since 1987 and amended m 1988 '1 1989. According to the terms .hat ordinance, RVs could not be parked in a required front street-side yard, and those m rear and side yards had to be con- cealed from any public street by a solid, I0-foot screen. Determined to fight such an unreasonable ordinance, Sla~ur xvent IlltO ACtiOB FroIll a of 13 RV owners. >he orgarUzed RV's United for Fair Play. Only one person per family was allowed to become a member and attend meetings, limiting votes to one per rig. As word of the fledgling ~lrga- nization spread, the roster grew at an unbelieveable rate. establish a war chest~ everyone loinlag the organization xvas asked for a voluntary S10 dona- ~. In Slager's own words. "The .mey never stopped corrUng in." Contributions came from Good Sam chapters and other RV clubs as well as individual> and fraternal orgamzations. What was especially surprising was receiving contributions frum Good Sam chapters and individual members as far as 200 miles away fmnl San Diego. Through these contributions, the Fair Play war chest grew to $9,000. Once the organization was established, Slager encouraged a letter-writing campaign directed at city officials; she even pro- vided the names of those who would be determining the fate of RVers in San Diego. She went to ~,urrounding communities and encouraged RVers to let tile leaders of San Diego know that they were being watched. By August 1991, the wheels were turning. The San Diego planning commissioners were fully aware that the RVers of Sail Diego were angry. TIle Sail Diego l'lannmg and Zoning Department made overtures abotlt having a meeting with rep- resentatives from RV's United for Fair Play to determine what changes would be necessary to satisfy tile RVers, but since no meeting was scheduled, the Fair Plav members submitted their position in writing. This position offered nine alternatives, including tile estab- lishment of a self-governing com- nUttee to act oil complaints received by tile zoning depart- meat about RVs. If no solution could be enacted, the issue would be directed back tu the zoning department for action. The proposal submitted also included a survey of available RV storage spaces in San Diego; the statistics were alarming. There were more than 100,000 RVs of all types in San Diego (including boats), but at the time of the survey, there were only 85 avail- able spaces for civilians and 236 for military personnel. It was obvious that RV's United for Fair Play leaders had done their homework, but their efforts fell on deaf ears. Planning commissioners sent a recommen- dation to the city council that the code be maintained as written. More than 100 RVers artended the planning commission meeting when this decision was made, but not one of them was allowed to speak. As Slager later said, virtually everyone at city hall was against the RVers. Even the powerful San Diego Union Tribune, with a circu- lation of 400,000, took an anti-RV stand. In spite of this torrent of anti- RV sentiment, Slager and her forces rolled up their sleeves and turned their attention to the city council. In February 1992, armed with 6,400 address labels of Good Sam members in the city plus names on the roster of RV's United for hir Play, Slager and her committee mailed fliers to 15,000 RV owners in San Diego. Printing for the fliers was pro- vided free by two firms; the cost for postage and paper, which came to $1,160.49, came from the b. Said area is perpendicular to the public fight-of-way and between the sidewalk adjacent to the property and the building setback. c. No other on-site alternative placement options are available. d. Complies with Municipal Code section 101.0407(E)(3). 3. Maximum Driveway Width. No driveway or required off-street parking area shall exceed a width of twenty-five (25) feet within a required front or street side yard, or at any point between a property line and an established setback line. There shall be no less than thirty (30) feet within a required front or street side yard, or at any point between a property line and an established setback line. There shall be no less than thirty (30) feet, measured at the property line, between driveways serving the same premises. All driveways shall lead to a legal off-street parking area on the same l.~remiscs (and/or to legal parking on neighboring property, if per- mitted by variance, recorded map easement, or other approved mechanism) or shall provide for required parking per Municipal Code section 10L0407(E)(2). E OUTDOOR STORAGE AN D PLACEMENT Storage and placement of material and equipment outside a roofed, fully-enclosed, legally- installed structure is permitted as follows, subject to compliance with all applicable fire, health, safety., litter and building codes. ]. The type and quantity of stored and placed items must be clearly incidental to residen- tial use and enjoyment of the premises; those items, except as exempted below, are further pro- hibited from or restricted ~'ithin required yard and setback areas by the terms of Municipal Code section ~01.0609. 2. Unless otherwise noted in Municipal Code sections 101.0407(F)(4) and (F)(5), all stored or placed items shall be completely screened by legally installed and maintained solid fencing, walls, building, landscape features, or a combination thereof. No item shall exceed the height of the solid screening enclosure, except where City-wide screening requirements are stipulated for specific equipment elsewhere in this Code. 3. Not more than one (1) fully screened outdoor area may be used to store vehicle and/or other equipment parts and/or inoperable vehicles. Such storage may not exceed four hundred (400) square feet u~ area, may nnt intrude into any required yard and may not exceed 10'-0" in height except as prescrxbed in Municipal Code sections 10] .0407(F)(4), (5) and (6). 4. The tollowing items may be placed outdoors without screening: a. Any item listed in Municipal Code section 10L0609. b. Home maintenance or lawn maintenance equipment and supplies during actual use. The Development Services Director shall determine the necessity for extended placement when questions arise. c. Game, sport and leisure equipment designed and intended for on-site recreational enjoy- ment when such equipmeut is set up and immediately available for such use. d. Bicycles, tricycles, childrcn's wagons and other small non-motorized wheeled devices in worki'ng condition and used for recreational purposes either on-site or on neighboring streets or properties. A non-motorized wheeled device with any plane dimension of greater than twenty-four (24) square feet is subject to Municipal Code section 101.0407(1:)(5). The requirements set forth in this section only apply to parking areas that are located within a required front or side yard setback. To the greatest extent possible, the rear yard setback should be used f~r ve~icle or equipment parking/storage. Otherwise: 5. For lots developed with interior side yards of less than ten (10) feet, no access to the rear yard and no other on-s~te parking areas locaied outside of the front or side yard setbacks, one il) of the followin,g items may be stored outdoors in the required front or si'de yard setbacks subject to the requxrements ct~ntained in paragraphs a through c of this subsection 5: 1. Community. concen,~ regarding the recurnng on-street pax...,g of recreational vehicles and the lack of off-street parking provisions for such vehicles have been expressed periodically over the past fifteen vears. 2. Although the code does not expressly provide for paricing of "recreational vehicles" in single family lots, past and current Ci~' policy has been to treat them as any other vehicle which mav be parked on single-family lots. 3. Upon reviewing the pertinent sections of the code, staff is recommending'that the zoning code be amended to include explicit references to recreational vehicle parking provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Cit-v of West Covina, California. does ordain as follows: SECTION NO. 1: Based on evidence presented and findings set forth, Amendment No. 234 is hereby approved as consistent with the City's General Plan. SECTION NO. 2: Based on the evidence presented and the findings set forth, Chapter 26, Articles II and VIII are hereby amended to read as follows: ARTICLE If. DEFINITIONS Sec, 26-118. Vehicles, definitions relating to. (m) "Recreational Vehicle" means a vehicle. with or without motive power, capable of human habitation or camping purposes and/or used for sporting, recreation. or social activities including but not limited to trailers, semi-trailers, motor coaches, motor homes, fifth-wheels, campers, and camper shells, and camper trailers. ARTICLE VIII. RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONE/ONE FAMILY ZONE Sec. 26-391, Permitted uses. (h) Parking or storing of commercial vehicles or commercial equipment is prohibited. It shall be unlawful to park or store anv commercial vehicles, trailers or other related equip- ment on property which is zoned for residential uses. The provision of this subparagraph (h) shall not apply to commercial automobiles, pickups, panel delivery. trucks and station x~'agons, passenger or cargo vans. For purposes of this section, recreational vehicles are not considered commercial vehicles. (i) Parking or storing vehicles. Parking or storing vehicles including recreational vehicles is permitted in the Residential Agricultural and One Familv Zone on lots which are developed with a private single family residence subject to the following provisions: (1) Within the front yard, parking or storing of vehicles is permitted only upon paved areas. (2) Within the street side yard or interior side yard, vehicles must be screened from abutting streets and/or properties with a six-foot high masonry block wall, fence, or solid landscaping treatment. (3) Within the rear yard, vehicles cannot be located within five (5) feet of the rear property line and must be screened from abu. tting streets and/or properties with a six foot high masonry. block wall, fence, or solid landscaping treatment. (4) As used in this section, a "front" vard refers to all space between the main building ~also the projection of the main building to the side property lines) and the front property line. "Street side yard" and "interior side vard' refers to all space between the mare building ¢als6 the projection of the main building to the front and rear property lines) and the street side and interior side property lines, respectively. 27 CALIFORNIA, San Rafael The community of San Rafael determined that the city's 40- year-old zoning ordinance needed to be revised. After three- and-one-half vears of research, the new ordinance was unveiled, but there were those who were less than pleased with the section of the ordinance controlling RV parking in the city, an issue that the old ordinance did not address. In essence, RVs longer than 20 feet would be prohibited from parking on streets, in drive- ways or other parts of residential property.. Members of the Top of the Bay Good Sam chapter realized that it probably was a few careless RV owners who were responsible for such a restrictive clause in the zoning ordinance, and expressed their views before the city council. The Good Samers felt that these few cases should be handled individually rather than imposing the ordinance on all RVers. When the council members saw the large turnout of RV owners at the first hearing on the ordinance, they realized that the RV issue was by far the most cc troversial in the ordinance. A fe~ spoke against RVs on private property, but since the vast majority of those at the meeting were against the restrictions, council members determined the size restriction was not justi- fied and changed the ordinance before it was voted into law. Once again, showing up in a united group to protect their fights paid off for members of tt Good Sam Club. CALIFORNIA, Santa Clara When the community of Santa Clara, California, threatened to ban all RV parking in front of homes or in driveways, RVers expressed their opposition to the issue. Some agreed to serve on a committee to draft a compromise ordinance. Meanwhile, anti-RV forces threatened to put an initia- tive on the ballot opposing RV parking. However, the council must approve funding for initia- tives placed on the ballot. Before the issue reached that point, the compromise ordinance was presented to the city council. After the required hearings were held, the council approved an ordinance that most RVers find reasonable. Essentially, RV parking is permitted in front yard areas as long as the vehicle is perpendicular to the street and at least 45 percent of the yard remains in grass. Good 5amer Ed Borner said that even though it is a reasonably liberal ordinance, there is little effort to enforce it. ORDINANCE NO. 1634 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AMENDING ARTICLES 5, 6, 7, AND 41 OF "THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA" PERTAiNING TO MAIN I ENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND REGULATION OF PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARDS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, as follows: SECTION 1: That Article 5 ¢~f the "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Clara" is hereby amended to read as follows: Articie 5. Regulations for R1-8L Single-Family, Larger Lot Area Zoning Districts Sec. 5-11. Parking Requirements (05/92) (a) Each single family dwelling shall have two garage or carport parking spaces; these parking spaces shall be prohibited in required front yards or corner lot side yards. A minimum driveway length of twenty (20) feet shall be required between said parking and any street fight- of-way line. (b) Additional parking shall be permitted in required front yards or corner lot side yards, with motor vehicles, trailers, and boats parked in an orderly manner, generally perpendicular to the street. Such parking shall be prohibited in the 35 percent minimum landscaped area. Motor vehicles which do not comply with restrictions imposed by other sections of this Ordinance are prohibited. (c) Parking shall only be allowed on areas surfaced with all-weather materials such as concrete, asph.alt, brick, stone or gravel. (d) More information on prohibited activities in residential districts may be found in Article 41 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 7: Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final adoption and before its adoption it shall be published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Clara. PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION this 5th day of May, 1992. CALIFORNIA, West Covina In 1989, the city of West Covina, Califorma, was consid- enng an ordinance that would have removed RVs from city streets at all times. Good Samer Irving N. Rubenstein wrote to headquarters saying that while he kept his 35ofoot motorhome in storage, there were times when he needed to have it at his home for a iew davs to prepare for a trip. When the issue came before the citv council for a vote, the majority. of the council members voted for passage of the restric- :ve ordinance; it was to become .fective in February 1990. RVers went into action, writing letters and attending meetings to express their opposition to the ordinance. At that point, the council tabled the issue. Letters to the editor started appearing in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, including one that asked the council to leave RVers alone and address the real issues facing the city, like gangs, crime and the budget. Another addressed a claim by a Covina citv official that RVs parked in driveways make excellent hiding places for criminals who have just left the scene of a bur- glary. The author of the letter had been a Los Angeles police officer for 25 years who said he searched hundreds of RVs, "looking for that one burglar who was stupid enough to trap him/herself in one of these vehi- cles. Never found one." However, not all of the letters were in sympathy with RVers. One congratulated the council for their "sound judgment" on the RV issue in spite of the "rude and disruptive behavior displayed by a rowdy group." To resolve the problem, the council appointed a committee comprised of those on both sides of the issue. The resulting ordi- nance allows up to 72-hour street parking; if there is a special need to park longer, the RVer can apply for a permit. The ve~ also can still be parked on t- -' ment in front of a residence. RVers find the decision a reason- able one. ORDINANCE NO. 1855 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA. CALIFORNIA. AMENDING THE WEST COVINA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 26, ARTI- CLES 11 AND VIII. RELATING TO RECREATION VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL (RA) AND ONE FAMILY (R-I) ZONES. (Amendment No. 234) WHEREAS. at [~he recommendation of an Ad Hoc Citizen's Committee on the issue of over- sized and recreational vehicles. the City Council directed the Planning Commission to conduct a studv and prepare an apprc~priate draft ordinance providing for recreational vehicle storage within the City including consideration of procedures for allowing parking on single-family lots; and WHEREAS, t-he Planning C~ammission upon giving the required notice, did on the 20th day of June. 1990. conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered evidence presented by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission. and other interested parties at a duly advertised public hearing held on July 23, 1990; and WHEREAS. studies and investi,~ations made bv the Cil:v Council and in its behalf reveal the fol- lowing facts: Recreational vehicles, travel trailers, trailers, boats, all-terrain vehicles, camper shells, motorcycles and similar equipment, provided that the vehicle or equipment is maintained in an o~erebie condition. (An operahie. self-propelled vehicle may be parked in the same manner as any other operahie vehicle, pursuant to the San Diego Municipal Code Chapter ×, Article 1, Division 8.) a. A listed item shall be placed perpendicular to the front property line when the item is located within the required front yard setback. b. For equipment that is located within the required front or side yard setbacks, a three (3) foot high solid wall/fence or landscape material which shall reach a minimum height of three (3) feet within two (2) years of installation, shall be placed along interior property lines adjacent to the above listed item. c. The provisions of this subsection 5 shall not affect the validity, application or enforce- ment of any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or any other agreement relating parking and storage of any of the items listed in this subsection 5 if the CC&Rs or agreements are more restrictive that the provisions of this subsection 5. (AMENDED 7-25-94 BY 0-18088 N.S.) "Rear yard" refers to all space between the main building (also the proiection of the main building to the side property lines) and the rear property. line. (5) There shall be no overhang of the vehicle along adjacent public sidewalks and rights-of-way, and a forty-five degree diagonal comer cut-off shall be provided to allow clear vision of such sidewalks or rights-of-way for at least ten (10) feet along driveways. (6) Parking and stonng of vehicles shall be allowed only as an accessory, use which is incidental to the primary residential use of property. Sec. 26-402.5 Maximum front yard pavement coverage. (c) Administrative Review Board members appeal procedures, time limit and compliance requirements shall be as provided in sections 26-267 through 26-269 of this chapter. Through appropriate procedure to protect the interest of owners of property abutting the subiect property., the Administrative Review Board shall review and approve or deny the following: (1) A modification of the front yard pavement coverage to permit twelve (12) feet of new paving to be added to one side of a driveway or to any other location within the front yard in lieu of six (6) feet on either side of tt~e driveway providing it is perpen- dicular to the adiacent street and does not impact adjoining property. (2) Substitutions of paved materials for the added paved area if found to be substan- tially similar to the requirements of this article. (3) A modification to the front pavement coverage to permit a circular drive. SECTION NO. 3: It has been determined that this project, which consists of a minor amendment to land use requirements is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15305 (Clas. 5-minor alterations in land use limitations) of the Staie CEQA Guidelines and no Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration Of Environmental Impact is required. SECTION NO. 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of the Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of August, 1990. war chest. It was a gamble, but it was the committee's last chance eat the anti-RV ordinance. he flier encouraged RVers to bombard the mavor and council members with mail and, if pos- sible, to attend the city council meeting on March 17, 1992, when a decision would be made about the recommendation from the planning commission. Slager's goal was to see that the mayor and each council member received at least 1,000 letters of protest. As March 17 dawned, RV owners prepared to descend on citv hall for the city council meeting. The groundwork was laid. Each person attending the meeting was wearing an electric orange label with "RV's United for Fair Play" printed on it. Before each council member was cket of information from s United for Fair Play with an orange label on it. Before the meeting was under way, more than 900 RV owners jammed the council chambers and an auxiliary room equipped with a sound system to follow tile proceedings. Seven represen- tatives of the Fair Play committee spoke, each presenting different information on the subject of RV parking. The presentation had been carefully rehearsed and timed the night prior to the meeting. It didn't take council members long to realize that the RVers were well organized and determined to win. Councilman Ron Roberrs took the lead and made a motion that the existing ordinance be changed to meet most of the RVers' demands. All of the council members, including the mayor, agreed, and the RVers of San Diego knew that their efforts had paid off. The ordinance was sent back to the planning department for proper wording and was to be returned to the city council for a final vote on April 21. Needless to say, Slager and her troops attended the April 21 meeting to make certain that the ordinance was acceptable as written. The RVers had to give in on parallel parking in the front yard, but the required fencing or natural screening was reduced from a height of 10 feet to 3 feet. All in all, it-was a great victory. City council members who spoke with Slager said that it was the manner in which the RV owners were organized that swayed the council to take a very favorable stance on the issue. After spending $6,000 for many mailings and other expenses, RV's United for Fair Play had $2,400 that has been set aside for future problems. Meanwhile, Slager has become a driving force in other Southern California communities facing RV parking problems. Her fame is spreading, and others are turning to her for guidance and advice, which she wLLlingly provides. Her celebrity status has made significant changes in the quiet lifestyle this San Diego senior cit- izen once enjoyed. R-1 ZONES E. PARKING REGULATIONS ORDINANCE NUMBER 101.0407 1. Every premises shall be provided with a minimum of permanently maintained off-street parking spaces in a parking area or private garage on the same premises as follows: a. For each dwelling unit -- two spaces. b. For each two lodgers -- one space. 2. Off-street parking spaces shall be constructed, maintained and used in compliance with San Diego Municipal Code Chapter X, Article 1, Division 8, except that the required parking may be provided on a driveway or paved surface within the front or street side yard on premises wilere required parking was converted to habitable space prior to January 1, 1992, sub- ject to the following standards: a. Said area complies with the standards for required parking contained in Municipal Code section 101 .0813 u tilizin~ a maximum of five (5) feet of the undeveloped public right-of- wav. In no case shall the sidewalk be obstructed or encroached upon by a vehicle parked within said area. OHIO, Strongsville After storing an RV tm his property since 1977 and a boat in his side yard. Allen Clancv was not pleased when he learned that an anti-RV ordinance, passed in I978, was going to be enforced. The ordinance stated that RVs "may be permitted on a residen- tial lot, provided they are stored in an enclosed structure, except that boats and trailers of 18 feet or tess in length may be stored in a rear yard." When RV and boat owners protested, the city agreed to tem- ,-,qrarily suspend entorcelnen~ o[ ordinance. However, there .. ,~s strong opposition tel changing the restrictive ord i- nance bv the anti-RV forces m the commuffitv. For two years, the RVers con- tmued to negotiate with cuuncil members, but it had to be done .n an individual basis so the ses- sions would not be considered meetings. Eventually, the RVers had three council members on their side. In countering argu- ments from those who said they did not like to see RVs in their i~eighborhoods, Clancy said that he didn't like swing sets, above- tile-ground pools and other items that were considered proper. One councilwoman who was strongly Dpposed to RVs claimed that they were unsafe because of the propane tanks on them, but Clancv shot back by asking her if she had a propane-operated gas grill right next to her home. The councilwoman also mentioned the supply of gasoline in a motorhome, but he reminded her that the cars she kept on her property also had gasoline tanks. She finally admitted that Clancv had the answers to all of her anti- RV arguments, but she never turned in favor of the RVers. However, enough council members did realize that a strin- gent ordinance would put a hardship on RVers and drafted a new ordinance that is quite rea- sonable. But it was too late fi' ~' Clancy; during the negotiatk he sold his RV and his boat because he had been cited and could not locate adequate com- mercial storage near his residence. ORDINANCE NO. 1991 - 136 AN ORDIN-\XCI.'_ ,VM IZNDING SECTION 1252.26 OF CHAPTER 1252 OF TITLE SIX OF PART TWELVE. PLANNING AND ZONING CODE, OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STRONGSVILLE PERTAINING TO RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE, ..\S AMENDED. BE IT ORDAIN ED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STRONGSVILLE, COUNTY OF CLTYAHOGA AND STATE OF OHIO: Section l. That Section 1252.26 of Chapter 1252 of Title Six of Part Twelve, Planning and Zoning Code. of the Codified Ordinance of tile City of Strongsville be and hereby is amended to read in ~t5 entlretv as follows: 1252.26 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE. A. Detroitions. For the purpose of this section, words shall have the following meanings: 1. "Recrea tinhal vehicle" shall mean any vehicle or equipment designed for or pri- marily used as a travel traih.,r, c,mlper, motor home, tent trailer, camping trailer, boat, boat trailer. snowmobile or snowmobile trailer. 2. "Park" shall mcan to place a recreational vehicle for the purpose of convenient departtire trom ~,r return to the vehicle in connection with a planned trip, outing or vacation, mcludm,.z the prtlce,,~,c,- td l~,,~din~; or unloading tile vehicle and preparaticm of tile vehicle. l. No such recreational vehicle shall be parked or stored on a public or private street, alley, treelawn or sidewalk, except vehicles licensed for street travel may be parked on public or private streets during the hours and in the areas designated for automobiles as specified else- where in the Codified Ordinances, provided such vehicles are currently licensed. 2. No such recreational vehicle shall have fixed connections to electricity, water. gas, or sanitary sewer facilities, nor shall any such recreational vehicle at any time be used for living or housekeeping purposes on the zoning lot. 3. Any such recreational vehicle shall be kept in good repair and in working condi- tion, with current license plate, unless stored in a parking garage. Date passed: Nov, 4, 1991 Date apl:roved: Nov. 12, 1991 WE LOVE RVS COMMITTEE April 08 1998 Subjeet: RV parking rights talking points RV owner profile · Member of a billion dollar industry. · Recreatiowtourism key eiements(ie. Temeeula ballon/wine festival) *Encompasses all age groups (young families to senior citizens) * Appx 25% belong to one often national RVclubs((400 families belong to one club in Temecuia) * Participants to this life style are tax payers/voters/iaw abiders and generally good neighbors.accomodating where possible RV owner issues/concerns *Past lot size plans lacked proper clearance for side or rear yard access *Many have had concrete pads and side access ciriveways poured at great expense and where it was possible *Storage facilities are costly/un secure/inconvenient/unavailable 'Street parking for both cars and RVs not desireable nor safe and, because of state taw which requires posting on every block. unsightly diffcult to enforce and very expensive B,.t what are the options if property parking is restricted? *Perception that owaing~parking a RV decreases surrounding proper~most realtors say RVs in the neighborhood do nothing to decrease residences value and when a home has RV parking the value for that home is increased. Possible longterm solutions *Require new development to have a predetermined number of homes with side or rear .yard clearance for RVaccess *Modal' existing code to be more accomodating for fi'ont yard parking provided side/rear yard not available and safeW and health not cornpromised *Sanction a citizen comminee made up of both sides of this issue and a neutral moderator to make recommenctarions to the council "Property rights vs individual rights and home owner associations vs non associations are difficult issues which demand careful dialoque and no early rush to judgement to promote fairness and prevent any unwanted and costly litigation or an unwarranted reputation as an unfriendly to RVers city Working together we can make a difference Respectfully s/,mined- Mike Ramey ATTACHMENT NO. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MAY 6, 1998 R:~TAFFRP'B349PA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf 27 TO: FROM: CITY OF TF, M~CULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager DATE: May 6, 1998 SUBJECT: On-Site Storage of Vehicles in Residential Zones Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission: Receive the Staff Report and Provide Recommendations to the City Council Regarding Modifications to the Existing Development Code Regulations Pertaining to the On-Site Storage of Vehicles (to Include Recreational Vehicles) in Residential Zones BACKGROUND The Planning Commission was directed by the City Council, at the joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop on April 21, 1998, to consider the information and direction provided to them at that meeting and provide a recommendation (or recommendations) to the City Council regarding an Ordinance regulating the on-site storage of vehicles in residential zones. Staff has reviewed the comments and suggestions from that meeting and has summarized the issues below. ANALYSIS Issue: Current Development Code provisions allow for temporary on-site storage for a period not to exceed five (5) consecutive days. Option: Reduce the amount of time to two (2) days. Option: Allow these vehicles to be temporarily stored for two days utilizing a permit process. RASTAFFRP~VEHIC-RZ.pCI 4/29/98 mf · Issue: The definition of"vehicle" in the Development Code includes automobiles. Option: Remove automobiles and similar vehicles with a lesser "mass" which could be parked on the driveway. Issue: Requiring those who have adequate area in their side or rear yards for storing their vehicle to store their vehicle there. Option: Those who have adequate space be given a time period to meet this storage requirement. For those who did not have adequate space on the side or rear of the house, the option of a permit system was discussed. The permit could be issued for the particular vehicleJhouse and would require notifying the adjacent residents (i.e., within 300'). In addition, the vehicle would not be allowed to protrude into the right-of-way. · Issue: Storage of vehicles in areas where Home Owner's Associations (HOA's) do not exist. Option: Limited regulation ofnon-HOA areas with a grace or transition period prior to being these areas being subject to any new regulations. In addition, comments were received fi'om residents of large-lot residential development (¼ acre and larger) in terms of screening and on-site parking. It is their opinion that they should be able to have visitors on-site and that the screening required under the Development Code is more designed for tract houses. Staff concurs with this opinion and recommends the Commission consider language to address this issue. Staff will take the direction provided by the Commission and develop a draft ordinance for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration. Attachments: 1. Correspondence received - Blue Page 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 27 APRIL 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY/COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTN: MATTHEW R. FAGAN 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92589-9033 REGARDING: MEETINGS CONCERNING ORDINANCES FOR RV PARKING AND LOT USE BY PROPERTY OWNERS SCHEDULED MEETINGS: 28 APRIL AND 6 MAY 1998 IN THE ABOVE SCHEDULED MEETINGS, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THOSE LIVING IN TEMECULA, THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE ABOUT TO BE VIOLATED BY CHANGES IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCES LIMITING USE OF THE PROPERTY BY OWNERS AND PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND OTHER USES WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE OWNED PROPERTY. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE BEING CHANGED BY THOSE BIASED AGAINST RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, FORCING THEM TO PAY FOR STORAGE OF THEIR VEHICLES WHEN NOT IN USE. THOSE OF US WHO RESIDE ON ACREAGE TYPE PROPERTIES ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THIS TYPE OF LOT TO INSURE THE CAPABILITY OF HAVING ALL VEHICLES STORED ON SITE. THESE CHANGES WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE. HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY SINCE 1981, LONG BEFORE TEMECULA BECAME A CITY, IT IS APPARENT THAT MY RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER WILL BE VIOLATED BY THESE CHANGES. THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED IN 1995 ALSO VIOLATES PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHTS. MORE TIME AND STUDY SHeULD BE DONE PRIOR TO ADOPTING CHANGES, AND THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE WHO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND PARKING ON PRIVATE LOTS MIGHT WISH TO TALK WITH THE MORE THAN 5000 OWNERS OF RVs WHO CURRENTLY RESIDE IN TEMECULA. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL THESE PEOPLE NOTIFIED CHANGES BY OTHER THAN JUST NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. 39450 PALA VISTA DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92589-0325 OF THE PROPOSED Dr. and Mrs. Charles E. Isaac 41797 Cone Camara Temecula, CA 92592 April 24, 1998 Linda L. Fahey, Chairperson Planning Commission City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 APR 2 8 1991 Dear Chairperson Fahey: It has come to oar attention that Recreational Vehicles parking regulations are under discussion for changes. We wish to voice our concern. We live in the planned community of Vintage Hills. We live on a 10 house cul-de-sac. We pay for storage of oar 22 ~ travel trailer at a facility in Menifce. We do not have the option of on-site parking since it is prohibited by oar Home Owners Association. We believe we present no public safety hazard and do not impact the value of oar neighbor's property value when we occasionally park oar rig on the meet. It takes on average one hoar driving time each way to pick up and return oar trailer to storage. Most of oar usage is on weekend trips. We load Friday evenings and leave early Saturaday mornings. We usually return home late Sunday to unload, and then return the trailer to storage on Monday. We don't take that many trips normally daring the fall and winter, but summer is just around the corner. We look forward to being able to take some get away weekends We respectfully request that the City NOT adopt an ordiancc that would prohibit oar abilty to park overnight in fi-ont of oar own house for up to 72 hoars. If we should lose this parking priviledge; it would VIRTUALLY DENY ACCESS to use oar own trailer!!! We deeply appreciate your immediate consideration on this matter. Please feel flee to call us if you wish further information. We both work days, but usually someone is home by 4:30 p.m. Our home telephone number is 909-699-3923. Thank you. Sincerel , Charles E. Isaac, DDS ATTACHMENT NO. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 3, 1998 R:~TAFFRP'B349PP-97.PC4 6/24/98 mf 28 TO: FROM: C1TY OF TEMECUIA COMMIYN fly DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANlYInG DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning CommissiOn/ Debbie lYonos~,P~anning Manager O R l / ,,v,qL DATE: June 3, 1998 Planning Application No. PA97-0349 - Amendment to Sections of the City's Development Cede Pertaining to On-Site Storage of Vehicles (Including Recreational Vehicles) in Residential Zones Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADD. EI Resolution No. 98- recommending that the City Council approve a Resolution entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California, Amending Sections of the Temecuta Development Code Pertaining to On-Site Storage of Vehicles in Residential Zones" based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission was directed by the City Council, at the joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop on April 21, 1998, to consider the information and direction provided to them at that meeting and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding an Ordinance regulating the on-site storage of vehicles in residential zones. Staff' reviewed the comments and suggestions from that meeting and provided issues and options for the Commission at their meeting of May 6, 1998. The Commission reviewed the issues which were accompanied by potential options and received testimony from sixteen (16) residents at that meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission continued this item to their June 3, 1998 hearing and directed staff to bring back a draft Ordinance. ANALYSIS Staff has addressed and/or clarified the following issues based upon the direction provided by the Planning Commission: screening, paving number of vehicles per lot, definition of vehicle, camper shell and commercial trailers, setbacks and loading and unloading. Staff reviewed Section 17.24.020.D. of the Development Code, which addresses these issues, and has provided a revised R:~TAFFR.FI~49Pk07.1~3 5/27/91 mf 1 copy, which includes redlines for additions and strike outs for deletions, as Attachment No. 1 to this Report. Additional definitions, as needed for clarification have been referenced below. Grand fathering and additional staff resources will also be discussed below, Definition of Vehicle The Commission has requested clarification of the term "vehicle." Section 17.24.020.D. 1.g of the Development Code defines vehicles in the following manner: "Vehicles as used in this section shall include, but not be limited to, commercial vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi- trailers, motorcycles, mopeds, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment." Based upon the discussion of the Commission, automobiles, motorcycles and mopeds can be deleted from this list. Staff recommends this Section be modified to address those concerns and be expanded to include the following language: "...and other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width, that are detached from a motor vehicle." This Section, which staff recommends be relocated to Section 17.24.020.D. 1.a. would read: "The parIcing of vehicles in all residential districts shall be subject to the provisions listed below. "Vehicles" as used in this section shall include, but not be limited to, commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles as defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, house cars, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment and other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle." Camper Shells and Commercial Trailers The Commission stated that camper shells and commercial trailers should be included in the list of items which also need to be regulated on-site. These items are currently covered in the definition of "vehicle" which is contained in Section 17.24.020.D. of the Development Code (see above). Definition of ParMng and Storage There is no definition for parking or storage in the Development Cede; however, these terms are used in Section 17.24.020.D of the Development Code. Staff recommends the foliowing language be added to Section 17.24.020.D. 1 .d of the Development Cede: "Parking shall be defined as the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers. Storage shall be defined to mean to place or leave in a location for later use." Number of Vehicles Per Lot The Commission raised concerns regarding the overall number of vehicles which could be stored on a single parcel. These eoncems focused on safety, aesthetics and the ability to adequately screen all the vehicles on-site. It is recommended that Section 17.24.020.D. 1.m. be added to include the appropriate lanl~tage which will limit the overall number of vehicles stored on-site. The exact number of each type of vehicle, as well as the overall number of vehicles needs to'be prescribed by the Commission. Staff recommends that one or two vehicles per parcel is an appropriate place to begin this discussion. Setbacks The Commission stated that they would like the Ordinance to restrict parking of vehicles in the from of houses. The current language, contained in Section 17.24.020.D.l.d talks about side and rear "yards." The Assistant City Attorney has reviewed this matter and states: "The Development Code definition section defines a "required rear" or "required side yard" and "yard." The "required" type of yard is coincident and serves as a second way to define setback. He recommends a distinction between "required yard" and a new definition such as "actual yard" be added to Section 17.34 of the Development Code. He recommends that "actual yard" be defined as follows: "The area between the horizontal plane of the building plane and the property line." The following change would be required to Section 17.24.020.D. in order to achieve the Commission's goal to restrict permanent parking of vehicles in the front of the house: Add a new definition for "actual yard" to Section 17.34 of the Development Code to read as follows: "Actual Yard. The area between the horizontal plane of the building plane and the property line." Add the following sentence to Section 17.24.020.D.l.f.: '?qo permanem vehicle parking shall be allowed in the actual front yard." Screening The Commission had concerns regarding the adequacy of screening in areas of the City where there are large pareft subdivisions (~ acre or larger). Current Development Code provisions (Section 17.24.020.D. 1 .d) states: "Vehicles may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard; provided, that such area is screened from view from the street, public right-of-way and adjacent properties by a fence, wall, or equivalent screening material at least five feet in height." This minimum dimension serves to screen the bottom portion of the vehicles, which can ot~en exceed ten feet in height. To raise the minimum height requirement over six feet would result in requiring the screening materials to be engineered and risk greater obstruction of the views, etc. from adjacent lots. The Assistant City Attorney has noted in a memo: "As with any residemial area, such things as swing sets, patio covers, umbrellas, gazebos, and other such constructs protrude above the fence lines." It is his opinion that it is neither "possible nor desirable" to create full-height screening measures that would be appropriate in a residential area. Paving The Comafission directed staff to clarify the definition of "paving." According to Section 17.24.050.C of the Development Code: "All required parIcing spaces, recreational vehicle storage areas, material storage areas and associated driveways shall be paved in accordance with the design and construction specifications established by the city engineer." Based upon discussions with the Assistant City Engineer, this Section can be modified to read as follows: insert languageprovided from Deputy Director of Public Works Loading and Unloading Current Development Code provisions (Section 17.24.020.D. 1.f) state: 'T=xeept as provided in herein, vehicles parked within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the front yard, comer yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for temporary periods of time not to exceed five days." At previous meetings, the Commission discussed limiting this time period to two (2) days or forty-eight (48) hours. This would allow for temporary loading and unloading of the vehicles in the front yard setback area. The following language is recommended to achieve the Commission's recommendation: "Except as provided in herein, vehicles temporarily parked within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the actual from yard, comer side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or let~ standing for periods of time not to exceed two (2) consecutive days for loading, unloading and providing minor service to the vehicle." Other Minor Clean-Up Items to Section 17. 24. 020.D Staff reviewed Section 17.24.020.D. of the Development Code and determined that numbering was inaccurate. This has been rectified and the corrected Section 17.24.020.D. of the Development Code is included as Attachment No. 1 to this StaffReport. Grandfathering The Commission stated at the May 6, 1998 hearing that they were not in favor of grandlathering or allowing a grace period for vehicle owners which were existing prior to the adoption of the Development Code in January, 1995. The rationale for this determination is based on the fact that a majority of the residential developmems within the City are covered by CC&R's which prohibit the storage of certain types of vehicles, to include recreational vehicles, boats, commercial vehicles, trailers, etc. in the front yard setback area (i.e., driveway). Additional Staff Resources As stated in the Staff Report for the February 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, increased enforcement of Development Code provisions regulating on-site storage of vehicles would require additional staff resources. As stated above, enforcement of the Code was primarily driven by complaints received from residents. According to Code Enforcement staff, enforcement of this item required approximately 3040% of their staff hours and would require the same if they were to pro- actively enforce the Ordinance. lnorder to effectively enforce these regulations, one-halfofa Code Enforcement staff person would be required at the current time. The cost to the City (in 1998 dollars) would be $27,259.00 annually. This figure would likely be higher in future years. Other Municipal Code Regulations of Vehicles The Assistant City Attorney has recommended that staff review other sections of the City' s Municipal Code which have regulations pertaining to on-site storage of vehicles so that the proposed amendments to the Development Code will not create any internal inconsistencies. Staff will be reviewing the Municipal Code after adoption of the amendments to the Development Code and bringing back any clean-up amendments to the Commission for their review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff will be conducting the appropriate environmental review based upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. This will accompany the City Council Staff Report and will be subject to the noticing requirements of the California Environmemal Quality Act. FINDINGS Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities to implement such general plan as may be in effect in any sucb city. There is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health, safety and welfare The proposed Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. Attachments: Revisions to Section 17.24.020.D. - Blue Page 6 New Definition for Section 17.34 - Blue Page 11 Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 13 Exhibit A. Draft Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 16 Correspondence Received - Blue Page 22 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 A PORTION OF SECTION 17.24.020.D. OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR REVISION Off-STREET PARKING AND LOADING 17.24.040.D PARKING REQUIREMENTS Location of parking and Loading Facilities. Parldng--Residential Uses. The parking of vehicles in all residential districts shall be subject to the f~,ll,,-,iiii pro,,isions li~ed below. "Vehicles" as used in this .st~ion slmil include, but not be limited to, commercial vehicles. recreational vehicles as defined in Section 18010 of the California Plc~th and Safcxy Code, trucks, trailers, mmut ttucis, semi-trailers, hous~ can. campers, camper shells. boats or other large portable r~ereational and co.~.ercial exluipmm aml other non-motofized vehicles, r~!lardlees of let~h or width that are detached from a motor vehicle. The design guidelines and regulations for parking areas shall conform to the provisions herein of the development code. Vehicle parking shall be within the enclosed garage, carport or other required or authorized off-street paved parking area. All parking areas within public view from the street, public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be paved with a permanent paving material. Such area shall be maintained in a usable condition flee of potholes and broken soclions $~ffi~ent to prevent mud and/or dust, without accumulation of loose material or other deterioration. Vehicles may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard; provided, that such area is screened from view from the street, public right-of-way and adjacent properties by a fence, wall, or equivalem screening material at least five feet in height. Parking ahall I~ defined a~ the standing of a vehicl~ weather oo:upiod or not, othezwi~ than temporarily for th~ purpose of and while ace,,mj engaged h loadinS or unloading merchandi~ or pa.uengers. Storage shah be defined to mean m pIKe or leave in a location for Inter use. Vehicles parking within side and rear yard areas sh3/l be limited to five percent of the total lot area or five hundred square feet, whichever is greater. Except as provided in herein, vehicles ~~ within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the ~i!~Front Yard, comer side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for ternporto7 periods of time not to exceed ~v~ ~ii~ consecutive days losling, unlosdin~ and providln~ minor service m tl~ vehicle. vehicle parking shall be allowed in the Actual Front Y nrd. "Vchitcs" as usod in this section shall hicludc, but not bc lh,fited to, Orn.,~.r. UAal vdicl~, all~.,obil~, h~c.k~, h~lc,~, ,.~o~ t~cks, .,~o, cycles, toopods, c~,,pcts, c~,,pcr shdls, boats or ~hcr l~8e portable R:~TAFFRPTO49pA97.PCI ~/27/98 mf 7 No commercial vehicles which exceeds a gross weight of one and one-half tons, or exceeds a width of eighty inches or exceeds height of seven feet or exceeds a length of twenty-five feet; shall be parked on any portion of a residential lot unless: It is actively involved in making pickups and deliveries; In connection with, and in aid to, the performance of a service to, or on, the property where the vehicle is parked, while actively involved in such activity; or In conformance with the conditions of approval for a valid home occupation permit as provided in Section 17.04.030 of the development code. No private, noncommercial vehicle which exceeds a gross weight of one and one-half tons, or exceeds a width of eighty inches, or exceeds a height of seven feet or exceeds a length of twenty-five feet; and no trailer, semitrailer, boat or portable recreational equipment shall be parked or stored within the fi'ont yard, corner side yard or side yard abutting a street unless: It is not a commercial vehicle and is parked for a temporary period of time not to exceed twenty-four hours; It is involved in loading or unloading activity; and It is parked in compliance with any other applicable city ordinance. Guest Parking Spaces. Required guest padcing spaces in residential areas shall be designated as such with signage and restricted to the use by guests. Violation of any provision of this subsection shah be punishable as an infi'action. In addition to the residential parking requirements, one off-street perking space shall be provided for each guest room of a bed and breakfast. Tandem perking shall be permitted. Guest parking shah not be permitted in required setback areas. A magnum of 1 or 2 vehicles may be parked or stored on a parcel of land at any one time. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard. Only the parking and storage of recreational vehicles in proximity to residential users shall be permitted on lots of .5 acres or more unless part of a mast~ planned development, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. All storage activities shall be screen from public view by a combination of block or masomy wall, berming, dense landscaping or building mass. Retail or wholesale activity, commercial dismantling, repair or storage wrecking activities or the storage of junk or salvage materials or dismantled parts are not permitted. Vehicles and Equipment Repair ~i!Storage of Vl~niclcs and Equipment under l~alr. The following provisions shall apply to any vehicle as delitu~d above, m~or fo6ie~tiotlal ,d~clc, ~,,~, ealnl. a h-;ler, hailer, .atnom~ted co~.pct, trait,, coach, moto,t,yd~, boat or s;,,~l~ ~o,t.cy~,~.,~ in all residential districts, and to all sites in any other district used for residential occupancy: Servicing, repairing, assembling, disassembling, wrecking, modifying, restoring, or otherwise working on any of the above conveyances shall be prohibited unless conducted within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the sn~-t and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. Storing, placing or parking any of the above conveyances, or any part thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed, unregisterad, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating part is removed, shall be prohibited unless conducted with a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall or equivalent screening. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (D)(3)(a) and (b) of this section, emergency or minor repairs and short-term or temporary parking of any of the above conveyances when owned by a person residing on the lot, may be conducted for an agg'egate period of up to twenty-four hours in any continuous period of forty-eight hours exclusive of the screening requirements. For the purpose of this section, reference to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. Parking--Nonresidential Uses. Required parking for nonresidential uses shall be located: a. On the same lot or parcel of land as the use which the facilities serve; or On an adjoining lot or parcel of land under the same ownership as the lot supporting the use the parking facilities serve; or On a lot or parcel of land separated only by an alley (twenty feet wide or less) from the lot or parcel rappotting the use the parking facilities serve, provided: I. The lots or parcels are under the same ownership, and The lots or parcels would be contiguous if not separated by the alley, and The direct vehicular and pedestrian passage between the lots or parcels would be possible if the alley were vacated, and The parIcing is located not more than three hundred feet from the use it is intended to serve. d. Parking attendant structures shall be limited to thirty square feet in floor area. On a nonadjacent lot on the same block as the lot supporting the use the parking facilities serve; provided, that the nonadjacent lot is under the same ownership. Same ownership includes property that is subject to a binding recorded lease for not less than ten years from commencement of use. The parking spaces leased must not be required for, or available to, any other property and be within a maximum of three hundred feet from the property requiring the parking. Loading All Uses. Required loading facilities shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land as the use served. R:XSTAFFRlriX149PA,qT.PCil ~27t~1 mf ATTACHMENT NO. 2 NEW DEFINITIONS FOR SECTION 17.34 OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE R:X3TAFFRPI~49pA~7.PC3 S/27/~gmf l 1 "Actual Yard" means the area between the horizontal plane of the building plane and the property R:~TAFFRirI'649pA,~7.PCB 5r27/91 mf 12 A'I'fACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:~STAFI;RP'B349PA97.PC$ ~'27~ mf 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMlVHSSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0349, AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE TEMECLrLA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO ON-SITE STORAGE IN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES Wltl~,EAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; WHEREAS, on January 2.5, 1995, the City of Temecula City Council adopted the City' s Development Code; WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the Development Code; ~, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WltF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0349, on June 3, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; Wtli~REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and m°cer due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval Planning Application No. PA97-0349; NOW, TItF~REFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ltF~REBy RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: "AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO ON-SITE STORAGE IN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN ~ FORM AIrrACltED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A. R:~TAFFRPT, MgpA97.PC3 5f27/~ mf 14 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of June, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~TAFYRPrO49PA97.PC3 5t27/9! mf ] 5 EXIIIBIT A DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. R:X,qTAFFRFF~49pk97.PC3 ~27/9t mf l ~ EXs~BIT A ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEM]gCULA, C~,I.11~ORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS OF ~ TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO ON- SITE STORAGE IN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Eiadiaga. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities to implement such general plan as may be in effect in any such city; B. That there is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and C, ordinances. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local Section 2. Section 17.24.020.D. 1 through 17.24.020.D.6 of the Development Code is mended to read as follows: D. Location of parking and Loading Facilities. 1. Parking--Residential Uses. The parking of vehicles in all residential districts shall be subject to the provisions listed below. "Vehicles" as used in this section shall include, but not be limited to, commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles as defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, semi-trailers, house cars, campers, camper shells, boats or other large portable recreational and commercial equipment and other non-motorized vehicles, regardless of length or width that are detached from a motor vehicle. a. The design guidelines and regulations for parking areas shall conform to the provisions herein of the development code. b. Vehicle parking shall be within the enclosed garage, carport or other required or authorized off-street paved parking area. c. All parking areas within public view from the street, public fight-of-way or adjacent properties shall be paved with a permanent paving material. Such area shall be maintained in a usable condition free of potholes and broken sections sufficient to prevent mud and/or dust, without accumulation of loose material or other deterioration. R:~'TAFFRPTO49pA~7.PCI 5~27/~ mf 17 d. Vehicles may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard; provided, that such area is screened from view from the greet, public right-of-way and adjacent properties by a fence, wall, or equivalent screening material at least five feet in height. Parking shall be defined as the standing of a vehicle, weather occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers. Storage shall be defined to mean to place or leave in a location for later use. e. Vehicles parking within side and rear yard areas shall be limited to five percem of the total lot area or five hundred square feet, whichever is greater. f. Except as provided in herein, vehicles temporarily parked within public view in required or authorized parking areas within the Actual Front Yard, comer side yard or side yard abutting a street shall be parked or left standing for periods of time not to exceed two (2) consecutive days for Ionring, unloading and providing minor service to the vehicle. No permanent vehicle parking shall be allowed in the Actual Front Yard. g. No commercial vehicles which exceeds a gross weight of one and one-hi tons, or exceeds a width of eighty inches or exceeds height of seven feet or exceeds a length of twenty-five feet; shall be parked on any portion of a residential lot unless: i. It is actively involved in making pickups and deliveries; ii. In connection with, and in aid to, the performance of a service to, or on, the property where the vehicle is parked, while actively involved in such activity; or iii. In conformance with the conditions of approval for a valid home occupation permit as provided in Section 17.04.030 of the development code. h. No private, noncommemial vehicle which exceeds a gross weight of one and one-half tons, or exceeds a width of eighty inches, or exceeds a height of seven feet or exceeds a length of twenty-five feet; and no trailer, semitrailer, boat or portable recreational equipment shall be parked or stored within the front yard, coreer side yard or side yard abutting a street unless: i. It is not a commercial vehicle and is parked for a temporary period of time not to exceed twenty-four hours; ii. It is involved in loading or unloading activity; and iii. It is parked in compliance with any other applicable city ordinance. i. Guest Parking Spaces. Required guest parking spaces in residential areas shall be designated as such with signage and restricted to the use by guests. Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an infi'action. k. In addition to the residential paxicing requirements, one off-meet parking space shall be provided for each guest room of a bed and breakfast. Tandem parking shall be permitted. Guest parking shall not be permitted in required setback areas. any one time. Amaximum of l or 2 vehicles may be parked or stored on a parcel offand at 2. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard. Only the parking and storage of recreational vehicles in proximity to residential users shall be permitted on lots of .5 acres or more unless pan of a master planned development, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. a. All storage activities shall be screen from public view by a combination of block or masonry wall, bernring, dense landscaping or building mass. b. Retail or wholesale activity, commercial dismantling, repair or storage wrecking activities or the storage of junk or salvage materials or dismantled pans are not permitted. 3. Vehicles and Equipment gepak and Storage of Vehicles and Equipmere under Repair. The following provisions shall apply to any vehicle as defined above, in all residential districts, and to all sites in any other district used for residential occupancy: a. Servicing, repairing, assembling, disassembling, wrecking, modifying, restoring or othenvise working on any of the above conveyances shall be prohibited unless conducted within a garage or accessory building or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. b. Storing placing or parking any of the above conveyances, or any pan thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed, tinregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating pan is removed, shall be prohibited unless conducted with a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall or equivalent screening. c. Notwithstanding the provisions ofsubsections (D×3Xa) and (b) of this section, emergency or minor repairs and short-term or temporary parking of any of the above conveyances when owned by a person residing on the lot, may be conducted for an aggregate period of up to twenty-four hours in any continuous period of forty-eight hours exclusive of the screening requirements. d. For the purpose of this section, reference to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. located: Parking--Nonresidential Uses. Required parking for nonresidential uses shah be a. On the same lot or parcel of land as the use which the facilities serve; or R:x~TAFFRFF~49p.~7.P~3 5/27/9l mf 19 b. On an adjoining lot or parcel of land under the same ownership as the lot supporting the use the parking facilities serve; or c. On a lot or parcel of land separated only by an alley (twenty feet wide or less) from the lot or parcel supporting the use the parking facilities serve, provided: i. The lots or parcels are under the same ownership, and The lots or parcels would be contiguous if not separated by the alley, and iii. The direct vehicular and pedesU'ian passage between the lots or parcels would be possible if the alley were vacated, and it is intended to serve. The parking is located not more than three hundred feet from the use d. Parking attendant structures shall be limited to thirty square feet in floor area. e. On a nonadjacent lot on the same block as the lot supporting the use the parking facilities serve; provided, that the nonadjacent lot is under the same ownership. Same ownership includes property that is subject to a binding recorded lease for not less than ten years from commencement of use. The parking spaces leased must not be required for, or available to, any other property and be within a maximum of three hundred feet from the property requiring the parking. 6. Loading All Uses. Required loading facilities shall be located on the same lot or parcel of land as the use served. Section 3. Section 17.34. of the Development Code is amended to include the following: "Actual Yard" means the area between the horizontal plane of the building plane and the property line." Section 4. Severability,. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining pans of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shah certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shah publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. R:~STAFFRF/X349pA97.PC3 5/'27~98 mf 20 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of ,199__. Ron Roberrs, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting ofthe City Council on the dayof ,199_~andthatthereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk Ie',$T.AHlI.PT~gPA97m ~'~7/gl~ 21 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED R:~fAFF'RFl~49pA97.PC3 ~27/9gm/ 22 May 20, 1998 Dear City Planner Matthew Fagan, I am writing you in regards to the controversial subject of RV parking on my own properly. When our family moved to Temecula in 1987, my wife and I looked specifically for a development with NO HOAs. From past experience we found HOAs to be very restrictive and manipulative by those who sat on the Board. Now it seems as though the City is considering a measure that will dictate what I can and can't park in my own driveway! We don't think this is right. Mot everyone can afford a custom home with multiple car or custom garages for storage of their RVs. Storage parks aren't the answer for everyone. First and foremost there is the cost for storage. In most cases, minimal cost is minimal security. I know of people whose property has been burglarized or vandalized. So for more security you must pay more! Which also brings up the question of whether Temecula can meet the need for a sudden increase of storage of RVs. I think not! In turn, rates would climb because of supply and demand. I know in some cases there needs to be some restrictions. For instance, RVs that are so large, that when parked in a driveway, they block the sidewalk. But consider the individual with a ski boat or tent trailer, which are usually smaller than a Suburban or full-sized pickup truck. Most of these can be parked in a driveway, without blocking the sidewalk or a persons view. For instance, our tent trailers' height is lower than our car. I agree with the restrictions on parking RVs on the City streets. But please consider that not everyone has the option of storage to the sides of their homes or can afford paying storage fees. 5o in closing, I know your intentions are good. But I ask you to consider, when making your decision, of possible exceptions for size or type of RV to be parked in the driveway. Thank you. J~hn and Karen Conaway /f~ 31221 Comotilo Court Temecula, CA 92592 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 3, 1997 R:~STAFFRP33349pA97.pC4 6/24/98 mf 29 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 3, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:05 P.M., on Monday, November 3, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman Fahey. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hogan, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION.' Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE As per written material of record, no additional information. PUBLIC HFARING ITEMS 3. PLANNING APPLICATION NO, PA97-0349 Repeal Section 17.24.020(D)(1)(f) of the City's Development Code pertaining to Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage in residential areas. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended that this matter be continued to the meeting of December 1, 1997. Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners and attending audience that staff has been directed by the City Council to readdress this item. In light of this direc-live, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the prepared information (as per staff report) might possibly be amended and, therefore, a continuance is being recommended. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. A letter of concern (of record) was submitted to the Planning Commission by Mr. Jack Leathers (42623 Remora Street). The following individuals spoke with regard to the proposed repeal of Section 17.24.020(D)(1 )(f) of the City's Development Code (storage of recreational vehicles (RV) in residential areas): Ms. Betty Condren Ms. Marcia Watkins Mr. Frank Geyer Mr. Bill Gray Mr. Jim Porter Mr. Jack Leathers Mr. Melvin Marks 40741 Calle Katerine 30152 Villa Alturas 40466 Chauncey Way 40414 Yardley Court 40221 Tuolomne Court 42623 Remora Street 32121 Corte Carmona The above-mentioned individuals expressed concern with regard to the parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas, noting the following impacts it has on the neighborhood: overall undesirable appearance of the neighborhood detrimental to the value of the neighboring properties public safety - boats/RVs impeding the sidewalks, creating a safety concern for the children as well as to those individuals backing out of their driveways increased public street parking because the boats/RVS are parked in the driveways undesirable view from the neighboring residents who do not park boats/RVs in their driveways It was noted by the concerned residents that a higher penalty should be imposed on those individuals not abiding by the Ordinance and that the enforcement of such an Ordinance should be the responsibility of the City rather than individual Homeowners Associations. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 There being no additional input at this time, the public hearing was left open and the following motion was offered: MOTION.' Commissioner Miller moved to continue Planning Application PA97-0349 to the December 1, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Prior to the December 1, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Guerriero requested that staff obtain additional input from the Police Department with regard to the enforcement of such an Ordinance. 4. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0319 Amendment to Ordinance No. 81-26 pertaining to advertising regulations and establishing regulations for the use of ambient air balloons and other similar inflatables. RECOMMENDATION It was recommended by staff that the Planning Commission approve the request. Because of his involvement with the Temecula Art, Balloon, and Wine Festival Association, Commissioner Guerriero abstained with regard to this issue. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that the proposed amendments would clarify the display period, number of allowable signs, and required spacing between the ambient air balloons. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. There was no input from the public. MOTION; Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 97- __ recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 91- 26, Section 19.8, Subsection C.4 and C.5, pertaining to advertising regulations for the use of temporary ambient air balloons based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the excel~tion of Commissioner Guerriero who ~. 5. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0300 Tentative Parcel Map and Environmental Initial Assessment to allow the subdivision of 21.79 acres into 68 residential lots ranging from 6,414 square feet to 29,000 square feet. ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 RECOMMENDATION it is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. Advising that she lives in Meadow View, which borders the common area of discussion, Chairwoman Fahey noted that she would be abstaining with regard to this issue and, therefore, departed the meeting. Because his client is the owner of the property of discussion, Commission Miller also noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this issue and removed himself from the dais. Acting Chairwoman Slaven presided over the meeting. Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff report (as per written material of record). Mr. Don Lohr, representing the applicant, requested that Condition No. 4 (the developer shall form a Homeowners' Association to maintain all slopes that are visible from Margarita Road, N. General Kearny Road, and Solana Way, and all downward slopes that are not easily visible to property owners) be clarified to define the downward- sloped lots which will be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association -- Lots 1-11, 30- 35, and 38, noting that all other slopes will be the responsibility of the individual property owner. Mr. Lohr further clarified that any downward slopes along Margarita Road would be included in Condition No. 4 as well as parkway landscaping and open space areas and advised that fencing would be installed at the top of each lot with downward slopes. In response to Commissioner Soltysiak, Mr. Lohr elaborated on the proposed sewer system for the subject site, with Principal Engineer Paks advising that staff is working with Eastern Municipal Water District on this issue but that no final alignment of the sewer line has been determined. For maintenance purposes, Mr. Lohr noted that the slopes will be accessible by way of Margarita Road as well as from a street along the easterly side of the property and that a 10' path will be constructed along the toe of the entire slope. For Commissioner Guerriero, Principal Engineer Parks provided clarification with regard to the wording of Condition No. 22 (public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards), advising that the City's Capital Improvement Project includes full improvement of Margarita Road including the raised landscaped median and that if the City's project were to commence prior to the start of the project of discussion, the developer would not be required to complete this improvement. If this project were completed prior to the completion of the City's improvement project, the developer must comply with Condition No. 22. Assistant Planner Anders noted that Condition Nos. 4, 5, and 57 should be rephrased as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 No. 4 - the developer shall form a Homeowners' Association to maintain all downward slopes on lots 111, 30-38, and landscape parkways along Margarita Road; No. 5 - the developer shall provide easements on the Final Map that will allow access to lots 1-11, 30-38 and the landscaped parkways on Margarita Road for maintenance by the Homeowners' Association; No. 57 - Lots 1-11, 30-38, parkway landscaping and open space areas shall be maintained by an established Homeowners' Association. Mr. Paul Gonzales, 41820 Marwood Circle, relayed his concerns as to how this development may directly impact his property (41820 Marwood Circle as well as Lot 4 undeveloped parcel attached to 41820 Marwood Circle) as well as property values. In response to Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Lohr advised that because Lot 4 has two frontage sides and, therefore, could not be landlocked by the proposed development; that mailing labels were provided to the City; that the minimum sized lot would be approximately 7,200 square feet with an average of approximately 9,000 square feet; that the proposed development should have a positive impact on the neighboring property values; and that actual home size and sale prices of the proposed development have not been established. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Principal Engineer Parks advised that as this project progresses, staff will address the potential impacts the slope along the Long Canyon may have on the channel characteristics and that staff will investigate the possibility of constructing a gate to preclude access into the canyon area located between the subject site and one other development. For Mr. Gonzales, Principal Engineer Parks commented on measures which would be undertaken to ensure dust control as a result of grading and advised that construction hours will be implemented. MOTION.' Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA No.97-0300; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA No. 97-0300; to approve Resolution No. 97- , based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, and to amend Condition Nos. 4, 5, and 57 (as noted on page 5). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Fahey and Miller who ~. At this time, Commissioner Miller returned to the dais. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT None. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1997 pIANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None. ADJOURNMENT At 7:00 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Monday, November 17, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. / ~Linda Fahey, C Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ATTACHMENT N0.11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 2,1998 R:L~TAFFRFI~349PA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf 30 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:03 P.M., on Monday, February 2, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, and Chairwoman Fahey (arrived at 6:06 P.M.). Absent: Commissioner Soltysiak. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Cudey, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Fagan, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. Because Chairwoman Fahey had not yet arrived, Vice Chairwoman Slaven presided over the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS NoRe. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey had not yet arrived and Commissioner Soltysiak absent), 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 6. 1997, and January 5. 1998 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved for the approval of the October 6, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey had not yet arrived and Commissioner Soltysiak absent). Ternecula Plannine Commission Fetuary 2. 1998 It was noted that the use of administrative citations is viewed as a conservative measure and that voluntary Compliance would thoroughly be exhausted pdor to pursuing the issuance of citations because of the associated costs. With regard to temporary on-site storage of recreational vehicles, Commissioner Miller suggested that the applicable Section be reduced from five consecutive days to three consecutive days in order to coincide with the Vehicle Code. In order to propedy address this situation and in light of the City's continual growth, Commissioner Slaven recommended the hidrig of an additional Code Enforcement Officer. Because the language in the older and established CC&Rs does not properly define recreational vehicles, Ms. Slaven relayed her opposition to requiring a Homeowners Association to resolve this issue. As per speaker cards, Chairwoman Fahey, at this time, welcomed public input from the following individuals: Marie Dunn 30156 La Pdmavera (did not speak; concerns were addressed during Commission discussion.) Marcia Watkins 30152 Villa Alturas Robed Fischer 30166 Villa AIturas Frank Geyer 40466 Chauncey Way Bill Gray 40414 Yardley Coud Betty Condren 40741 Calle Katerine Jim Poder 40221 Tuolomne Coud - did not speak; (did not speak; concerns were addressed during Commission discussion.) Jack Leathers 42623 Remora Street Derald Hansen 30398 Seneia Place John Dedovesh 39450 Long Ridge Ddve - did not speak; (did not speak; concerns were addressed during Commission discussion.) Dwaine Lewis 40461 Calle Medusa Joanne Phillips 30361 Tradewater Coud - did not speak; (did not speak; concems were addressed during Commission discussion.) Leo LeBlanc 44041 Quiet Meadow Road Zillah Rodgets 32124 Code Carmona Melvin Merks 32121 Code Carmona - did not speak (did not speak; concerns were addressed during Commission discussion.) Paul Knowles 40769 Calle Katerine (submitted pictures reflecting his concems.) The above-mentioned individuals noted the following issues/concerns with regard to the storage of recreational vehicles: individuals should be permitted a cedain amount of on-street parking time for RVs to accommodate for visitors, loading, unloading, etc.; safety concerns - vehicles blocking the sidewalk, driveway, and as well -obstructing street visibility; individuals should utilize a storage facility; current enforcement needs to be enhanced; Temecula Plannine Commission February 2. 1998 Although the Southside Specific Plan has not been completed, Senior Planner Hogan advised that the preliminary stages of this Plan seem to indicate that the area south of Sundse Market will be zoned Highway/Tourist. In light of her existing concern with the compatibility of surTounding properties in the area of discussion, Chairwoman Fahey, echoed by Commissioners Guerdero and Slaven, expressed concern with the proposed request and how it may further impact an already existing compatibility issue. Viewing a color rendering of the proposal, Commissioner Slaven noted that once the upcoming improvements to the interchange have been completed, the area of discussion will serve as a main entrance into Old Town and, therefore, further relayed her objection to the proposal because of the compatibility issue. 7. PI ANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Senior Planner Hogan advised that staff is requesting that this item be continued to the March 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to continue PA97-0237 to the March 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Soltysiak absent). PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN} Planning Commission consideration for the design, construction, and operation of a 8,684 square foot restaurant with associated parking and landscaping on 1.51 acres. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0398; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0398; and adopt Resolution No. 98-002. RESOLUTION NO. 98-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 8,684 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH TWO OUTDOOR PATIOS OF 1,185 SQUARE FEET WITH ASSOCIATED PARK!NG, LANDSCAPING, AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON A 1.51 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND YNEZ ROADS KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 944-330-011. 5 Temecula Plannina Commission Fet~v~rv 2. 1998 By way of a rendering, Principal Engineer Parks described the peak hour volumes, circulation, improvements, turning movements, and the widening and upcoming improvements to Ynez Road, noting the following: that a traffic signal on the east side of Ynez Road will be installed in conjunction with the other raquirad improvements; that access will be limited at Rancho Highland Ddve to right in/right out/ left in; that a lighted intersection at Rancho Highland Drive would not be feasible nor practical considering its close proximity to Rancho California Road. Although this project is not the culprit of the existing traffic problems at the Rancho California/Ynez Roads intersection, Commissioner Slaven noted that the applicant should not be hindered by this already existing problem. Ms. Slaven reiterated her concem with the existing traffic condition and commented on the volume of individuals that to travel through this particular intersection. in response to Commissioner Slaven's concern, Principal Engineer Parks noted that the project will contribute less than 5% increase to existing traffic volumes at the Ynez/Rancho California Roads intersection. Advising that improvements are being made to accommodate the City's current growth, he stated that the proposed project has been conditioned to pay a frontage fee for half of the raised median on Ynez Road and to complete the sidewalk along Ynez Road prior to occupancy. In the event the required improvements were not completed prior to the opening of the restaurant, Mr. Parks, for Chairwoman Fahey, advised that the project would not have a significant impact on the intersection compared to the existing condition and that it would not change the existing level of service. Commissioner Slaven reiterated her concern that the proposed project would further worsen an already congested intersection. In response to Commissioner Slaven, Commissioner Gueniero noted that once Rancho Highland Ddve improvements are completed, a substantial amount of the traffic associated with turning movements would be eliminated. Since the proposed project will have a maximum impact of 3.9% on the intersection, Commissioner Miller stated that the existing traffic problems are not applicable to the proposed request. Although she spoke in support of the architectural design, Chairwoman Fahey noted that it will not be compatible with the hotel and encouraged the use of adequate landscaping to further minimize the transition between the two structures. Assistant Planner Anders advised that the applicant has worked with the City's contracted landscaping architect to ensure an appropriate landscaping transition between the two structures. In light of the fungus problem associated with the California Sycamore tree, Commissioner Slaven encouraged the applicant to utilize another tree. Temecu~a Planhen Commission Februaw 2. 1998 PLANNING MANAGER'S RFPORT In light of Commissioner Soltysiak's absence, it was the consensus of the Commission to defer discussion with regard to changing the Planning Commission's meeting date. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION A. Commissioner Guerdero requested that a joint meeting with the City Council be scheduled. B. Commissioner Guerdem commended Commissioner Slaven on her representation of the City and the Planning Commission at a recent Planning Commissioners' Workshop. C. Commissioner Miller requested that staff address the number of posted flags located at the Texaco Station on Front Street. ADJOURNMENT At 8:14 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned this meeting to Monday, February 23, 1998. at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula. Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ATTACHMENT NO. 12 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 21, 1998 R:~;TAFFRPT'G49pA97.pC4 6/24/98 mf 3 ] MINUTE OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1998 CALl TO ORDER A joint meeting of the City of Temecula City Council and PLanning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Parl~ Drive, Temecula. ROLL C~IL PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: ASSENT: Councilmembers: Councilmember: Commissioners: Commissioner: Comerchero, Undemens, Stone, and Ford. RobeRe. Guerriero, Miller, Soltysiak, and Sisyen. Fahey. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS None. CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Review of the City's Built Environment 1.1 Receive the staff report and provide direction. Community Development Director Thornhill presented the staff report (as per written material of record). Focusing primarily on the commercial/industrial components, Mr. Thornhill noted that the City's Design Guidelines were adopted approximately one year ago; that these Guidelines have been invaluable in guiding the developers; and that these Guidelines do not include elements such as color and materials. By way of overheads, Mr. Thornhill reviewed numerous projects which were constructed within the last two years. With regard to architectural design, Commissioner Slaven relayed her opposition to the continued use of the two square towers and relayed her support to de-emphasize the use of corporate colors, noting that corporate colors are not always appropriate for a Center. Minutea~042198 1 Commissioner Guerriero requested that the Planning Commission be given the opportunity to provide input at an earlier stage with regard to the internal traffic flow of a project. Mr. Guerriero as well relayed his desire for more landscaped medians. Concurring with the installation of more landscaped medians, Community Development Director Thornhill advised that the City may not condition · developer to install landscaped medians. Echoing Commiseloner Guerriero's comment, Councilman Stone requested that the Council be given more lead time with regard to the installation of landscaped medians in order to permit ample time for communication necessary with various agencies to ensure The accomplishment of such installations. Impressed with the diversity of the industrial enter, Councilman Stone commended the Ranning Commission on a job well done as wall as staff for their diligent efforts associated with working with the developers in order to obtain additional and/or more mature landscaping for the City. Mayor Pro Tem Ford requested that a policy be set, requiring a project to receive parallel review from the Ranning Commission as well as the Traffic/Public Safety Commission to ensure that traffic issues are properly addressed. in response to this request, Community Development Director Thornhill noted that such additional review will add processing time to the applicant and relayed some difficulty with accomplishing this task especially for the industrial buildings which are generally fast tracked. In response to Commissioner Miller's concern relative to overall City traffic problems, Councilman Stone advised that the effects have not yet come to fruition but that problems have been identified and that solutions are in place. Mr. Stone briefly reviewed upcoming traffic measures which will go into effect in an effort to mitigate some of these concerns. Echoing Commissioner Miller's concern relative to City-wide traffic, Commissioner Slaven questioned how the Commission could address the cumulative traffic impact while reviewing a project. Shadng those concerns noted with regard to City-wide traffic, Councilman Comerchero noted that the concerns have been identified; that a plan has been implemented to alleviate the concerns; and that the results of this plan should be effective within a year or two. In response to Councilman Lindemans, City Manager Bradley advised that by law, the City's Capital Improvement Program Workshop must be reviewed, each year, by the Planning Commission prior to it being reviewed by the City Council. With regard to inviting the Planning Commissioners to the upcoming Capital Improvement Program Workshop, City Manager Bradley suggested that this invite be extended as well to the Traffic/Public Safety Commissioners. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Senior Ranner Hogan advised that after the completion of a recently City Council-approvecl Traffic Study, reconsideration of the City's Circulation Element will be forthcoming. Mayor Pro Tern Ford requested that copies of the City Council Workshop minutes of February 21, 1998, and March 14, 1998, be forwarded to the Planning Commissioners. In order to further enhance communications between the Council and the Commission. Councilman Stone suggested the scheduling of more joint City Council/P~anning Commission meeting. At b%ia time, ~he following moron was offwed by Councilman Lindemens: MOTION: Councilman Lindemans moved to discuss Agend8 Item No. 3 out of order. The motion wee seconded by Councilmen Comerchero end voice vote of ~ose present reflected unanimous approval (Mayor Robarts absent). 3. Storage of Recreational Vehicles in Residential Zones RECOMMENDATION Receive the staff report and provide direction. Community Development Director Thornhill briefly introduced the Item. Associate Ranner Fagan proceeded with a detailed overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: that the term 'vehicles" in the Development Code as it relates to recreational vehicles pertains to commercial vehicles, automobiles, trucks, trailers, motor trucks, motorcycles, mopads, campers, camper shells, boats or other large recreational and commercial equipment; that the California Vehicle Code limits on-street parking to 72 hours; that the City's existing RV storage facilities does not accommodate the current need; that if s permit process were approved, e sticker would be issued to the vehicle; that a change in vehicle would require the owner to reapply for a new permit; that vehicles are not permitted to park in the right-of-way; that since the adoption of the existing Ordinance in January 25, 1995 (prohibiting long-term perking/storage of recreational vehicles in front yards of residential zone), the Ordinance was not enforced to the fulleat extent bemuse of the lack personnel to enforce the Development Code considering the magnitude of the infraction. Mr. Fagan briefly reviewed the Code provisions enforced in the City of Fullerton and noted that staff had reviewed several Code provisions from other cities. City Attorney Thorson advised that CC&Ra bind each individual homeowner within the tract to abide by certain rules and those rules also have enforcement provisions which are then enforced by the Homeowners Association and that ordinances are adopted by the City end enforced by the City, noting that whichever regulation is more stringent will be enforced by the City or the Homeowners Association. With regard to entry monument signs posting parking requirements/restrictions throughout the City, City Manager Bradley, for Mayor Pro Tern Ford, noted that other cities have installed such signs and that the courts have upheld those cities' enforcement of those parking requirements. City Attorney Thorson advised that the California Vehicle Code preempta all City regulations of Vehicle Code matters and parking issues, noting that the only time a City may regulate vehicle and/or parking issues is when it is under direct authority from the Vehicle Code. Although the Vehicle Code permits the parking of vehicles on City streets up to but not to exceed 72 hours, Mr. Thorson stated that other provisions of the Vehicle Code permit restricting parking during specific time periods (2:00 A.M. to 4:00 A.M., 2-hour parking, 24- minute parking, etc.). Because parking on streets would be a Police Department issue, City Manager Bradley advised that Code Enforcement does not regulate cars/vehicles parked on City streets. At 9:21 P.M., a recess was called with Mayor Pro Tam Ford reconvening the meeting at 9:31 P.M. Mr. Don Rohrebacher, 44281 Floras Drive, encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance. Advising that when he purchased his home, Mr. Ed Sterling, 40466 Chauncey Way, noted that the realtor had advised him that no RVs would be permitted unless a special ddveway would be built. Mr. Sterling noted that the presence of RVs negatively impacts the property in two ways - property devaluation and safety. Mr. James Horn, 31467 Sonoma Lane, past owner of a RV, noted that no new laws are necessary and encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing rules and regulations. Voicing his concern relative to on-street RV parking, Mr. Carmine Latrscchie, 31533 Corte Pacheso, encouraged the Homeowners to enforce the existing CC&Rs. Mr. George Marshall, 31880 Corte Poeires, suggested the implementation of s no parking or restricting perking to two*hours policy. In light of the growth in this City, Mr. Marshall encouraged the City to address this matter now. Mr. Keyin Smith, 31265 Enfield Avenue, owner of a boat, relayed his concurrence with the 72-hour prohibition of on-street parking and relayed his support of an individual being able to park a licensed vehicle in the driveway and/or paved surface. Mr. Melvin Marks, 32121 Corte Carmona, commented on how on-street RV parking negatively impacts property values. Ms. Ziliah Rodgera, 32124 Corte Caroms, encouraged the City to enforce the existing Ordinance. Viewing the aesthetic appearance of RVs as unsightly, Ms. Anna Bale, 29901 Corte Castille, relayed her opposition to on-street RV parking and encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing laws. Being of the opinion that garages should be used, Mr. Bill Gray, 4044 Yardlay Court, encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance. Community Development Director Thornhill advised that the existing Ordinance which governs the parking of vehicles on private property was adopted January 25, 1995, noting that prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, the CC&Rs governed such action. Mr. Don Berg, 41511 Riesling Court, encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance but noted that driveway RV parking should be permitted as long as the sidewalk is not obstructed and no line-of-sight problems are created. In light of the City's concern with regard to the aesthetic appearance of the business/commercial areas (as per Agenda Item No. 1), Ms. Betty Condren, 40741 Calle Katerine, requested that the same concern be extended to the residential neighborhoods. By way of a photograph, Ms. Condren relayed her concern with a camper, parked in a driveway, obstructing her view. She encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance and advised that she lives in a neighborhood which does not have a Homeowners Association. In an effort to retain the City's current standards, Mr. Paul Knowlea, 40769 Calla Katerine, relayed his opposition to a permit system and encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance. Mlnute~O42198 5 21.1998 Mr. Chades Hanldey, 31745 Via Cordoz·, ·n RV owner, relayed his opposition to RV on- street parking because of the potential safety concern and because of ·esthetic ·ppearance. He noted that RV· should be parked out of · neighborhood and should be properly screened. In deference to his neighbors, Mr. Frank Gay·r, 40466 Chauncey Way, RV owner, informed the Councils·tubers that he stores his RV ·t m facility. Because hie neighborhood does not have a ham·owners association, he encouraged the Council to enforce the existing Ordinance to ensure such on-street parking will not decrease neighboring property values. Encouraging the City Council to express the I·me ·esthetic concern for residenti·l neighborhoods as it does for business/commercial areas, Ms. Particle Hall, 27483 Lark Court, relayed her opposition to on-street RV parking as well as RVs perking in driveways and, therefore, encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance. Mr. Dwaine Lewis, 40461 Calle Medusa, advised that the current allowable time frame for a RV to park in the driveway (5 days) is in excess and recommended that this period be decreased to 24 hours. Ms. Frances Brent, 31448 Corte Montiel, relayed her opposition to on-street RV parking; noted that additional RV storage facilities should be made available throughout the City; and encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance prior to this problem further impacting neighborhood property values. Mr. Tom Harpstar, 4055 New Town Drive, informed the Councilmembers that his particular neighborhood does not have s homeowners association; concurred with the comment that on-street parking could create · safety; recommended that the City Council enforce the existing Ordinance and that those homeowners associations with CC&Rs be assisted in ensuring that those CC&Rs are properly enforced. Mr. Mike Ramey, 40583 Windsor Road, advised that he resides in a neighborhood which does not have a ham·owners association; relayed his support of a driveway permit process in the event the RVs cannot be parked in the side yard or backyard; and concurred that RVs should not be parked on local streets because of safety concerns. Mr. Arlin Samera, 40563 New Town Drive, RV owner, advised th·t he parks his RV in the driveway because he is unable to store his RV in the beckyard or the side yard of his house. Mr. Jim Duff·y, 40449 Chauncey Way, encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance. Mr. Don Gravett, 30258 Mira Loma Drive, noted that homeowner associations should be forced to enforce the CC&Rs end requested that the City not impose a restriction which would further impact the local streets with RV parking because the homeowners associations will not be able to resolve the matter. Minutee~O42198 a Opposing on-street RV parking as well as an individual living in a RV, Mr. Hector Mendoze, 30071 Calla Cerrenzs, noted that s resident should be able to store · RV on his/her own property. Ms. Cecilia Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre Drive, noted that, in her opinion, RVs obstruct residential views; that in the event of limited space, RVe should not be permitted to perk in tract home areas; and that RV perking decreases the neighborhoods' property values. Because the existing Ordinance is not consistent with the existing CC&Rs, Mr. Bill Brown, 30959 Del Ray Road, suggested that the existing Ordinance be removed for those areas where CC&RI are in existence and that in Ordinance be adopted for those areas with no CC&Rs. He recommended that the current five-day RV driveway parking allowance be reduced. Mr. Derald Hensen, 20398 Sensis Race, concurred with the City's aesthetic requirements for the business/commercial areas and noted that residential neighborhoods deserve the same aesthetic requirements. Mr. Keith Caddy, 40571 New Town Drive, a RV owner, advised that his RV is parked off- street as well as off the driveway. Mr. Caddy relayed no concern with the existing Ordinance; noted that a restriction such as no parking between the hours of 2:00 A.M. to 4:00 A.M. may pose a problem for visitors; and stated that if s resident is unable to park his RV in the backyard or side yard, he should be able to park the RV, in a safe manner, in the driveway. Encouraging the City Council to readdress the City's Development Code, Mr. Ed Mourles, 27595 Dandelion Court, a RV owner, advised that he was required to construct a paved surface under his RV. Mr. Cad Ross, 43886 Butternut Drive, encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance and noted that the City should aid the homeowners associations in implementing the CC&Rs. By way of photographs, Mr. David Micheah, 30300 Churchill Court, spoke in support of a visitor permit process and noted that RVs should either be propedy screened or stored at a parking facility. Mr. Paul Jacobs, 32370 Corte Zamora, encouraged the City Council to enforce the existing Ordinance and voiced no objection to RV visitor parking. Mr. Bill Bolsom, Meadowview, relayed his support of a permit process. Referencing a parking prohibition enforced in the City of Mission Viejo, Councilman Stone spoke in support of e restriction which would prohibit any vehicle in excess of 20' to 25' from parking during the hours of 2:00 A.M. to 4:00 A.M. MireJtes~042198 7 Further deifying the Ordinance imposed in the City of Mission Viejo, City Attorney Thorson advised that it prohibits, on City streets, parking of vehicles which exceed a particular length and width with no hour restriction. Speaking in support of such an Ordinance, Councilman Stone suggested that such an Ordinance include the prohibition of perking unattached trailers on City streets at any time. BeMuse the City's current storage facilities could not possibly meet the existing demand, Councilman Stone informed the Councilmembers of a City which leases property and then provide a storage facility to its residents at a lower cost, noting that he would further explore this matter. Because those individuals who purchased homes in a homeowners association area were aware of the rules, Councilman Stone encouraged those homeowners associations to enforce the CC&Ra or to hire a management company which could accomplish this task. For the benefit of the homeowners associations, Mr. STone suggested the scheduling of a workshop at which City Attorney Thorson could provide information with regard to enforcement to the association. For those individuals who purposely purchased homes in a non-homeowner association area, Councilman Stone stated that the existing Ordinance should be amended to include the following: no RVs should protrude into the right-of-way; RVs must be operahie; if space were available to park a RV in the rear or side yard, the owner should be required to park it there; no one should be permitted to live in a RV; no permit process. Concurring with Councilman Stone's comments, Councilman Lindemane stated that the City should enforce the Ordinance previously adopted; encouraged the City Council to first resolve the on-street parking problem. relaying his support of the Ordinance adopted in Mission Viejo; voiced his objection to a permit process with the exception to those individuals who are unable to parking a RV in the rear or side yard; and noted that the existing Development Code should be readdressed. Mayor Pro Tern Ford noted that the Development Code of 1995 was not properly enforced because it did not meet the true needs. Advising that on-site and street parking are two separate issues, City Attorney Thorson noted that any prohibition of street parking would require the adoption of an Ordinance which would go into effect 30 days after its second reading, prohibiting the parking of vehicles in excess of a particular size. Councilman Stone requested that such an Ordinance include the prohibition of unattached trailers of any size. Minutes%04219a 8 MOTION: Councilman Stone, seconded by Councilman Comerchero, moved that the City Attorney draft an Ordinance and en Urgency Ordinance which would prohibit the parking of vehicles of a particular size including unattached trailers of any size end that this Ordinance be addressed at the April 28, 1998, City Council meeting. Voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval with the exceDtion of Mayor Roberts who was absent. When the Planning Commition reviewed this matter, Commissioner Slavart informed the Councilmembers that the Commission did not consider whether or not a neighborhood was represented by a homeowners association, Because homeowners associations, in her opinion, do not have the power to resolve difficult issues such ms this one, Commissioner Sisyen stated that it should be the City's responsibility to resolve this issue. Having managed homeowners associations, Ms. Sisyen advised that there are associations which prohibit the storage of RVs even though the residential lots are large enough to accommodate such 8 vehicle. Community Development Director Thornhill noted that the existing Ordinance permits five days of driveway parking for visitors, loading, and unloading. With regard to visitor parking, Commissioner Miller informed the Councilmembers that the Commission had recommended that this length of time be decreased to two days. Mr. Miller stated that he would support a temporaW permit process and could favor extending visitor parking to three days. For those lots which are small, have no side yard, and the RV does not protrude into the right-of-way area, Councilman Lindemans suggested that the City grandfather such cases until the City would be able to provide low-cost RV parking. With regard to the telephonic permit process, City Manager Bradley advised that several cities utilize such a process, noting that a RV owner would be entitled to so many per year and that this process would be at no cost to the resident, MOTION: Councilman Undemans moved to impose a telephonic permit process whereby the resident must notify the City's Police Department with the license number of the visiting RV; that the permit be limited to three days and not to exceed four times a year; that the permit may be renewable once with a six-day maximum at a time; and that the permit would run with the residence. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval with the exceotion of Mayor Robarts who was absent. For Commissioner Sisvan, Community Development Director Thornhill advised that the City has an existing Code which addresses inoperable vehicles stored in the driveway to which City Attorney Thorson as well noted that inoperable vehicles within public view are governed by the Vehicle Code. Minutee~0421SS g MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved that the City Attorney prepare an Ordinance, which is to be reviewed by the Ranning Commission at a public hearing and subsequently reviewed by the City Council, eraending Section 17,24.020D){1 )(f) of the City's Development Code by reducing the temporary parking periods from five days to two days with the exclusion of automobiles and including all recreational vehicles end that this Ordinance should as well include a funding mechanism to ensure proper Code enforcement. Mayor Pro Tam Ford seconded the motion, (This motion warn ultimetdy mapweeded by · mabmitute moeon.) Reiterating his previous comment, Councilman Undemans noted that if the RV does not protrude into the right-of-way, if no other storing options are available on the property, and if the resident has stored the vehicle on his property for years, these circumstances should be grandfathered in until the City is able to provide low-cost storage facilities. Mr. Lindemans suggested a six-month transition period. Commissioner Guerriero suggested that the possibility of grandfsthering be explored by the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Thornhill suggested that this matter be discussed with one Councilmember, one Commissioner, and staff; that after review, the matter be forwarded to the Planning Commission st its May 6, 1998, meeting for review; and that after review, the matter be forwarded to the City Council for final review. For those areas with homeowners' associations, Councilman Stone noted that the associations should govern whether or not parking should be allowed on driveways. In response to Councilman Stone, Police Chief LaBahn noted that incidents have occurred throughout the City where the parking of a RV on City streets has created a safety concern. Councilman Comerchero concurred that those residents in a non-homeowners associations should be given a transition period. Commissioner Slaven concurred that the Planning Commission could address these issues at the May 6, 1998, Planning Commission meeting for review and then forward a draft Ordinance to the City Council for review and consideration. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilman Stone moved that staff provide bullet points of this meeting to the Pinning Commission so that the Commission would be able to make a recommendation to the City Council for final review and action. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval with the exceotion of Mayor Robarts who was absent, Ivi nutee%042198 10 AT dtis tim. 1he City Council returned to regular Agenda Order m discuu Item No. 2. 2. Temnnp,,y Sign I:nforp-ment Program 2.1 Authorize s proactive TemporaW Sign Enforcement Program. In light of the time, the following motion was offered: MORON: Councilman Lindemans moved to continue this Agenda Item. The motion was seconded by Councilman Stone and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Mayor Roberrs absent). CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None. ADJOURNMENT At 12:34 A.M., Mayor Pro Tern Ford formally adjourned the City Council meeting to Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 7:00 P.M. Ron Roberrs, Mayor ATTEST: C ATTACHMENT NO. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1998 R:~TAFFRP'B349PA97.PC4 6/24/98 mf 32 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 6, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:09 P.M., on Wednesday, May 6, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Soltysiak, and Acting Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Senior Planner Hogan, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Curley, Associate Planner Fagan Project Planner De Gange, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS Because she has observed that garbage bins are not being properly stored behind gates and out of public view, Ms. Anna Bale, 29901 Corte Castille, requested that an ordinance be established to address the placement of garbage bins. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APProval of Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Planning APPliCatiOn NO. PA97-0447 (Develol~ment Ran) - Long Machine Shod Request to construct a 14, 367 square foot industrial building on 1.32 acre site. DRAFT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by Staff that the Planning Commission approve the request as conditioned. Project Planner De Gange presented the staff report (as per agenda material), noting that the applicant will comply with the performance standards of the Design Guidelines as outlined in the Development Code; that although the on-site employee patio area would not be completely screened from Winchester Road, the existing 20' to 25' landscaped slope area will negate any view concern; that an access doorway will be located along the west elevation; and that a color rendering was only available for the west elevation of the building. Ms. Vicki Long, applicant, confirmed that the Fire Department has requested the installation of an access doorway along the west elevation which will exit onto the sidewalk, noting that the revised landscaping plan will reflect the required sidewalk; that the employee patio area will have a water feature but that it has not yet been designed; that the building color will be tan; and that because the building will be sandblasted colored concrete, no paint will be used on the building with the exception of on the doors and framework. Ms. Long briefly provided clarification with regard to the use of glass on the building as well as the use of spandrel panels. Prior to approving this request, Commissioner Guerriero relayed his desire to receive additional information with regard to the elevations, the water feature, the landscaping, the visibility of the patio area from Winchester Road, the proposed colors, and employee accessibility. Confirming that the landscaping plan will be amended to reflect the required sidewalk, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the proposed site plan will not be amended. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the project including the recently proposed changes; noted that the west elevation rendering accurately reflects the proposed color of the building; and referenced Exhibit G (color and material board) as per Condition No. 8. In an effort to resolve the Commissioners concerns with regard to color, materials, and elevation, Planning Manager Ubnoske suggested that the applicant be requested to submit additional elevation renderings to which the Commissioners could respond at a later date. Commissioner Guerriero spoke in support of Ms. Ubnoske's suggestion to request the applicant to submit additional elevation renderings. Commissioner Miller voiced no objection to the proposed project. In light of the discussion with staff and the applicant and in light of the submitted color rendering, Acting Chairwoman Slaven relayed no concern with the proposed project. Concurring with Acting Chairwoman Slaven's previous comments, Commissioner Soltysiak noted that the he would not be desirous of delaying this project only to obtain additional elevation renderings. 2 DRAFT MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public; to adopt the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA97-0447; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0447; to add a Condition of Approval requiring the submittal of a revised landscaping plan which will reflect the required access door (as per the Fire Department) on the west elevation; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-013 as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0447 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 14,367 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE BUILDING, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.32 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND COLT COURT (27450 COLE COURT) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-310-070 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who voted n_0.. Development Code Regulations of on-site storage of vehicles {to include recreational vehicles) in residential zones RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that the Planning Commission receive the staff report and provide recommendations to the City Council regarding modifications to the existing Development Code Regulations pertaining to the On-Site Storage of Vehicles (to include recreational vehicles) in residential zones. Associate Planner Fagan presented the staff report as well as correspondence received from the public, clarifying that the City's existing Code permits the storage of any vehicle within the rear/sideyard setbacks as long as the vehicle is screened by a five foot fence. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that prior to the adoption of the existing Code (1995), the City adhered to County Ordinance No. 348 which did not include recreational vehicle regulations. Because the Code, the Business Professions Code, and the Health Code do not address the issue of blight, Commissioner Guerriero noted that the Ranning Commission should address this issue. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's comment, Commissioner Miller noted that he would not associate blight with the issue of discussion. In response to.Acting Chairwoman Slaven, Attorney Curley reviewed the Commission's role as an advisory body to the City Council. He clarified that the City does not enforce CC&Rs, noting that if certain homeowner association standards are stricter than the City's policy, those DRAFT homeowner associations may elect to enforce those standards. If the standards were looser than the City's standards, the standards of the City would go into effect. With regard to the issue of blight, Attorney Curley advised that issues such as blight, maintenance, design, abandoned vehicles, etc. are issues which are currently defined under Nuisance. At this time, Acting Chairwoman Slaven opened the public hearing. By way of pictures, the following individuals, several of which are RV owners, spoke in support of the CitV's existing Ordinance with regard to on-site storage of vehicles; encouraged the Commission to recommend to the City Council that this Ordinance be enforced; and requested that the existing Ordinance be strengthened to ensure proper enforcement: Frank Geyer Jim Porter John Lynch Patricia Hall Bill Gray Jack Leathers Charles Hankely Don Rohrabacher Anna Bale Paul Knowles Dwaine Lewis Larry Markham 40466 Chauncey Way 40221 Tuolomne Court 32237 Placer Belair 27483 Lark Court 40414 Yardley Court 42623 Remora Street 31745 Via Cordoba 44281 Flores Drive 29901 Corte Castille 40469 Calle Katerine 40461 Calle Medusa 30105 Cabrillo Avenue Additional suggestions which were raised by the above-mentioned individuals were as follows: that no RV parking be permitted between the hours of 2:00 A.M. to 4:00 A.M. that the'issue of tractor parking, camper shell storage (those not attached to a truck), and disrepair be addressed in the Ordinance, During the public hearing, the following individuals relayed their opposition to the existing Ordinance, noting that this issue should either be addressed by the homeowner associations or the City's existing Nuisance Ordinance; that licensed vehicles in good repair should be permined to park in the driveway as long as there is no imposition on the public right-of-way; that a parking permit process be instituted, at a nominal fee, to accommodate those individuals unable to park their RVs in the side or rear yard setbacks; and that a time period for loading/unloading be considered: Kevin Smith Ed EIder Mike Ramey Ed Mowles 31265 Enfield Lane 42775 San Julian Place 40583 Windsor Road 27595 Dandelion Court At 8:27 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:36 P.M. DRAFT Providing clarification with regard to the definitions of yard and setback, Attorney Curley noted that the current Ordinance requires the screening of RVs parked in the setback area with a fence no less than five feet in height. in light of the testimony received, Commissioner Soltysiak stated that, in his opinion, the on- site storage of RVs in tract home developments would not be compatible in light of the setback requirements. With regard to on-site storage of RVs on large acreage lots, Commissioner Soltysiak noted that proper screening would become an issue. in of light of previous testimony as well as testimony received this evening, Commissioner Guerriero relayed his opposition of permitting RV parking in the front yard and recommended that the existing Ordinance be enforced and strengthened and that specific clarification be provided with regard to setbacks, screening, paved area, and camper shells. He noted his opposition to a grand fathering policy; spoke in support of granting a loading/unloading time period; and relayed his support of hiring an additional Code Enforcement Officer to ensure proper enforcement of the Ordinance. Speaking in support of the existing Ordinance, Acting Chairwoman Slaven addressed the public health and safety issues associated with this matter; stated that the existing Ordinance should be strengthened to ensure proper enforcement; and concurred that specific definitions with regard to setbacks, screening, pavement, etc. should be clarified to ensure the Ordinance can be properly enforced. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to renew the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council to enforce the Ordinance as written and to direct the Attorney and staff to clarify specific definitions, as previously mentioned, in the Ordinance to ensure proper enforcement and to resubmit the Ordinance with the clarified definitions to the Planning Commission for final review at the June 3, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske briefly reviewed and provided information with regard to a request from Temeku Advertising to amend the earlier proposed and approved building elevations, noting that staff has no objection to the proposed request. Senior Planner Hogan highlighted the previously approved structure and reviewed the proposed elevation changes, noting that the previously approved square footage of the building has not been amended. Following extensive Commission discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that such a request should be resubmitted to the Planning Department and, therefore, denied the applicant's request. DRAFT COMMISSIONER REPORTS In response to Commissioner Miller, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that the Planning Commission reviews structures in excess of 10,000 square feet and that housing tract elevations are considered at Planning Director Hearings, not at the Planning Commission level. Expressing a concern with the River Walk Development, Commissioner Miller requested that the Planning Commission be given the opportunity to consider product review to which Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that product review is normally reviewed at Planning Director Hearings and that adding product review to the Commission level would add substantial time to the process but that she would discuss it with Community Development Director Thornhill. Ms. Ubnoske noted that the Commissioners may forward any concerns to staff and that these concerns would be considered during the review of the design guidelines. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the Ralph's project is proceeding and that the conditioned signal light will be constructed at the originally proposed location. ADJOURNMENT At 9:36 P.M., Acting Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, May 20, 1998, at 6:00 P.M. Marcia Slaven, Acting Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ATTACHMENT NO. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1998 R:~STAFFR/q~49P~97.PCA 6/24/98 rnf 33 SUBMITTING UNDER SEPARATE COVER ITEM #10 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 1, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0205 (Pre-Zoning and Annexation) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0205 (Pre-Zoning and Annexation); RECOMMEND the City Council Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98- 0205 (Pre-Zoning and Annexation); and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0205 (Pre-Zoning) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula REPRESENTATIVE: N/A PROPOSAL: The pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 1,995 acres which is comprised of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217) and Vail Ranch (Specific Plan No. 223) Specific Plan Areas from unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula. LOCATION: Generally located within the City's southern Sphere of Influence (known as Vail Ranch Specific Plan and Redhawk Specific Plan), south of SR79 South, east of Murdy Ranch (east of Pala Road), north and west of Anza Road. EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan No. 217 (Redhawk) and Specific Plan No. 223 (Vail Ranch). R:',STAFFRPTX205PAgg.PCI 6F24/98 klb SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: City - Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Area County- Pechanga Indian Reservation City - Murdy Ranch Specific Plan Area County - Pechanga Indian Reservation, A-1- 10, A-1-20; City - NC (Neighborhood Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: Specific Plan No. SP-9 (Redhawk) and Specific Plan No. SP-IO (Vail Ranch). GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Multiple: (HTC - Highway Tourist Commercial), (BP - Business Park), (OS- Open Space/Recreation), (NC - Neighborhood Commercial), (L - Low Density Residential), (LM Low-Medium Density Residential), (M Medium Density Residential), (H - High Density. EXISTING LAND USE: Single-family residential, commercial, golf-course, parks and vacant. SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Lucky's commercial center, vacant/under construction single-family residential homes (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan) Vacant Vacant, dispersed low density single-family residential housing Vail Ranch Commercial Center, single-family residential housing, vacant PROJECT STATISTICS The land use break downs for the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans are in the following table: Acres Total Dwelling Units Single-Family Residential [Detached] [acres/units) Single-Family Residential [Attached] [acres/units) Multi-Family Residential (acres/units) Parks (acres) Schools [acres) Redhawk Specific Plan 1275 4188 533 (2222 units) 120 (667 units) 121 (1299 units) 46 32 (3 Schools) Vail Ranch Specific Plan 720 2431 245 (1234 units) 127 (673 units) 32 (524 units) 102.1 30 (2 Schools) TOTAL 1995 6619 778 (3456 units) 247 (1340 units) 153 (1823 units) 148.1 62 (5 Schools) R:\STAFFRPTX205PA98.PC16/24/98 klb 2 Commercial (acres) Major Streets (acres) Open Space{acres) · Golf Course {acres) DENSITY Redhawk Vail Ranch Specific Plan Specific Plan 28 126 63 48 149 11.5 183 3.3 3.4 TOTAL 154 111 161 183 Source: Redhawk Specific Ran, Vail Ranch Specific Plan BACKGROUND In January of 1997, 121 residents within the Redhawk area submitted a petition to the City requesting that the City consider annexing their area. On June 10, 1997 the City Council instructed staff to study the feasibility of annexing the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas by conducting a fiscal impact analysis and a survey of the residents in the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plan areas to determine if the residents are in favor of annexation. On October, 7, 1997 staff presented the results of the survey and informed the City Council that additional information was required to complete the fiscal impact analysis. On April 28, 1998, following the presentation of the results of the fiscal impact analysis to the City Council, staff was instructed to proceed with annexation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This proposal involves the pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 1,995 acres which is comprised of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217) and Vail Ranch (Specific Plan No. 223) Specific Plan Areas. The City is proposing to pre-zone the territory with Specific Plan zoning, and utilizing the zoning which has been established by each of the specific plans. The proposed annexation will reorganize the City of Temecula's jurisdictional boundary to include unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the City's incorporated limits. ANALYSES The proposed actions to be taken by the Planning Commission and City Council are the first step in the annexation process. Following this first step, which involves the City Council's approval of a Negative Declaration for the project, and the adoption of the Resolution initiating the Commencement of Proceedings and the Ordinance pre-zoning the territory; an application will be made and a hearing will be held by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). If approved by LAFCO, the City Council as the Conducting Authority, will hold a public hearing to evaluate any protests from the residents or property owners in the annexation area. The annexation will become final only with the successful election of special rates and charges for park, slope and median maintenance and refuse collection by 2/3's of the registered voters within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch area who vote in the election. R:\STAFFRPT~205PA98.PC1 6124/98 klb 3 The proposed annexation is a logical extension of the existing City limits and is entirely contained within the City's Sphere of Influence. This annexation will not create any islands or pockets of unincorporated territory. The City is required to pre-zone the site prior to submitting an application for annexation to LAFCO. The proposed zoning is consistent with the zoning which currently exists in the County and what has been designated by the City's General Plan. Zoning on the property would take effect once the annexation is finaled. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The City of Temecula has placed a number of General Plan Land Use designations on the territory contained in the annexation area. These designations directly correspond to the zoning designations contained within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans and include the following: High (H), Medium (M), Low Medium (LM), Low (L), Very Low (VL) density residential; Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Business Park (BP), Open Space (OS), and Public/Institutional (P}. The zoning for the site as it currently exists in the County, is Specific Plan. When annexed to the City, the land use for the project area will be with the General Plan. The zoning will be established as Specific Plan with the City Council's adoption of the Ordinance for pre-zoning which is being processed concurrently with the annexation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to less than significant level. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This project consists of the pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 1,995 acres which is comprised of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217) and Vail Ranch (Specific Plan No. 223) Specific Plan Areas from unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula. The proposed annexation is a logical extension of the existing City limits and is entirely contained within the City's Sphere of Influence. This annexation will not create any islands or pockets of unincorporated territory. The City of Temecula has placed a number of General Plan Land Use designations on the territory contained in the annexation area. These designations directly correspond to the zoning designations contained within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans. When annexed to the City, the land use for the project area will be with the General Plan. The zoning will be established as Specific Plan with the City Council's adoption of the Ordinance for pre-zoning which is being processed concurrently with the annexation. The areas to be annexed have existing entitlements (approved Specific Plans, Development Agreements, Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, Tentative Tract Maps, Development Plans, Conditional R:\STAFFRPTX205PA98.PCl 6/24/98 klb 4 Use Permits, etc.) and portions have been either constructed or are under construction. The validity of these approvals are not being affected by the annexation. An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. FINDINGS Annexation 1. The project is consistent with the City"s General Plan. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Specifically, police services is an area which has been identified as an area which will be affected by annexation. After Mitigation Measures are incorporated, impacts to Police Services will be e considered less than significant. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. The proposed annexation area is entirely within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous the City's corporate boundary. The area is substantially surrounded by the City's existing corporate boundary. The territory within the proposed annexation area is within a substantially developed area and which is continuing to develop, The proposed annexation area is not prime agricultural land (as defined by Section 56064 of the Government Code), and is designated for urban growth by the City of Temecula's General Plan. 6. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. R:\STAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 5 The proposed Pre-Zoning will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study for this project. No immediate iml~acts to the environment will result from the establishment of zoning for this property. impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. The proposed Pre-Zoning is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. The designations established by the General Plan reflect the zoning designations within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans. The site of the proposed Pre-Zoning is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the site is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Adequate access exists to the proposed site of the Pre-Zoning. Access to the project is currently being provided at Highway 79 (S) from Redhawk Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road, and Pala Road at Wolf Valley Road. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Attachments; 3. 4. 5. PC Resolution No. 98-~- Blue Page 7 A. City Council Resolution No. 98- (Commencement Proceedings) - Blue Page 12 B. Ordinance No. 98- - Blue Page 16 Initial Study - Blue Page 20 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 36 Plan for the Provision of Municipal Services 38 Exhibits - Blue Page 45 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map Correspondence Received - Blue Page 46 R:\STAFFRPTX205PA98.PC16/24/98 klb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98 - R:\STAFFRPT~OSPAg8.I'C16/.~/9B Idb 7 ATYACHMENT NO. 1 PC RF~OLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE COM]VIENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE REDHAWK AND VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE PRE-ZONING THE SAID TERRITORY WITH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING (PA98-0205) WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0205 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0205, on July 1, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council give its consent to the commencement of annexation proceedings WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0205; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. R:\STAFFRPT~205PA98.FC16/24/98 klb 8 Section 2. ~ A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0205, makes the following findings for annexation: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to rm'tigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Specifically, police services is an area which has been identified as an area which will be affected by annexation. After mitigation measures are incorporated, impacts to police services will be considered less than significant. 3. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare spedes or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are weftands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. 4.The proposed annexation area is entirely within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous the City's corporate boundary. The area is substantially surrounded by the City's existing corporate boundary. 5. The territory within the proposed annexation area is within a substantially developed area and which is continuing to develop. The proposed annexation area is not prime agricultural land (as defined by Section 56064 of the Government Code), and is designated for urban growth by the City of Temecula's General Plan. 6. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget. 7. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. 8. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. B. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0205, makes the following findings for pre-zoning: R:\STAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6124/98 klb 9 1. The proposed Pre-Zoning will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study for this project. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the establishment of zoning for this property. Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. 2. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are weftands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. 3. The proposed Pre-Zoning is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. The designations established by the General Plan reflect the zoning designations within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans. 4. The site of the proposed Pre-Zoning is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the site is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. 5. Adequate access exists to the proposed site of the Pre-Zoning. Access to the project is currently being provided at Highway 79 (S) from Redhawk Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road, and Pala Road at Wolf Valley Road. 6. Said findings are supperted by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND: THAT 1) THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CONSENTING TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE REDHAWK AND VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS (PA98-0205),' SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A, AND THAT 2) THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY TO PRE-ZONE THE AREAS KNOWN AS THE REDHAWK AND VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLANS AS PART OF PA98-0205 ESTABLISHING THE ZONING FOR THIS R:XSTAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb '] 0 AREA AS SPECIFIC PLAN" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM A'ri'ACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT B. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 1st day of July, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of July, 1998, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT~205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 11 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 98 - R:XSTAFFRFB205PA98.FC16/24/98 klb 12 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CONSENTING TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE REDHAWK AND VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS AND DESIGNATED AS PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0205 WItEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan and whereas the analysis within the General Plan includes said annexation; WHEREAS, the said annexation area is entirely with the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous to the existing City boundary; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0205 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0205, on July 1, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0205; WHEREAS, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA98-0205, on , at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved Planning Application No. PA98-0205; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to give its consent to the commencement of annexation proceedings; R:XSTAFFRPTX205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 13 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. ~ That the Temecula City Council, in adopting a Resolution consenting to the commencement of proceedings to annex territory herein referred to as the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plan Areas (approving Planning Application No. PA98-0205), hereby makes the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. 2. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Specifically, police services is an area which has been identified as an area which will be affected by annexation. After mitigation measures are incorporated, impacts to police services will be considered less than significant. 3. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and sweet improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are weftands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. 4. The proposed annexation area is entirely within the City of Temecula's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous to the City' s corporate boundary. The area is substantially surrounded by the City's existing corporate boundary. 5. The territory within the proposed annexation area is within a substantially developed area and which is continuing to develop. The proposed annexation area is not prime agricultural land (as defined by Section 56064 of the Government Code), and is designated for urban growth by the City of Temecula's General Plan. 6. The project will have a positive fiscal impact on the City budget. 7. The project is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. 8. Said findings are supported by the Staff Report analysis, maps, exhibits, attachments and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. R:%STAFFRPTX205PA98.PCl 6/24/98 klb ~[ 4 Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. this PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula __ day of , 199_. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the __ day of , 199_, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk R:\STAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6124/98 klb 'l[i ANNEXATION EXHIBIT PROPOSED REDHA WK / VAIL RANCH ANNEXA }'ION AREA City of Temecula EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. 98- R:~.STAFFRPT~05PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 16 ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY TO PRE-ZONE THE AREAS KNOWN AS THE REDHAWK AND VAIL RANCH SPECIFIC PLANS AS PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0205 ESTABLISHING THE ZONING FOR THIS AREA AS SPECIFIC PLAN THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT B. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The zoning classification shown on the attached exhibit (Exhibit B) is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zoning designation "Specific Plan" as described in this Ordinance and Planning Application 98-0205 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Notice of Adoption. within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. Section 4. The City Council in approving the certification of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically finds that the approval of this Pre-Zoning will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The City Council specifically finds that in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is based on the fact that this action will not change any of the development activities that have previously been constructed or are currently under construction. Furthermore, the City Council finds that an initial study has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potential for adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for the City Council's determination, including the information contained in the public hearing records, on which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this di minimis finding is made. In addition, the City Council finds that them is no evidence before the City that the R:\STAFFRPTX205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb ] 7 proposed project w'~l have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the City Council finds that the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5 (d). Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 6. ~ A. The City Council in adopting said ordinance, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed Pre-Zoning will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study for this project. No immediate impacts to the environment will result from the establishment of zoning for this property. Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. 2. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. 3. The proposed Pre-Zoning is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation programs contained in the General Plan. The designations established by the General Plan reflect the zoning designations within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans. 4. The site of the proposed Pre-Zoning is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the site is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. 5. Adequate access exists to the proposed site of the Pre-Zoning. Access to the project is currently being provided at Highway 79 (S) from Redhawk Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road, and Pala Road at Wolf Valley Road. 6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. R:\STAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 1 ~ Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this __ day of , 1998. ATHzST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA I, Susan W. Jones, Acting City Clerk of the City of Temecula,. California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 98- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temeeula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS Susan W. Jones, CMC Acting City Clerk R:\STAFFRPT~205PA98.PC16/24/98 Idb ] 9 PRE-ZONING EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 'B" HWY ~ I e e Pre-Zoned Specific Plan ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:~STAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6/24/9g klb ~0 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 2. 3. 4. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: Planning Application No. PA98-0205 (Annexation - Redhawk and Vail Ranch) City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 John DeGange, Project Planner Located within the City's southem Sphere of Influence 0mown as Vail Ranch Specific Plan and Redhawk Specific Plan), south of SR79 South, east of Murdy Ranch (east of Pala Road), north and west of Anza Road Same as No. 2 Multiple: (HTC - Highway Tourist Commercial), (BP - Business Park), (OS- Open Space/Recreation), (NC - Neighborhood Commercial), (L - Low Density Residential), (LM Low-Medium Density Residential), (M - Medium Density Residential), (H - High Densit>, Residential) and (P- Public/Institutional Facilities) SP ( Specific Plan No. 217 - Redhawk and Specific Plan No. 223 - Vail Ranch) The pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 1,995 acres which is comprised of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217) and Vail Ranch (Specific Plan No. 223) Specific Plan Areas from nnincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula. The areas to be annexed have existing entitlements (approved Specific Plans, Development Agreements, Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, Tentative Tract Maps, Development Plans, Conditional Use Permits, etc.) and portions have been either constructed or are under construction. The approvals are not being affected by the annexation. This project is a boundary shift between two local jurisdictions xvhich will result in the re-assigning of responsibility for service provision to the area from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula. Police, Parks R:\STAFFRPTX205PA98.1'CI 6/24/98klb 21 10. Surrounding Land Uses and S~tting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: and Recreation and City of Tcrnecula Governmental Services arc the specific areas which have been identified to be affected by the annexation. These affects have been determined to bc less than significant. North: Vacant (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan No. SP-4), vacant (dcsignawd NC - Neighborhood Commarcial on the City ofTcmecula C~ncral Plan Land Use Plan) and vacant (designat~ C-P-S, A-I-10 and R-R on the Southwest Area Community Plan). South: Vacant, agricultural areas and large lot single-family residences. East: Vacant and large lot single-family residences. West: Vacant (Murdy Ranch), single-family residences and commercial. Riverside LAFCO R:~STAFFRPT~205PA98.PC16f24/98 klb 22 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, mvulvmg at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards Population and Housing [ ] Noise Geologic Problems [X] Public Services Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources Biological Resources [ ] Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached shcct have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bc prepared. Signature Printed Name Date R:\STAFFRPTX205PA98.PC16/24/98 klb 23 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a, Conflict with general plan designation or zoning7 b, Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use m the vicinity? d. Affect agncultural resources or operations (eg. impactsto soils or farmlands, or impacts fi'om incompatible land uses)? e. Dismptordividethephysicalarrangementofanestablished community (including low-income or rmnonty community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major inliastmcture)? c. Displace existinghousnig, espeeially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? b. Seisrmc ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? I. Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff'? R:XSTAFFRPTX205PA98.PC16/24/98 klb 24 [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] No [x] [x] [xl ix] ix] [x] [xl Ix] [x] ix] ix] [xl [xl ix] ix] ix] [x] NO b. Exposure of people or property to water related hozards such 8s flooding? c. Disehargemtosurfacewatersorotheralterationofsufface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes m the amount of surface water m any water body? e. Changes m currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f. Change m the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality7 I. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies7 AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation7 b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants7 c Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety ~'om design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insuffmient par'king capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barners for pedestrians or bicyclists? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] ix] ix] [x] [x] [x] [x] ix] [xl ix] [x] ix] [x] [xl [x] [xl R:~STAFFRPT~205PA98.FCI 6/24/98 klb 25 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCF~ Sig~i~cut Unless Mitigation lnco,,onted Leaa~nan Significant No Imp~t impact f Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air traffm impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g. he~tagetrees)? c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oakforest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources m a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a 'known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? [1 [] [] [~ [] [] [1 [~ [1 [] [1 [~ [1 [] [1 [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [1 [] [x] [1 [1 [1 [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [1 [1 [~ [] [] [1 [~ [] [1 [1 [~ [1 [1 [1 [~ [] [1 [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [1 [] [1 [~ R:\STAFFRitI~05PA98.FC1 6124198 lab 26 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase m existing noise levels7 b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Mamtenance ofpublicfacilities, mcludnigroads? e. Other governmental services? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic hjghway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb palcontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [x] [x] [1 [l [1 [1 [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] Ix] [xl Ix] [] [x] [1 [] [x] [x] [x] [x] Ix] [x] [x] Ix] Ix] [x] Ix] R:\STAFFRFI~205PA98.PC1 6124/98 klb 27 c. Affect l~storical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ammal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or arereal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed m connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. [1 [] [] [1 [l [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] [] [] [] [] Ix] [x] [x] [] [] [x] [xl [x] R:\STAFFRPTX205PA98.PCI 6124198 klb 28 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The pre-zoning and annexation of approximately 1,995 acres which is comprised of the Redhawk (Specific Plan No. 217) and Vail Ranch (Specific Plan No. 223) Specific Plan Areas from unincorporated portions of Riverside County into the incorporated City of Temecula. This project is a boundary shift between two local jurisdictions which will result in the re-assigning of responsibility for service provision to the area from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula and the pre-zoning of these areas to a Specific Plan designation. No areas are anticipated to be impacted by the pre-zoning These areas are currently zoned Specific Plan by the County of Riverside. The areas to be annexed have existing entitlements (approved Specific Plans, Development Agreements, Tract Maps, Parcel Maps, Tentative Tract Maps, Development Plans, Conditional Use Permits, etc.) and portions have been either constructed or are under construction. The approvals are not being affected by the annexation. Police, Parks and Recreation and City of Temecula Governmental Services are the specific areas which have been identified to be affected by the annexation. These affects have been determined to be less than significant. 1. Land Use Planning The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in impacts which would conflict with general plan designation or zoning; conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project; be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity; affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses; or disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). 2. Population and Housing The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects; induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure); or displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. 3. Geologic Problems The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the project would not result in or expose people to potential impacts involving the following: fault rupture; seismic ground shaking; seismic ground failure (including liquefaction); seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard; landslides or mudflows; erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill; subsidence of the land; expansive soils; or unique geologic or physical features. R:\STAFFRPT~205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 4. Water The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface ranorE exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding; discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity); changes in the amount of surface water in any water body; changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements; change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability; altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater; impacts to groundwater quality; or substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. 5. Air Quality The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate; or create objectionable odors. 6. Transportation/Circulation The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: an increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion; hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses); inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses; insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site; hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists; conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks); or rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts. 7. Biological Resources The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds), locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees); locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.); wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool); or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: conflict with adopted energy conservation plans; use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner; or result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. R:\STAFFRPT\205PA98.PC16~24~98 klb 30 9. Hazards The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation); possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; the creation of any health heard or potential health heard; exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards; or an increase to fire heard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees. 10. Noise The analysis contained in the IES has determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would result in: an increase in existing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels. 11. Public Services Fire Protection and Schools The analysis contained in the IES determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts to fire protection or schools. No additional increase in fire protection services or schools will be required as a result of this annexation. Fire Station 84 within the City of Temecula currently services the Redhawk/Vail Ranch area and will continue to do so after annexation. No change will occur with respect to what school district the area falls within, or to the what schools students from the area will attend. Both the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans require the construction of schools to mitigate impacts with respect to the demand for schools. Annexation/pre-zoning of the area will not affect either the demand or the provision of schools within these specific plan areas. Police Protection There will be a significant impact to police protection; however, mitigation measures will reduce this to a level less than significant. In order to meet the City's established Level of Service standard of one officer per 1,000 residents, the increase in population as a result of the proposed annexation will require seven additional police officers. The increased cost for the seven police officers will be paid from the City's General fund. Revenue sources include the property taxes from existing and future residential development and sales tax revenue from existing and future commercial and industrial development. After mitigation, no significant impacts are anticipated. Maintenance of Public Facilities Currently all existing dedicated streets and roads within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plan areas are maintained by the Riverside County Road Department. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula, the City will become responsible for their maintenance. After annexation all existing streets will be added to the City's Pavement Management System. Funding for the City's Pavement Management System comes primarily from Gas Taxes and Measure A Funding which is allocated to municipalities based on population. With the annexation of this area and the associated increase in the population, additional funds will be available for road maintenance. R:\STAFFRPT\205PA98.PC16/24/98 klb 3 1 All future improvement within the annexation area will be constructed by the developers as part of ongoing construction associated with the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans. The City does not currently have any Capital Improvement Projects (Cff') within the area, nor or any anticipated for the near future. Other Public Services The proposed project will not result in additional impacts to library services, street sweeping and animal control. The annexation/pre-zoning area is currently a part of the Riverside County Library System. The City of Temecula is also a part of the Riverside County Library System. No change in the provision of library services is anticipated as a result of this project. Street sweeping service is provided to the Redhawk Specific Plan Area on a monthly basis by a private company contracted by the County. No street sweeping service is currently being provided to the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula street sweeping services will be provided to both specific plan areas on a weekly basis by the City's franchised solid waste hauler, CR&R. No appreciable change in service levels is anticipated as a result of this project. Animal control services within the annexation/pre-zoning area are currently provided by Riverside County. Upon annexation into the City animal control services will be provided by Lake Elsinore Animal Friends (LEAF). No appreciable change in service levels is anticipated as a result of this project. 12. Utilities and Service Systems The analysis contained in the 1ES determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts to the following: power or natural gas, communications systems, cable television services, local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal or local or regional water supplies. POwer Currently the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas electrical power is served by Southern California Edison which is also currently providing service to the proposed annexation/pre-zoning area. No change in the provision of electrical services is anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Gas Natural gas service for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas is currently being provided by Southern California Gas Company. No change in the provision of natural gas services is anticipated as a result of this project. Communication Systems Telecommunication services for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas, including the annexation/pre-zoning area, are provided by General Telephone. No change in the provision of telecommunication services is anticipated as a result of this project. R:XSTAFFRPT\205PA9g.pCI 6/24/98 Idb 32 Cable Television Services Cable television services for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas, including the annexation/pre-zoning area, are provided by TCI. No change in the provision of telecommunication services is anticipated as a result of this project. Local or Regional Water Treatment or Distribution Facilities & Local or Regional Water Supplies The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) supplies potable water to the City of Temecula. Between 50% and 85% of the City's water supply (depending on the annual rainfall) is distributed ~om the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin. This water supply is supplemented from imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (EMWD). The RCWD has a current annual supply capacity of 59,000 acre feet which is adequate to meet current demand for potable water including the annexation/pre-zoning area. The Water District is investigating a number of sources to meet long-range demands including upgrading existing wells, adding wells, implementing a water recharge program, and increasing the use of reclaimed water. A combination of these improvements will ultimately be necessary to accommodate future demands in the City. The RCWD currently supplies water to the Redhawk/Vail Ranch area and would continue to do so upon annexation/pre-zoning. No change in the provision of water is anticipated as a result of this project. Sewer or Septic Tanks Wastewater facilities for the City of Temecula and its sphere of influence are provided by Eastern municipal Water District (EMWD) which is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Water District is currently meeting treatment demand in the Temecula and has a current capacity to treat 10 million gallons per day it is facility. Additionally Rancho California Water District has a wastewater treatment facility services the Temecula area which has capacity to treat 3.4 million gallons per day. The Redhawk/Vail Ranch area is currently being serviced by the EMWD facility and will continue to be upon annexation/pre-zoning. The Water District anticipates expansion of its existing facilities when the demand generated by continuing development requires it. No change in the provision of water is anticipated as a result of this project. StormWater Currently all storm water for the annexation area drains to Temecula Creek. All flood control facilities within the annexation area are either maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) or the Redhawk Home Owner's Association. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for the maintenance of all facilities which are designed to the specifications of and accepted by them. This arrangement exists for all territories within Riverside County, whether they located within the jurisdictional boundaries of a city or they are within an unincorporated area of the County. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula all flood control facilities will continue to be maintained by either RCFC&WCD or the Redhawk Home Owner' s Association. No change in the handling of stormwater is anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 33 Solid Waste Disposal Currently solid waste services to the annexation area are being provided to the County by Waste Management Inland Valley. Solid waste service within the City limits is provided by CR&R which is a privately operated company being contracted by the City. Upon annexation to the City solid waste services for the annexation area will ultimately provided by CR&R. The City will negotiate with the County, Waste Management Inland Valley and CR&R to transition service for the next fiscal year following the finalization of the annexation. Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 939 all cities and counties must have a waste stream source reduction plan. The City has such a plan and will implement that plan in the annexed area. No change in the solid waste services is anticipated as a result of this project. 13. Aesthetics The analysis contained in the IES determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: affect a scenic vista or scenic highway, have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect or create light or glare. 14. Cultural Resources The analysis contained in the IES determined that the proposed project will not result in additional impacts which would: disturb paleontological resources, disturb archaeological resources, affect historical resources, have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 15. Recreation The analysis contained in the 1ES determined that the proposed project will result in a less than significant impact which would increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities. The maintenance of parks areas in the annexation area is currently the responsibility of County Service Area (CSA) 143. Upon annexation and the approval of the City's Special Tax for the maintenance of parks, recreational facilities, arterial street lights, traffic signals, medians and the provision of recreational and human services programs by the registered voters within the annexation area; all parks within the annexation area which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Currently CSA 143 contracts with one or more private landscape contract firms to provide median and slope maintenance services. The rates and charges to pay for this service are levied against the property tax rolls. Upon successful annexation to the City, the TCSD would bid the maintenance areas and award contract(s) to private landscape maintenance contractor(s). R:XSTAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 34 The proposed annexation is contingent upon approval by the registered voters in the annexation area of the City's Special Tax which will levy rates and charges for park maintenance on the property tax rolls. The maintenance of all medians and the majority of slope areas are currently the responsibility of County Service Area (CSA) 143. A portion of the slope areas are the responsibility of the Redhawk Home Owner's Association (HOA) and other smaller areas are the responsibility of private property owners. Upon annexation and the approval of the City's Special Tax for the maintenance of parks, recreational facilities, arterial street lights, traffic signals, medians and the provision of recreational and human services programs by the registered voters within the annexation area; and the requisite approval of changes fro slope maintenance and all medians and those slopes which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The responsibility of those slopes which are currently held by the Redhawk HOA and private property owners would remain unchanged when the area is annexed to the City. Currently CSA 143 contracts with one or more private landscape contract firms to provide median and slope maintenance services. The rates and charges to pay for this service are levied against the property tax rolls. Upon successful annexation to the City, the TCSD would bid the maintenance areas and award contract(s) to private landscape maintenance contractor(s). The proposed annexation is contingent upon approval by the registered voters in the annexation area of the City's (TCSD) Special Tax which will levy rates and charges for the maintenance of slopes and medians on the property tax rolls. R:XSTAFFRPT~205PA98.PC16/24/98 klb 35 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:~STAFFRPT~205PAgg.PC16/24/98 I~b 36 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0205 (ANNEXATION - REDHAWK AND VAIL RANCH) The Initial Environmental Study (IES) for Planning Application No. PA98-0205 identified one issue (Public Services, Police Protection) as having a potentially significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. This is discussed below: Public Services General Impact: Need for additional police officers at time of annexation through build out of Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plan Areas. Mitigation Measure: Hire additional police officers as the population in the area grows. Specific Process: Police officers, at a level of service standard of one officer per 1,000 residents, shall be added to the City's police force. Initially seven (7) police officers will need to be hired to maintain the City's Level of Service requirements. The increased cost for the seven police officers required initially and any future officers will be paid from the City's General fund. Revenue sources include the property taxes from existing and future residential development and sales tax revenue from existing and future commercial and industrial development. Mitigation Milestone: Per increase of 1,000 residents. Responsible Monitoring Party: City Manager, Finance and Police R:\STAFFRPT~205PA98.PCl 6/24/98 klb 37 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLAN FOR THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES R:\STAFFRPT~05PA98.PC16/24/98 klb 38 D AFT Plan for Provision of Municipal Services Planning Application No. PA98-0205 Annexation of the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plan Areas to the City of Ternecula, California IIVI'HODUCi'ION The following discussion provides documentation of the City of Temecula's plan to provide and/or assure the provision of municipal and other associated services to an area consisting of approximately 1995 acres and is generally referred to as the Redhawk and Vail Ranch areas for proposed annexation into the City. This plan has been prepared pursuant to Sections 56800 and 56653 of the California Government Code, et. Seq. The plan describes the extent to which the following sen, ices will be provided to this territory: police protection, fire protection, water service, wastewater service, storm water service, solid waste disposal, street maintenance, median and slope maintenance, parks, electric, natural gas, telecommunlcations, cable, schools, libraries, street sweeping and animal control. PROTECT DESCRII:rI'ION/LOCATION The proposed annexation area is bounded by the City's southern city boundary and SR 79 to the north, the City's southern most sphere of influence boundary to the south, the City's southeastern city boundary and Pala Road to the west, and small portions of Butterfield Stage Road and Anza Road, and a portion of the City's southeastern Sphere of Influence to the east. The annexation area contains the Redhawk Specific Plan(SP No. 217) and Vail Ranch Specific Plan (SP No. 223) Specific Plan areas (approved in August of 1988 and July of i988, respectively by the Riverside County Board of Super~sors). These areas have partially been and are currently being constructed with single-family detached residential homes. The proposed annexation area consists of 1995 total acres which includes approximately 2400 existing single-family detached units, three existing schools, three existing parks, a Texaco gas station/convenience market, a Jack-N-The-Box fast food restaurant (under construction) and an 18-hole golf course. The specific plan areas, as designed and approved, will ultimately contain at build out a total of 6619 dwelling units (3456 single-family detached, 1340 single-family attached, 1823 multi-family), 107 acres of parks, five schools, 154 acres of commercial, 161 acres of open space, and a 183 acre 18-hole golf course. The combined overall gross density of the annexation area is between 3.3 and 3.4 dwelling units per acre. The City of Temecula will adopt the zoning which was established within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans which were adopted by the County of Riverside when the project is pre- zoned. The subject property will be pre-zoned with specific plan zoning with the exact land uses specified within each of the respective specific plans. POLICE PROTECTION Police protection and law enforcement services are provided in the City of Temecula through a provision of services contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The City has one main station located at 30755 Auld Road, and two storefront stations located at 27540 Ynez Road, Suite J-9 and 28816 Pujol Street. R:~STAFFRPTX205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 39 DRAFT City of Temecula pA98-0205 Annexation of Redhawk/Vail Rcmch Plan of Services For fiscal year 1997/98 the city of Temecula provided an average of one officer per 1,000 residents with 43 police personnel serving the City. Three to ten patrol cars are on duty at all times, plus additional services including traffic enforcement and investigation, Community Service Officers, Community Oriented Policing Teams and School Resource Officers. Personnel also include Reserve Police Officers, Police Volunteers and Police Explorers. The average response time to priority one calls in Temecula is approximately 6.5 minutes. The average Sheriff's Department response time to priority one calls within the proposed annexation area is approximately 12 minutes. For fiscal year 1998/99, the City of Temecula has allocated $5.6 million for police protection. In order to meet the City's established Level of Senrice standard of one officer per 1,000 residents, the increase in population as a result of the proposed annexation will require an additional seven police officers. FIRE PROTECTION Fire protection services are provided in the City of Temecula through a provision of services contract with the Riverside County Fire Department which operates in conjunction with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). The City of Temecula has three existing fire stations within the city limits. Station 73 is located at 27415 Enterprise Circle, Station 12 is located at 28330 Mercedes, and Station 84 is located at 30650 Pauba Road, approximately 4 miles north of the subject site. There is also one additional fire station in the unincorporated area of the county which is in the vicinity of the City of Temecula. Station 83 will begin operation at French Valley Airport in July of 1998. This station though located in an unincorporated portion of the County will be jointly funded and operated by the City and the County. The City also has a mutual aid agreement with Riverside County, Califomia Department of Forestry (CDF), and the City of Murrieta. Current staffing levels for the stations servicing the City of Temecula include the following: Station 73 Station 12 Station 84 Station 83 1 engine, 1 truck 1 engine, 1 second roll engine (manned by volunteers) 1 engine, 1 second roll engine & 1 breathing support squad (manned by volunteers) 1 engine (the number of staff members for an engine is three persons, with four persons for a truck) For fiscal year 1997/1998 the City of Temecula allocated approximately $ 3.1 for fire protection services. No additional increase in fire protection services will be required as a result of this annexation. Fire Station 84 within the City of Temecula currently senaces the Redhawk/Vail Ranch area and will continue to do so after annexation. A fire station within the boundary of the annexation at Butterfield Stage Road, south of Highway 79 is proposed. This station will ultimately service the area and is scheduled to be constructed in 2000/2001. R:\STAFFRPT~205PA9g.PC1 6124/9g klb 40 DEAFT City of Ternecula pA98-0205 Annexation of Reclhaw~Nail Rcmch Plan of Services WATER SERVICE The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) supplies potable water to the City of Temeoula. Between 50% and 85% of the City's water supply (depending on the annual rainfall) is distributed from the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin. This water supply is supplemented from imported water from the Eastern Metropolitan Water District (EMWD). The RCWD has a current annual supply capacity of 59,000 acre feet which is adequate to meet current demand for potable water including the annexation area. Rancho California Water District is investigating a number of sources to meet long-range demands including upgrading existing wells, adding wells, implementing a water recharge program, and increasing the use of reclaimed water. A combination of these improvements will ultimately be necessary to accommodate future demands in the City. The RCWD currently supplies water to the Redhawk/Vail Ranch area and would continue to do so upon annexation. WASTEWATER SERVICE Wastewater facilities for the City of Temecula and its sphere of influence are provided by Eastern Municipal Water Disthor (EiVIWD) which is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Eastern Municipal Water District is currently meeting treatment demand in the Temecula area and has a current capacity to treat 10 million gallons per day at its facility. Additionally, Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has wastewater treatment facilities which service the Temecula area. These facilities have the capacity to treat 3.4 million gallons per day. The Redhawk/Vail Ranch area is currently being serviced by the ElVIWD facility and will continue to be upon annexation. Rancho California Water District anticipates expansion of its existing facilities when the demand generated by continuing development requires it. STORM WATER Currently all storm water for the annexation area drains to Temecula Creek. All flood control facilities within the annexation area are either maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) or the Redhawk Home Owner's Association. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is responsible for the maintenance of all facilities which are designed to the specifications of and accepted by them. This arrangement exists for all territories within Riverside County, whether they are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of a city or whether they are within an unincorporated area of the County. Upon annexation into the City of Temeoula all flood control facilities will continue to be maintained by either RCFC&WCD or the Redhawk Home Owner's Association. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Currently solid waste services to the annexation area are being provided to the County by Waste Management Inland Valley. Solid waste disposal service within the City limits is provided by CR&R which is a privately operated company being contracted by the City. Upon annexation to the City, solid waste disposal services for the annexation area will ultimately be provided by CR&R. The City will negotiate with the County, Waste Management Inland Valley and CR&R to transition service for the next fiscal year following the finalization of the annexation. Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 939 all cities and counties must have a waste stream source reduction plan. The City has such a plan and will implement that plan in the annexed area. R:XSTAFFRPTX205PA98.PCI 6/24/98klb 41 DEAFT City of Ternecula PA98-D205 Annexation of RedhcmkNafl Ranch Plan of Services STIqF:.ET MAINTENANCE Currently all existing dedicated streets and roads within the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plan areas are maintained by the Paverside County Road Department. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula, the City will become responsible for their maintenance. Alter annexation all existing streets will be added to the City's Pavement Management System. Funding for the City's Pavement Management System comes primarily from Gas Taxes and Measure A Funding which is allocated to municipalities based on population. With the annexation of this area and the associated increase in the population, additional funds will be available for road maintenance. All future improvement within the annexation area will be constructed by the developers as part of ongoing construction associated with the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans. The City does not currently have any Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) within the area, nor or any anticipated for the near future. MEDIAN AND SLOPE MAINTENANCE The maintenance of all medians and the majority of slope areas are currently the responsibility of County Service Area (CSA) 143. A portion of the slope areas are the responsibility of the Redhawk Home Owner's Association (HOA) and other smaller areas are the responsibility of private property owners. Upon annexation and the approval of the City's Special Tax for the maintenance of parks, recreational facilities, arterial street lights, traffic signals, medians and the provision of recreational and human services programs, by the registered voters within the annexation area; all medians and those slopes which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District Ci'CSD). The responsibility of those slopes which are currently held by the Redhawk HOA and private property owners would remain unchanged when the area is annexed to the City. Currently CSA 143 contracts with one or more private landscape contract firms to provide median and slope maintenance services. The rates and charges to pay for this service are levied against the property tax rolls. Upon successful annexation to the City, the TCSD would bid the maintenance areas and award contract(s) to private landscape maintenance contractor(s). The proposed annexation is contingent upon approval by the registered voters in the annexation area, of the City's (TCSD) Special Tax which will levy rates and charges for the maintenance of slopes and medians on the property tax rolls. PARK SERVICES The maintenance of parks areas in the annexation area is currently the responsibility of County Service Area (CSA) 143. Upon annexation and the approval of the City's Special Tax for the maintenance of parks, recreational facilities, arterial street lights, traffic signals, medians and the provision of recreational and human services programs by the registered voters within the annexation area; all parks within the annexation area which are currently the responsibility of CSA 143 would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). Currently CSA 143 contracts with one or more private landscape contract firms to provide park maintenance services. The rates and charges to pay for this service are levied against the property tax rolls. Upon successful annexation to the City, the TCSD would bid the maintenance areas and award contract(s) to private landscape maintenance contractor(s). R:\STAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 42 DRAFT City of Temecu|a PA98-0205 Annexation of Redhawk/Vail Ranch l~lcm of Senaces The proposed annexation is contingent upon approval, by the registered voters in the annexation are:, of the City's CFCSD) Special Tax which will levy rates and charges for perk maintenance on the property tax rolls. ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE Currently the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas is served by Southern California Edison which is also currently providing service to the proposed annexation area. No change in the provision of electrical services is anticipated with the annexation of this territory. NATURAL GAS SERVICE Natural gas service for the Qty of Temecula and the surrounding areas is currently being provided by Southern California Gas Company. No change in the provision of natural gas services is anticipated with the annexation of this territory. TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES Telecommunication services for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas, including the annexation area, are provided by General Telephone. No change in the provision of telecommunication services is anticipated with the annexation of this territory. CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES Cable television services for the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas, including the annexation area, are provided by TCI. No change in the provision of cable television services is anticipated with the annexation of this territory. SCHOOLS The proposed annexation area is within the Temecula Unified School DiStrict. Upon annexation, no change will cccur with respect to what school district the area falls within, or to the what schools students from the area will attend. Both the Redhawk and Vail Ranch Specific Plans require the construction of schools to mitigate impacts with respect to the demand for schools. Annexation of the area will not affect either the demand or the provision of schools within these specific plan areas. The schools that currently serve the area, student capecity and current enrollment are listed in the following table: SCHOOL CAPACH'Y (# of students) CURRENT ENROLLMENT (# of students) Pauba Valley Elementary 1000 911 Redhawk Elementary 880 750 Vail Ranch 1200 1086 Temecula Valley High school data not available data not available Redhawk II Elementary (to open July 1999) 525 R:\STAFFRPTX205PA98.PCI 6/24198 klb 43 DRAFT City of Temecula PA98-0205 Annexation of Reclhcl~r4Vc~1 Ranch Plan of Sen, ices LIBRARIES The annexation area is currently a port of the Riverside County Library System. The City of Temecula is also a port of the Riverside County Library System. Upon annexation, the library district which serves the area will not change. STREET SWEEPING Street sweeping service is provided to the Redhawk Specific Plan Area on a monthly basis by a private cornpony contracted by the County. No street sweeping service is currently being provided to the Vail Ranch Specific Plan Area. Upon annexation into the City of Temecula street sweeping services will be provided to both specific plan areas on a weekly basis by the City's franchised solid waste hauleL CR&R. ANIMAL CONTROL Animal control ser,,nces within the annexation area are currently provided by Riverside County. Upon annexation into the City animal control services will be provided by Lake Elsinore Animal Friends (LEAD. No appreciable change in service levels is anticipoted as a result of annexation. SUMMARY In evaluating the impacts associated with the proposed annexation, several analyses have been conducted by the City to evaluate the availability of public sentices and facilities. These analyses included the subject Plan for Services, a F:scal Impoct Analysis and an Environmental Assessment. The results of these analyses concluded that the subject property will not have a significant impact on the capabilities of the City or other serviceAnfrastructure proriders to provide services. Currently the City is capable of meeting the demands for services within the current City boundaries and the proposed annexation area. As development occurs, the City will receive additional property taxes and future sales tax associated with future commercial development. Upon annexation, the City will provide ser'~nces, consistent with the demand generated by the areas within the annexation area based upon the general funds available to the City, City-wide assessments and the established Community Facilities Districts. R:\STAFFRPT\205PA98.PCI 6/24/98 klb 44 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRFI'X205PA98 .PC16/24/98 klb 45 CITY OF TEMECULA PROPOSED REDHA WK / VAIL RANCH ANNEXATION AREA City of Temecula PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0205 EXHIBIT A MAP OF ANNEXATION AREA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: July 1, 1998 47 CITY OF TEMECULA 0 LU H LA, I / \ 05 VL L PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0205 EXHIBIT B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: July 1, 1998 GENERAL PLAN MAP 48 CITY OF TEMECULA Areato be Pre-Zoned Specific Plan PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0205 EXHIBIT C PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: July 1, 1998 ZONING MAP 49 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED R:\STAFFRPT~205PA9g .PCI 6/24/98 klb 4~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, 464 W, 4th STREET, 6ffi FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-t400 PETE V~LSON. Governor June 19, 1998 08-Riv-79-17.3 Mr. John DeGange Project Planner City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. DeGange: Planning ADDlication 98-0205 Please send a copy of the Negative Declaration to this office at the earliest opportunity. Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use development; however, new development must pay its fair share for upgrading infrastructure facilities needed to serve the development. This infrastructure includes State highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and cumulative traffic impacts. All jurisdictions should take measures available to fund improvements and reduce total trips generated. In view of the fact there are limited funds available for infrastructure improvements, we recommend the City of Temecula take the lead in developing a fair-share mechanism in which each project can fund improvements for the decrease in Level of Service (LOS) for which it is responsible. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Sim at (909) 383-4808 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, LINDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Regional Planning/ Forecasting/Public Transportation ITEM #11 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 1, 1998 Planning Application No. PA95-0116 (First Amendment to Development Agreement) Prepared By: David Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement for Paseo del Sol (Planning Application No. PA95-0116) APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula DEVELOPER: CaI-Paseo del Sol, LLC, a California limited liability company, constituting the merger and continuing entity of CaI-Paloma del Sol, LLC, a California limited liability company, and CaI-CPS Southeast, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Owners"). PROPOSAL: Approval of First Amendment to Development Agreement for Paseo (Paloma) del Sol LOCATION: Approximately 820 acres constituting the easterly and southerly portions of Paloma del Sol within Specific Plan 219 and located westerly of Butterfield Stage Road between State Highway 79 south and Pauba Road BACKGROUND The Owner's predecessors in interest, KRDC Inc. and Mesa Homes, entered into an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement with the City pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, et sea., which was recorded on February 18, 1993 as Instrument No. 62043, Official Records of Riverside County ("Development Agreement"). Specific Plan No. 219 was approved on September 6, 1998. On November 18, 1997 the City approved an Addendure to the Development Agreement which updated the Development Agreement to include the changes made to Specific Plan No. 219. The Addendure also provides for the City to initiate an amendment to the Development Agreement to address the dedication of certain properties and public improvements to the City. R:\STAFFRPT\l16PA95.PC 6/24/98 klb PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS Owner and City Staff have determined that certain park land, greenbelts, slopes, recreational facilities and paseos which were contemplated to be dedicated to the City under the Development Agreement should be owned and maintained by the Owners and conveyed to an appropriate homeowners association as the Property develops, rather than being owned and maintained by the City. Under the First Amendment, the facilities described in the Development Agreement will continue to be requirements of the Owner under the Development Agreement, except as such requirements may have been modified by amendments to Specific Plan No. 219 or other land use entitlements approved by the City and accepted by the Owners. Such facilities will, however, now be owned and maintained directly by the Owners or successor homeowner associations, rather than by the City, with funding for maintenance assessed upon the homeowners within the Property. The First Amendment also provides for a credit on the Owner's development impact fees, although it does not specify all of the details of the credits. A separate agreement addressing the development impact fee reductions for the Project based on public improvements constructed will be presented to the City Council in order to comply with the requirements of the original Development Agreement. A draft copy of the DIP Reduction Agreement is being provided for the Commission's information. No Commission action is required on the draft DIF Reduction Agreement. The credits set forth in the DIF Reduction Agreement were generated by the terms of the Development Agreement and are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 15.06, Public Facilities Development Impact Fee, of the Temecula Municipal Code. The credits to be applied to the Owner's development impact fees are for the value of regional public improvements constructed by the Owner as part of the Project and for partial value of the extensive private park improvements to be made by the Owner. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review. A full and complete environmental review in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act was conducted for the adoption of Specific Plan No. 219 on September 6, 1988, and again for the approval of the original development agreement on November 7, 1988, the approval of the restated and amended Development Agreement on January 12, 1993 and for the latest amendment to the Specific Plan No. 219 on January 13, 1998. None of the conditions described in 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163. The First Amendment only changes the entity responsible for maintaining the public improvements once constructed and does not substantially change the nature of the public improvements. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the First Amendment to the Development Agreement. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 3 2. Proposed "First Amendment to Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement, Paseo Del Sol" - Blue Page 7 3. Proposed "Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement" to be considered by the City Council - Blue Page 8 4. Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement, Paseo Del Sol, recorded February 18, 1993 - Blue Page 9 R:\STAFFRPT\l16PAgS,PC 6/24/98 klb 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\STAFFRFT\l16PA95.PC 6124198 klb 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT APPROVE THE "FIRST A1VIENDNIENT TO AMENDMENT AND RF-~TATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PASEO DEL SOL" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND CAI.,-PASEO DEL SOL, LLC, SPECIFIC PLAN 219 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0116) NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETER1VHNE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds determines, and declares as follows: A. Section 65864 et .S_ell. of the Government Code of the State of California and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of development agreements, and amendments thereto, establishing and maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; B. Cal-Paseo del Sol' s ("Owner") predecessors in interest, KRDC Inc. and Mesa Homes, entered into an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement with the City pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, et Sell., recorded on February 18, 1993 as Instrument No. 62043, Official Records of Riverside County ("Development Agreement"). C. The property to which the Development Agreement applies consists of approximately 820 acres constituting the easterly and southerly portions of Paloma del Sol within Specific Plan 219 and located westerly of Butterfield Stage Road between State Highway 79 south and Pauba Road. D. Owner and City entered into an Addendum to the Development Agreement on November 18, 1997 which provides for the City to initiate an amendment to the Development Agreement to address the dedication of certain properties and public improvements to the City. E. Notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of the Development Agreement and to consider the findings under the California Environmental Quality Act that a Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR is not required has been duly given in the form and manner require by law for both the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the public hearing before the City Council; F. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Agreement on July 1, 1998 at which time the Planning Commission heard and considered all of the written material and oral comments presented to it on the proposed environmental findings and the proposed Development Agreement; G. Owner and City have determined that certain park land, greenbelts, slopes, recreational facilities and paseos which were contemplated to be dedicamd to the City by the Development Agreement should be owned and maintained by the Owners and conveyed to an appropriate homeowners association as the Property develops. Under the First Amendment, the facilities described in the Development Agreement will continue to be requirements of the Development Agreement, except as such requirements may have been modified by amendments to Specific Plan No. 219 or other land use entiflements approved by the City and accepted by the Owners; however, such facilities will be owned and maintained directly by the Owners or successor homeowner associations, rather than by the City, with funding for maintenance assessed upon the homeowners of the Property. H. The Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review. A full and complete environmental review in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act was conducted for the adoption of Specific Plan No. 219 on September 6, 1998, and again for the approval of the original development agreement on November 7, 1988, the approval of the restated and amended Development Agreement on January 12, 1993 and for the amendment of Specific Plan No. 219 on January 13, 1998. None of the conditions described in 14 Cat. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, and therefore, no further environmental review is required for the First Amendment to the Development Agreement. I. The First Amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan and Specific Plan No. 219. J. The First Amendment is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City. K. The First Amendment will not be detrimental to, and in fact enhances, the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof through the implementation of the Applicable Rules. Section 2. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR a Supplemental EIR, nor further environmental review is required for the Development Agreement pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cat. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163. Section 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that it make the environmental findings described herein and approve the proposed Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Cai-Paloma del Sol,LLC, (Planning Application No. PA 95-0116). R:\STAFFRFT\l16PAg5.PC 6/24/98 klb 5 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of July, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONMEMBERS: NOES: COMMISSIONMEMBERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONMEMBERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED "FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PASEO DEL SOL" R:\STAFFRPT\llEPA95,PC 6/24/98 klb 7 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PASEO DEL SOL THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of March 24, 1998 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Cal-Paseo del Sol, LLC, a California limited liability company, constituting the merger of and continuing entity of Cal-Paloma del Sol, LLC, a California limited liability company, and CaI-CPS Southeast LLC. a California limited liabilky company ("Owners"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which the parties hereto acknowledge as true and correct: a. Owners' predecessors-in-interest. KRDC, Inc. and Mesa Homes, entered into an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement ( "Development Agreement") with City pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, et se__q., recorded on February 18, 1993 as Instrument No. 62043, Official Records of Riverside County. Subsequently, KRDC, Inc. acquired all of the interests of Mesa Homes in the property subject to the Development Agreement. b. The Development Agreement encompasses a mixed land use subdivision project incorporated into Specific Plan No. 219 known as "Paloma del Sol." c. By partial assignment and assumption agreement, KRDC. Inc. assigned, and Owners assumed, all of the rights, title, interest, benefits, privileges, duties and obligations arising under or from the Development Agreement binding on approximately eight hundred twenty (820) acres constituting the easterly and southerly portions of Paloma del Sol included within Specific Plan No. 219 (the "Property"), as described in Exhibit A attached hereto). The Property is now referred to as "Paseo del Sol." Said assignment and assumption agreement was part of the conveyance of the Property from KRDC, Inc. to Owners. d. Owners and City have determined that certain park land, greenbelts, slopes, recreational facilities and paseos which were contemplated to be dedicated to the City should be owned and maintained by the Owners and conveyed to an appropriate homeowners association as the Property develops. The facilities described in the Development Agreement will continue to be requirements of the Development Agreement, except as such requirements may have been modified by amendments to Specific Plan No. 219 or other land use entitlements approved by the City and accepted by the Owners; however, such facilities will be owned and maintained directly by the Owners or successor homeowner associations, rather than by the City, with funding for maintenance assessed upon the homeowners of the Property. 03-04-98 100~9-00002 S:\152\98010019.AM4 e. This Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Temecula and Specific Plan No. 219, as amended. f. On March __, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing to consider this Amendment. following which hearing the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 98- recommending that the City Council approve this Amendment. g. On March 24, 1998, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing to consider adoption of this Amendment, following which hearing the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 98- approving this Amendment. Section 12.5 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "12.5 Parks, Greenbelts and Paseos. The approximate 200 acres of park land, greenbelts, slopes and paseos (both west and east sides of Patoma del Sol and Paseo del Sol) which are shown on Exhibit E, attached and made a part hereof and incorporated by this reference, and recreational improvements to be installed or constructed thereon as to Paloma del Sol, shall be owned, developed and maintained by the Paloma del Sol Master Community Association and/or any Paloma del Sol Sub-Associations and as to Paseo del Sol, shall be owned, developed and maintained by Owners to eventually be owned and maintained by the Paseo del Sol Master Community Association and/or any Paseo del Sol Sub-Associations as those areas are depicted on Exhibit E." Section 12.6 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "12.6 Main Recreation Areas. The seven main recreation areas and the terms for ownership and maintenance by Owners, the Paloma de Sol and Paseo del Sol Master and Sub Community Associations, or dedication to the City and maintained by the City are described as follows: (a) A five-acre park located in Specific Plan Planning Area 29A and within Tract 24188 ("5-Acre Park") to be dedicated to the City and maintained by the TCSD. (b) A nine-acre park located in Specific Plan Planning Area No. 37 and within Tentative Tract 25417 C9-Acre Park") has been improved by Owners with two baseball diamonds/soccer field combination with lights, restroom and concession building, group picnic area, drinking fountains and trash receptacles, and parking lot and has been dedicated to the City. 03-0a-98 10019-00002 S:\152\980~0019.AM4 2 (c) A seven and seventy-four hundredths-acre (7.74) park located in Tract 24133-2. Lot 114 C7.74-Acre Park") shall be improved as a "passive park" and may be dedicated to the City and maintained by the TCSD or owned and maintained by the Paloma del Sol Master Community Association as mutually agreed to by City and Owners. (d) A thirteen and eighty-four hundredths-acre (13.84) paseo park located in Tract 24133-3, Lot 106 C 13.84-Acre Paseo Park") currently improved with tot lots, basketball courts, tennis court and picnic areas with tables and barbecues, and walkways/bikeways with lighting, owned and maintained by the Paloma del Sol Master Community Association. (e) An approximate five and nine-tenths-acre (5.9) paseo park located in Tract 24134-3, Lots 68, 69, 70, 71 and a portion of Lot 83 of Tract 24134-F C5.9-Acre Paseo Park") currently improved with a tot lot, basketball court and picnic areas with tables and barbecue. and walkways/bikeways with lighting. owned and maintained by the Paloma del Sol Master Community Association. (0 A seven and forty-four hundredths-acre (7.44) park located in the Eastside Tract 24186-4, Lot 1 C7.44-Acre Park") planned to be improved with a combination recreation center, swimming pool, tennis court, group picnic area, drinking fountains and trash receptacles, and parking lot shall be developed. owned and maintained by the Owners or successor homeowner associations. (g) A nine and thirty-five hundredths-acre (9.35) paseo park located in Lots 12I and 122 of Tract 24186-1, Lots 121 and 129 of Tract 24186-2 and Lot 121 of(future) Tract 24187-F C9.35-Acre Paseo Park") planned to be improved with a picnic area. walkway/bikeways with lighting landscaping and irrigation and which may be improved with a basketball court and tot lot. and shall be developed. owned and maintained by the Owners or successor homeowner associations. (h) Recreation areas shall be developed as required by the land use entitlements and in accordance with City standards. Section 12.7 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "12.7 Remainine Open Space Areas. (a) The remaining recreation and open space areas consist of approximately 142 acres of greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos. public parkway and slope landscaping, included within Paloma del Sol and Paseo del Sol. (b) Those perimeter and interior greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, parks and slopes shown on Exhibit E shall be maintained by the Paloma del Sol 03-04-98 10019-00002 S:\152\98010019.AM4 3 Master and Sub-Community Associations or the Paseo del Sol Master or Sub-Community Associations." Section 12.8 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "12.8 Timin~ of Park lmorovements and Transfer to CitV or Homeowner Association. (a) Owners shall construct improvements to the 5-Acre Parkand shall dedicate the 5-Acre Park to City and City shall accept the 5-Acre Park prior to the issuance of: (i) the 1741h building permit in Tract 24187-1 and Tract 24187-2; or (ii) the first building permit in Tract 24187-Final; or (iii) the first building permit in Tract 24188 excluding the 67 dwelling units in Tract 24188-I), whichever occurs first. t b) The parties acknowledged that the 9-Acre Park described tn Section I2.6(b) has been completed and dedicated to the City, and Owners' obligations with respect to construction of the park site improvements pursuant to this Development Agreement with respect to said park have been satisfied. Additional street improvements to De Portola and construction of Campanula Way adjacent to the 9-Acre Park will be completed as development of the adjoining tracts occurs. (c) Improvements to the 9.35-Acre Paseo Park located in Lots 121 and 122 of Tract 24186-t, Lots 121 and 129 of Tract 24186-2 and Lot 121 of Tract 24187-Final shall be completed prior to issuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24187 and 24188. (d) Improvements to the 7.44-Acre Park shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 200th combined building permits within ~I racts 24182, 24184, 24185 and 24186. Other equivalent parks in the vicinity may be substituted for improvement of this park if approved in writing by the City Manager or an Addendum to the Development Agreement. (e) Improvements to the remaining greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway and slope landscaping, both east and west sides of Paloma del Sol to be developed, owned and maintained by the Owners or successor homeowner associations, shall occur in accordance with the following schedule: Tract 24133 The 7.74-Acre Park shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 23761h building permit within the Westside maps, bounded by Margarita Road to the West. Pauba Road to the North, Meadows Parkway to the East and State Highway 79 to the South. 03-04-98 10019-00002 S:\152\98010019.AM4 4 Tract 24182-1 Tract 24182-2 Lot 62 Tract 24182-3 Lots 117 and 118 Tract 24182-4 Lot 103 · To be developed as active parks with facilities that may include junior tot lots, toddler tot lots. basketball courts, group picnic area, drinking fountains, trash receptacles and benches. · To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for the proposed 374 dwelling units within Tract 24182-1 through 4. Proposed Tract 24182-5 throut, h Final Lot 66 · To be developed as a passive park. · To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for the proposed 188 dwelling units within Tract 24182-5 through Final. Tract 24184-1 and Final Lots 79-82 · To be developed with paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation. · To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for the proposed 136 dwelling units within Tracts, 22184-1 and Final. 03-04-98 10019-00002 S:\152\9BOlOO19.AM4 5 Tract 24185-1.2 and Final Lots 110-112, Lot 143 · To be developed as Passive Parks. · To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for the proposed 351 building permits within Tracts 24185-1, 2 and Final. Tract 24186-I Lots 119 and 120 · To be developed with paseos and activity modes with passive recreation. · To be completed prior to the issuance of 50% of the proposed 116 building permits within Tract 24186-1. Tract 24186-2 Lots 124 through 128 · To be developed with paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation. · To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the proposed 120 building permits within Tract 24186-2. Tract 24187 Lots 372 and 373 · To be developed as paseos with activity nodes with passive recreation. · To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tract. Tract 24188 · The 5-Acre Park shall be improved and shall be dedicated to the City and City shall accept prior to issuance of: (i) the 1741h building permit in Tract 24187-1 and Tract 24187-2; or (ii) the first building permit in Tract 24187-Finak or (iii) the first building permit in Tract 24188 (excluding 67 dwelling units in Tract 24188-1), whichever occurs first. 03-06-98 10019-00002 S:\152\98010019.AM4 6 Lot 352 · To be developed as a passive park. To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 217 through 351. Lots 372 and 378 · To be developed as passive parks. To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 1 through 216. Lot 374 · To be developed as paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation. To be completed prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 1 through 216. (0 Owners may extend the improvement completion dates as set forth in this Amendment with written consent from the City Manager of City. (g) It is acknowledged and agreed that the design and lot numbering of future tract maps may change and will be incorporated in an Addendure without the need to process further amendments to the Development Agreement so long as the goals, intent and purpose of the Development Agreement are maintained." 6. Section 12.10 of the Development Agreement entitled "Park Improvement Fee Credits" shall be modified to read as follows: "At the time of completion of the improvements and transfer of the 5-Acre Park as provided in this Amendment, Owners shall receive a credit equal to 100% of the amount of the "Park and Recreation Improvements" component of the City's Development Impact Fee CDIF"), including any future incre sed adjustments in said component .based on the actual co.sts of the park improveme t curred by Owners not Owners shall re eive a lee reduction o p to 50% of the amount of th Recreation lm rovements com onent of th ' p p e DIF, including ~ture increased adjustments, in said component for private parks constructed in Paseo del Sol. The Park and Recreation Improvements component DIF reductions, as set forth in this Amendment, shall be calculated and applied at the time of payment. Owners shalI be entitled to 03-04-98 10019-00002 S:\152\98010019.AM4 7 modify this Agreement by Addendum to reflect any proportionate credit increase for private park improvements caused by a reduction in Paseo del Sol project densities." 7. Section 12.11 of the Development Agreement entitled "Park Fee Obligation" shall be modified to read as follows: "Owners' Quimby Park obligation for Paseo del Sol is fully satisfied by the provision of this Amendment and the public and private parks, greenbelts and paseos, as shown on Exhibit E." 8. Section 12.12 of the Development Agreement shall be modified to read as follows: Recreation areas as provided in this Amendment shall be developed in accordance with the land use entitlements and City Standards. With respect to the 5-Acre Park and public median improvements. Owners shall post performance and labor/material bonds for these improvements prior to construction as provided in this Amendment. 9. Exhibit E to the Development Agreement is hereby deleted and is replaced with a new Exhibit E which is attached hereto. 10. modified to show: Section 23 of the Development Agreement entitled Notices shall be To City: City of Temecula City Clerk P.O. Box 9033 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 With copy to: Peter M. Thorson. Esq. Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 S. Hope Street, 381h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1469 To Owner: James M. Delhamer Newland Associates, Inc. 9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 230 ka Jolla, CA 92037 With copy to: Dennis D. O'Neil, Esq. Hewitt & McGuire, LLP 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 03-04-98 10019-00002 S:\152\98010019.AM4 8 11. This Amendment contains two exhibits: Exhibit A--the Property description. and Exhibit E -- the replacement to Exhibit E in the Development Agreement. Each exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 12. It is hereby acknowledged and agreed that any recital, section, provision or exhibit of the Development Agreement not specifically modified by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. 13. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 14. This Amendment shall be effective as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 98- which approved this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto as of the date set forth above. "CITY" THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Ronald H. Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: j~;-/4~ ..~,cyCity Clerk / 03-04-98 10019-00002 S:\152\98010019.AM4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney "OWNERS" CAL-PASEO DEL SOL, LLC. a California limited liability company, constituting the merger and continuing entity of CAL-PALOMA DEL SOL, LLC, a California limited liability company, CAL- CPS SOUTHEAST, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: 03-0a-98 10019-00002 S:\152\98010019.An4 10 Q30706 EXHiBiT 'A" P.A_RCEL A: OPEN SPACE LOT 114 OF 'TPS_CT, NO. 2-t!33-2, AS S~O~.N RY F_~.P ON 'FILE iN ROOK 230 PAGRS 42 Ti='?.OUGE 47, iNCLUSiVE, OF Y-~_PS, RECOP'_DS OF Ri~'ERSiDE CDDZN'TY, CALiFO.=LNiA. P}3CEL B: Tr'9. T CERTAIN P}_RCEL OF L}_N'D SITUATED iN THE CiTY OF TEY. ECULA, COu'.N'fY OF RiVERSiDE, STATE OF CALZFOP_\'iA, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS !, 2, 3 _'-_N3 S! OF PARCEL Y_'-_? NO. 23-_32 AS SEO~.' EY YAP ON FiLE iN' BOOT< 159 PAGE(S} 3'S THROUGH 5! OF P.~_RCEL P_~.PS, 21CO?'.DS OF HEY ASiDE COLD~.'TI', CALZFOP_~'Z.'-., ~BZNG 3OL.'N'DED ON THE EAST 3;' THE CEN'TERLZNi OF Y-_~SOOWS P.'~2_~WAY AS SHO~.~' ON SAiD P;~RCEL YAP =-_x~ BEING ROu"N.'DED ON ii-_'E NORTH RY THE FOLLOWING DESCRiEED LINE: REGZN.'~ZNG AT TiGE ZNiZRSZCTZON OF THE CZN'TZPZZNi OF ..~f':_'-_DOW5 P.'-_~_Tv~A_ WZ_"i-i THE CZ.N'TEP. LZN'E 0_-' C.'-_~.P.'-2,ZE_-'. WA_v AS 550~.~' ON SAiD PAP, CZL Y_~.P; Z_-=NCZ _'-LONG SAiD CEN'TZRLiN'E OF C;_~.P_'-_~ZA WA':' SOD'_'H 5~° 00' 00" ~lBl 123 . O0 FEET TO TEE BEGiNNiNG OF A T.'-_NGEN~f, CD'Rjv'% CONCA'v'E NOR_"i_-ERL/.'-_N.'D i;_'-.V!NG A P;'_D!US OF !O00.00 ==:_NCE .'-.LONG SAiD CL?.VE ~STERLY 691.2! FEiT THROUGH A _'-_~'GLE 0F 39 ° 3 ~ ' ! 2"; TZ{'HNCE T.'-_NGENT FROM BAlD CD~..Vi NORTH *Z~° 23' 48" ~ST 333.69 TO THE 5EG!N.~!NG OF A T.'-_NGEN'F' CURVE CONCAVE NORTHZAETZRLi' H_'-.ViNS A PS!iUS OF 1000.00 FEET; Ti{ENCE ALONG SAiD C~uP, VZ NORiZ{~STERLY 529.22 _-'lET THROUGH A CZN'FP-~_L THENCE T_~_~GEN~f, FROM SAiD CwjR'¢~; NORTH 32° 35' 00" ~!ST 114.-_1 TO ?-. POiNUf' iN THE CEN'TZRLiN? OF DE PORTOLA RO.'-! AS SHO~_'~ ON SAiD P;ICEL ~' ~ · EXCEPTING THEREFROM _'.{E FOLLOWING DiSCAiRED PARCEL OF L}_~"D: SEGE_~_'<iNG AT TEE MOST WESTERLY COP_~'HR OF SAiD P_'-OCEL l; TE~CS ;_LONG Tl~E NORTZ-F~ESTiRLY LiNE OF SAiD ?.'-_~-CiL NORTH 73° 03' 54" -'_~ST 2~!.70 Flit TO .'-_N .'-_HOLE POINT THENCE _'-_LONG A LiP;E P.~PS. LLEL WiTH THE CiN'TiRLiN'E OF .~_~.RG.'~_R!T_'-. SOUTH 16° 5~' 06" EAST 227 .-'-3 FEET TO ~ LiNE ~TT-'L WTT~ a65 00 FEET NO~=-'~;''' FROH THE SOUTHERLT L!YE C'F SAiD THENCE ALONG SAiD PAP_~.LLEL LiNE NORTH 13° 23' lO" EAST {03.31 FE''! TO .'-. L!.N'_' P.'-PS. LL''L WiTH A_N'D 665.00 FEET EASTTALL' FRON. SAiD };ESTiRLi' Li}Z-_ OF PARCEL !: ?HE-"~CE ALONG LAST SAiD _=.'--P_~_LLEL LiNE SOUTH 16© 56' 06" EAST 555.0! FEET ~ THENC-' ALONG :., LiNE PAPC-_LL:L ~<iTH SAiD SOUTH''RLT LiNE NORTH 73° 20" EAST 533 , 00 FEET; THENCE BOUTS !6° 36' 40' "-.:.ST 70,00 FEE1 TO S.;.iD 50UTKERLT LiNE OF THZ;4CE ALONG TEE BOU~.Y_.'-_RE : r\rr ~.- S.-~.iD o-_=CrL ~ ?=m~UGz- FOLLOTZXG COURSES. SOUTH 73~ 23' 20' ;,iST 115279 FEET TO .'-_"¢ }2CGLZ Z-=SC2 NORTZ-{ 5!° 46' 24" WEST 49.38 FEET; FEET TO TEE POiN'T OF CD.~TTAi,~'Z_,NG: 3!.56 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. P_~_RCEL C: _--=-__AT CERTAIN P.'-RCEL OF L.~_ND SITUATED iN TEE CiTY OF ?E~CULA, COu"iNT'_¢ OF RiVERSiDE, STATE OF CALZFO.=_YZ.'-., ~EZNG Ti_~OSE PORTIONS OF PAR. CELS l, 2, 3 A_x~ 51 OF PARCEL .~_'-.P NO. 23432 AS SHO~_~ BY P_~.P ON FiLE 'iN BOOK 169 PAGE(S) 33 TEROUG/-.' S! OF P.'-_~.CEL Y_z. PS, RECOP'.DS OF RiVERSiDE CODR~.'FY, CALZFOP_~iA, LYING NORTHERLY _'-_~.'D EASTERLY oF THE ROLLOWiNG DESCRIBED LZN'Z: 5EGZN.~ZNG AT TEE Z!~F. ERSZSTZON OF THE CZ.~TZRLiN'Z OF .'.'i'E~_DOW5 WZT'E THE C-'NTZRLZN'Z OF C--'_~--~-'-_h'jLA WAY AS Sj~O~! ON SAiD P.'_~,CEL P_AP; _~_-__~CE }LONG SAiD CE.NUERLZN'E 0? C;_~.PJ_NiD. WAY 50b'l_.H 5~° 00' ~iST 123 . 00 _- ~= _, TO TEE _~EGZN_~ZNG OF A T;_'~G-Z_N'T CL'P_,}i CONC_AV~ KOR_'r_s. RLY ;_~'D F_~.VZNG A R;_DZUS OF lOOO.00 FEET; i'-'-"NCZ .'-.LONG SAiD CL"P. VE ~'ZSYZRLY 6 ,= ! - 2 l : _- ~: TFiqOUGH A CZNTF~.L }_NGLE OF 39° 36' TZ{ENCE T;_NGEN7 FROM SAiD ChiVE NORTH ~° 23' ~B" WEST 333.69 FEZ TO TZ~E BEOZN_I,'ZNG OF A ?~_~GE!~Z CUR~'E CGNCA~'E NORTHEASTERLY EI-.ViNG .'-. P~.DZUS OF !000 .o0 FELT; _r_i~C_E ;_LONG BAlD CD!VZ NORTZ~T_STERLY 3 :~,-i O FEET ii_{ROUSZH A CEN'TP_~.L }_~GLZ OF 22 ° O 8 ' 2 0" ?O A POi!;T ON .'-. P_:_DZ.~L LiNE OF SAiD OLIVE ~i{ZCE PASSES THROUGH THE HOST SOL'iHERL'_" SG_-~_N'ER OF THE P~P_K SiTE AS DiSCHiRED iN GPR-_N7 DEED RZCO_=_DZD N_'-2. C.~ 22, 19_~-i AS iNSTRD."~j_N'T NO. ll!3~E9 OF OFFZCZ;_L RZCDP~DS oF RiVERSiDE COb'N!!', _"fEnCE ;_LONG SAiD P.;IZ.'-_L LiN~- NORTH 25° {=.' 32' 7%5! SO.DO FEET TO SAiD SDD'_HERL!' COP_N'ER; z_-LNCZ ;_LONG T?.'E BOUN~_~.i' LiNE OF SAiD PAP_'-, Sire _'__-LEOUGH TZ{E FOLLOWING CDD'R. SES: NDRTi.~ 3~° 2B' DO" EAST 733.!3 FEET; =_6'=_~CE NORTH {8' 03' 25" ~lST 370.35 FEET; _='EE__"'C2 NORTH 5l° {l' {3' :~lS? 197.3-{ FEET ?O ~k-.~ ~OST COP_~ZR 0:' SAiD _~.'-_=.K BiTE ~ZZNG A POZN'?' ON .-'. Cb!vE CONCAVE ~Ob'_'EERL'f _~_~'D i=_'-.VZNG A PS'.DZUS OF liB0.00 FEET iN ?.HE SCDiHERLY LiNE OF DE PORTALO RO},_D AS SPiO~.~ ON SAiD PARGEL TF. ZNCZ PS~DZALLY FRCH THE SAiD CURVE NORTH 55 ' 39 ' 25" ¼'EFT S 0. O 0 FEET TO THE CZ.X'VZRLiN'E OF SAiD DE PCRTOLA ROSD .-'2,'O THE POINT OF TEPS!Z?TATZON OF SUBJECT P.-'_RCEL D: (PALO.~Lz. OiL SOL) PARCELS = THROUGH 6 , ZNCLUSi',SZ, AS SHO~,Ij BY F.-'_RCZL NL~P 23-'.32 0 FiLE iN BOOk 155 PAGES 33 THROUGH Sl OF PARCiL N_'--PS, RECORDS OF RiVERSiDE CO:jIZ?i', CALiFS~J;i.:.; .;=LSO EXCZPTiN,S RRO>_I F.L-iZZLS 5 .:2,'D 5 T'H_:.T FZRTZZ. N LYING WiiHZN TAz. CT NO. 2~136-! O>; FiLE iF; BOO:< 232 PzSZS ll ?ERC,:jGH =l OF N_>'.P5, RECORDS OF RZ',;ZZSiDZ OCt'ST'f, _i~.LiFZ'R_';i.;, I. 307[ P.'-_RCEL ~: (P-~_LOff_.~, DEL SOL) LOTS i THROUGH !O!, iNCLUSiVE, .~_~,'D OPEN SPACE LOTS 102 ~_~.'D 103 OF TRACT NO. 24135-1 AS S?2G~-~ BY ;u_z.p ON FiLE iN BOOK 232 PAGES 31 kz_~,OUGiu' 4 !, iNCLUSiVZ, OF F_'-.PS, RECO?'_DS OF RiVERSiDE COD.'~'!Y, C~_LiFOP. NiA. P.~RCEL F: _T_z_AT CERTAIN PA_RC-'L OF LAND SiVATED iN TEE CiTY 0F TE_~CL'L.~, COD'h'TY O? RIVERSIDE, STATi OF CALZFO.~_~iA, BEING Ti-L~T PORTION' OF P.~_RCEL ! OF PI-_D, CEL ~-AP NO. 23432, AS SHO~' BY .~2-.P ON FiLE ZN BOOK ! S 9 PAGE ( S ) 3 S THROUGH 5 ! OF PAI. CiL .u_z. PS, RECO_maS OF RiVERSiDE COD_'SCiY, CAL!FO?2~iA, DESCRiSiD AS FOLLOWS: BEGi?~'NENG AT ?HE HOST WESTERLY CO?_\ER OF SAiD P-'-iCEL !; THENCE ALONG ?:-'E NORT.=.~ESTERL'.'' Lih'Z OF SAiD P.'-_~-.CEL NO.~,?H 73' 5-t" L'-.ST, 2~!.73 FEEl ?0 .z_\' kKGLE POEAT ?HEREZ:$; i~'_-ENSZ .-'_LONG A LZ.'qZ PAI.._~_DLZL WiTH THE CZ.\"_,ZRLZb'Z OF Y-~'-~,G-'-iZTA ROI-_D SOL_'_ff !5° S5' 05" L'-.ST, 227.z. 3 FEET TO A LZh'Z P.'-_mI-j. LZL WiTH 655.00 ------T NORTHERLY PROM TEE SOL'_'HZRLk' LZ>Z OF SAiD P~ECEL; _'E_-L~CE .-'_LONG SAiD RA_:D-.LLEL LZ.~? NORTH 73 ° 23' 20" EAST, -103.31 TO A LZ.h'Z P~_:2-_LLZL WiTH kh'D 553.00 FEET -"-.STZRLY FROM SAiD ~'ZSTERLY THENCE ALONG LAST SAiD P.zY_~_LLZL LiNE SOUTH 15° 55' ~5" iABT, TEZNCE ALONG A LiNE P.~RJ-.LLEL WiTH SAiD SOUTHERLY LZR'E, NORTH 73° 23 ' 20" EAST, 533.0O FEET; _"~---ENCE SOUTH Z6~ 3~' 40" EAST, 70.00 FEET TO SAiD SOUTEZRL'_-' LZ_K'Z OF P?-_~,CZL !; TE. mE~CE ALONG THE BOL'?.~wD~_~,Y LZ?UE OF SAiD ?~2. CEL i THROUGH THE FOLLO~Z_NS COD'2. SZS ~ SOUTH 73° 23' 20" ;4~S? !152 .7~ r_--r? TO .z_,/ ANGLE POZ:CT _,~ZNCE :COR?H 5!° 65' 2-_" ~'ZST, -19.3S FZZY; _'ZHE.'CE NORTH l 5 ° S ~ ' 0 S" ~T_ST, E 55 . l-'_ FEET TO _T..~Z POZ_~'T OF BEGZh.~ZNG. DOCS~__-'Zq? NO, !~ZC E 7 ~' DA._'-Z ' YZCCP'.DZD J3OT QG 5T.~_Z'w_.~-'_.NT Oz' TI-_'( DUE ?-_x!D P. ZQUZS? TE.!T TI-_X DZEZ~._D._'-.TZSN NOT BE y._-__.n=- A P.z_=._Z'. OF T~'- 2ZP_~_~.NZ~Z'_. P. ZCOB,_D iN TEl CZ_-'ZCZ OF T~-' COb'N,Z_'.'f P='CS.=,.DZ_R ?U?..E~2-_,"TT TO 5ZC'_ZON 2. ZB32 p;v. .-'jqD '_'2--_X CC'D-Z .'-..=ND CGUN"_."_' C_RDZ.Y~..:NCZ =~54-~ . .1!0 To: RiVZ.-RSZDZ Count',' Recorsj~z sho~-n c_n =z~ ==!c. inai 6-~z'zuenu ='h!zh hazes: '.q.RDC, Z~C., A C.-'ZZ:'O!XSA CD?2OI-'.TZON and, C.-'-L-?--'_LO.~._-'. DZL SOL, LLC, .-'. C.~Zi.-"0Pj:!.~ LZ~.iiZD LZ-'.ZiZZ_'Ff The (D'..'Z'NCOF22Z~TZD ½2,Z.'=) T~e a_mounz sf zz:: E-ze cn i%e acrzm.=a:TizT ; ........ 13 ~ i.ZD0.O0 . - ..... ~z~zzD' Cz~v~ KPJC, iNC., Zscrc=- N',:_T-:--er: 766!:2/20L30~n PARCEL iEA7 FOETIDE OF PARCEL 51 OF PARCEL ~A? SO. 23~32 AS 5EO~ 3l PARCEL ~AP'DM FiLE iH 3OO~ !59 PAGES 33 THROUCE 6!, !FCLUSiiE, PARCEL ~APS. RZCDRD5 OF E!VZ~SZDS COUNTY, CALiTORNZA.~LYiHC EASTERLY 0? TEE CENTZRLI.~E OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AS S~O~/N ON SAiD PARCiL MAP. OF >Z ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PROPOSED "PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REDUCTION AGREEMENT" TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Rz\BTAFFRPT\lloPA95.PC 6/24/98 klb 8 PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REDUCTION AGREEMENT This Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Reduction Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into to be effective on April 28, 1998 by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Cal-Paseo del Sol, LLC, a California limited liability company constituting the merger and continuing entity of Cal-Paloma Del Sol, LLC, a California limited liability company, and Cal-CPS Southeast, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Owners"), with reference to the following: RECITALS A. Owners own approximately eight hundred twenty (820) acres constituting the easterly and southerly portions of Paloma del Sol included within Specific Plan No. 219 (the "Property"). The Property is now referred to as "Paseo del Sol." The City has approved land use entitlements for Paseo del Sol constituting 2,702 detached residential units, 638 attached residential units and 47.3 acres of commercial development. B. On August 26, 1997, the City Council of City adopted Ordinance No. 97-14 being an ordinance of the City of Temecula amending Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code relating to public facilities development impact fees and credits CDIF Ordinance"). On August 12, 1997, the City Council of the City adopted Resolution No. 97-94 being a resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecuta restating the terms of Resolution No. 97-45, which established and imposed a public facilities development impact fee and clarifying certain matters in Resolution 97-45 CDIF Resolution"). C. The DIF Ordinance requires a developer to pay the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee CDIF") for residential and commercial construction in an amount established by the DIF Resolution. D. Section 15.06.040 of the DIF Ordinance entitles a developer to a reduction in the amount of a component of the DIF if the developer constructs public facilities relating to that component pursuant to the City's Capital Improvement Plan CCIP") and the public facilities constructed are those for which the DIF is designated as the funding source. The specific component of the DIF which would have funded the improvement when installed shall be reduced by the amount of design, engineering and construction costs that would be reasonably incurred by the City in building those same public facilities. E. Section 15.06.050(A)(2) of the DIF Ordinance provides that any developer whose development is subject to the DIF and who has constructed or financed regional or regionally significant public facilities substantially similar to those facilities that are listed or otherwise identified in the City's CIP, such as streets, traffic signals and public parks, may apply for a reduction in the DIF. The City shall consider entering into an agreement with any developer applying for a reduction pursuant to this provision. F. City and Owners are entering into this Agreement for the purpose of setting forth certain reductions in the amount of specified components of the DIF based on the construction 04-15-98 100~9-00002 S:\152\97110004.AG3 DRAFT of public improvements by Owner and pursuant to the provisions of the DIF Ordinance, the DIF Resolution and adopted City policies. COVENANTS Based upon the foregoing Recitals and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. City and Owners acknowledge the above recitals are true and correct and incorporate them herein as if they were fully restated. 2. Owners have constructed and will construct public facilities within Paseo del Sol included within the City's CIP which have been designated to be funded by the DIF. 3. Owners have constructed and will construct regional or regionally significant public facilities within Paseo del Sol substantially similar to those facilities that are listed or otherwise identified in the City's CIP as a result of participation in a special assessment or community facilities district or as a result of conditions of approval for the development of Paseo del Sol. 4. Owners have constructed and will construct public park improvements within Paseo del Sol which have been designated to be funded by the DIF. Owners have constructed and will construct private park improvements within Paseo del Sol entitling Owners to up to a 50% reduction in the DIF pursuant to City policy. 5. Owners shall be entitled to a reduction in the Street System Improvements Component of the DIF for residential construction depending on the actual number of residential units approved, based on $511.00 per unit for Residential Attached and $729.00 per unit for Residential Detached, and, additionally, a reduction for commercial construction based on the classification and square footage of the commercial construction approved for Paseo del Sol. An analysis of the Paseo del Sol CIP improvements and budgeted costs is shown on Exhibit "A ," attached and made a part herein by this reference. 6. City has identified, as shown on the attached Exhibit "B ," Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems to be funded by the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems Component of the DIF. In lieu of a reduction in the Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems Component of the DIF, Owners shall receive reimbursement from the City for any traffic signals or traffic controls shown on Exhibit "B" designed and constructed by Owners. Reimbursement shall include the actual design, engineering and construction costs and shall occur at the time traffic signals or traffic control systems are accepted by the City. 7. Owners shall be entitled to a reduction in the Park and Recreation Improvements Component of the DIF in the amount not to exceed $625,000 for public park improvements based on the actual engineering, design, and construction costs for improving a 5 acre neighborhood City park. The DIF Park and Recreation Improvemems Component reduction shall accrue at the time the 5-Acre Park improvements are completed. 04-15-98 10019-00002 S:\152\97110004.AG3 2 DRAFT 8. Owners shall be entitled to a reduction in the Park and Recreation Improvements Component of the DIF in the mount of $1,633,125 for private paxk improvements to be provided in Paseo del Sol. An analysis of the mount of the Park and Recreation Improvements Component reduction for Paseo del Sol private park improvements is shown on Exhibit "C" attached and made a part herein by this reference. 9. All DIF component fee reductions and credits as provided in this Agreement shall be deducted from the DIF at the time the fee is paid until the maximum deductions as provided in this Agreement are exhausted. Owners shall be entitled to an adjustment in DIF credits as provided in this Agreement in the event the City increases any mount of a DIF component. 10. If Owners construct public facilities pursuant to the City 's CIP, and if Owners' engineering and construction costs to construct those public facilities are more than the DIF credit provided to Owners, City agrees to enter into a reimbursement agreement with Owners, subject to the availability of funds. 11. City agrees as part of any discretionary approvals for other landowners and/or developers benefitting from the public facilities paid for and constructed by Owners to condition such discretionary approvals on the landowners and/or developers entering into agreements in favor of Owners to reimburse Owners for the costs of public facilities and public improvements exceeding the mount of the Public Facilities Development Fee credits as provided in this Agreement. 12. Owners shall have the absolute right to transfer and assign any of their rights, benefits and obligations under this Agreement to other developers and/or merchant builders. 13. City shall not grant any DIF reductions as provided in this Agreement to purchasers of property from Owners or assignees of Owners without written authorization from Owners. 14. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the City and Owners and their respective successors and assigns. 15. If either party commences litigation or other proceedings against the other for the purpose of determining or enforcing its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution or defense of the action. 04-15-98 10019~00002 S:\152\97110004.AG3 3 DRAFT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto as of the date set forth above. "CITY" THE CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation By: Ronald H. Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: , City Clerk Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney "OWNERS" CAL-PASEO DEL SOL, LLC, a California limited liability company, constituting the merger and continuing entity of CAL-PALOMA DEL SOL, LLC, a California limited liability company, CAL- CPS SOUTHEAST, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: 04-15-98 10019-00002 S:\152\97110004.AG3 4 EXHIBIT A DRAFT Street System Improvements Component Reduction Based upon the City's study (dated March 31, 1997) of the Street System Improvements Component of the DIF ("the Street Component Study"), a potential reduction of such fee in the amount of $2,447,800 is available to the Paseo del Sol project. The elements establishing the reduction are derived from the Street Component Study as follows: RDID4 RDID8 Butterfield Sta~e Road G. Pauba Road to DePortola H. DePortola Road to Hwy 79 Available DIF Reduction SB $300,000 SB $ 52,000 DePortola Road A. Butterfield Stage Road to Meadows Parkway EB Butterfield Stage Road to Meadows Parkway WB D. Meadows Parkway to Margarita Road EB Meadows Parkway to Margarita Road WB $190,000 $190,000 $106,400 * $106,400 * The Street Component Study erroneously uses 7,800 linear feet for the distance in the DePortola Road median between Meadows Parkway to Margarita Road. The correct distance is 2,800 linear feet, (2,800 x $38.00 = $106,400). RD ID 14 RD ID 21 Hwv 79 to Leena Way B. Butterfield Stage Road to Margarita Road WB $585,000 Meadows Parkway A. Hwy 79 to Leena Way NB Hwy 79 to Leena Way SB B. Leena Way to McCabe NB C. McCabe to Pauba Road NB Total Available DIF Reduction: $314,880 $314,880 $150,480 $137,760 $2,447,890 04-15-98 10019-00002 S:\152\97110004.AG3 EXHIBIT "A" DRAFT The approved Specific Plan for Paseo del Sol allows for the construction of 2,702 single family units, 638 multi-family units and, as yet, an undetermined amount of commercial construction. As shown below, under the current DIF structure, the total Street System Improvements Component fees generated by residential construction is $2,295,776. This amount is $152,024 less than the $2,447,800 potential development impact fee reduction available under the Street Component Study. Residential Product Current Fee Fees Generated 2,702 SF $729 $1,969,758 638MF $511 $ 326,018 $2,295,776 Therefore, the initial Street System Improvements Component reduction of the DIF for single family units and multi-family units (until such time as the total Street System Improvements Component reduction taken equals the total street component reduction available to the Paseo del Sol project under the Street Component Study, as amended from time to time) shall be: Single-Family Units Multi-Family Units Commercial Construction $729 $511 Toml Fee 04-15-98 10019-00002 S:\152\97110004.AG3 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT B The City of TEMECULA General Plan Prod, ram EXHIBIT C DRAFT Park and Recreation Improvements Component Reduction Based upon the approved Specific Plan for Paseo del Sol, the Quimby park land requirement for a project of similar size would be as calculated below: Residential Product Park Acres 2,702 Single Family 34.95 638 Multi-Family 8.60 Toml 43.55 The costto develop private park land within the Paseo del Sol pr~ectis estimated to be $75,000 per acre. The City will reduce the Park and Recreation Improvements Component of the DIF assessed to the Paseo del Sol project in the amount of 50% of the cost to develop 43.55 acres of private park land. The resulting Park and Recreation Improvement Component fee reduction for private park development within Paseo del Sol is $1,633,125 (43.55 x $75,000 x 50%). The developer of Paseo del Sol shall construct a 5.0 acre public park within Tract 24188 at a cost not to exceed $625,000. The City will reimburse the cost to develop the public park by reducing the Park and Recreation Improvements Component of the DIF by $1,611 per unit for approximately 388 single family units within Tracts 24187 and 24188 of Paseo del Sol. After assigning to the 388 single family units the reduction in the Park Recreation Improvements Component associated with the public park improvements, 2,314 (2,702 - 388) single family units and 638 multi-family units remain available for Park and Recreation Improvements Component reductions relating to private park development. 04-15-98 10019-00002 5:\152\9711000l..AG3 EXHIBIT "C" DRAFT The per unit Park and Recreation Improvements Component reduction for private park development will be calculated on the same weighted average as the Park and Recreation Improvements Component generated by the remaining 2,3 14 single family units and 638 multi-family units. The calculation shall he: Weighted Average Fees Generated Remainin¢, Units Park Fee Fees Generated % of Total 2,314 sfdu $1,611 $3,727,854 83% 638 mfdu $1,209 $ 771,342 17% Total $4,499,196 100% Fee Reduction Per Unit Calculation Private Park Fee Reduction % of Total Fee Reduction Remaining, Units Per Unit 83 % $1,355,494 2,314 sfdu $586 17% 277.631 638 mfdu $435 100 % $1,633,125 Therefore, the initial Park and Recreation Improvements Component of the DIF paid to City (except for the 388 single family units associated with the public park improvements) shall be: Single Family Units $1,025 Multi-Family Units $ 774 ($1,611 - $586) ($1,209 - $435) The per unit impact fee reduction amount will be adjusted from time to time as changes to the project density are made either through amendments to Specific Plan No. 219 or approval of future tentative tract maps. 04-15-98 10019-00002 S:\152\97110004.AG3 EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHMENT NO. 4 AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PASEO DI=L SOL, RECORDED FEBRUARY 18, 1993 R:\STAFFRPT\l16PA95.PC 6/24/98 klb 9 · RECORDED AT TKE REQUEST OF City Clerk City of Temecula WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO Ci~ Clerk ~,.ity of Tcmccula ,~43174 Business Park Drive ~Temecula, CA 92590 (Spac~ Above Iine For Recorder's Use) AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PALOMA DEL SOL 01-06-;3 12221 TABLE OF CONTENTS G2043 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 12.6 12.7 Deiaitiom .................................................. Interest of Owner ............................................. Exhibits ................................................... Assignment ............................ 5.1 52 53 5.4 Right to Assign ........................................... Release of Transferring Owner ................................ Termination of Agreement with Respect to Individual Lots upon Sale to Public and Completion of Construction ............................... Subsequent Assig-ment ...................................... Mortgagee Protection ........................................... Bi~ding Effect of Agreement ....................................... Relationship of Parties .......................................... Changes in Projea ............................................. Timing of Development .......................................... Indemnity and Cost of Litigation 11.1 112 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 Hold Hamaless ........................................... Cotmty Litigation Concerning Agreement ........................... Public Facilities Fees Shortfall ................................. County Prewih i~ Litigation - Severability .......................... Third Party Litigation Concerning Agreement ........................ Third Party Litigation Coneernlng the General Plan .................... Environmental Assurances .................................... Public Benefits, Public Improvements and Facilities ......................... 12.1 Intent ................................................. 122 Public Facrlities Fee (Non-Residential) ............................ 122 Public Facilities Fee (Residential) ............................... 12.4 Public Facilities Fee Credit ................................... 12.5 Parks, Greenbelts and Paseos .................................. Main Recreation Areas .......................................... Remaining Open Space Areas ...................................... 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 14 14 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 20 12221 F:MXt"X152X~/aa.la012.12; 62043 12.8 12.9 t andscape Development Zones 12.10 Park Improvement Fee Credits 12.11 Timing of Park Improvements and Transfer to City ......................... Park Fee Obligation ............................................ 12.12 Park Improvements ........................................ 12.13 Co-nic~ with Timing of Improvements ............................ 13. Reservations of Authority ......................................... 13.1 t imitations, Reservations, and Exceptions .......................... 133 Subsequent Development Approvals .............................. 133 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law .................... 13.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies ............................. 135 Tentative Tract Map Extension ................................. 13.6 Vesting Tentative Maps ...................................... 14. Development of the Property ...................................... 14.1 Rights to Develop ......................................... 143 Effect of Agreement on I ~nd Use Regulations ....................... 14.3 Changes and Amendments .................................... 15. Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement .......................... 16. Financing District .............................................. 17. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement .............................. 18. Enforcement ........ ......................................... 19. Events of Default .............................................. 20. Procedure Upon Default ......................................... 21. Damages Upon Termln=tion ....................................... ~. Anorneys' Fees and Costs ........................................ 2.3. Notices .................................................... 24. Cooperation .............................................. ,.. ~. Rules of Consmac'don and Miscelianeons Terms ........................... 26. Counterparts ................................................. 27 27 28 29 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 37 3-~ OI-GB-9~ F:~TSZ~ra~4301Z, l~G EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B ExI-Imrr C EXHIBIT D EXFrrI~rT E EXIq~IT F EXHIBITS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS ~ -~:GAL DESCRIPTION AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACII_FHES FEES MAP OF PARKS, PASEO,~, GREENBELTS AND SLOPES CTrY PARK STANDARDS 01 -M-93 1Z221-QIX)~ F: MX)~lSZV~Z'U.~QIZ. 1~c: 62043 AJVI~NDMENT AND RESTATEI~ENT OF Dfv'ELOP~ AGREE~ BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA and KRDC, INC. AND MESA HOMES (Paloma del Sol) This Axncuament and Rastatcmcnt of Developmere Agreement ("A~ccmcnt") is cutered into to bc effective on the date it is recorded with the Riverside County Recorder (the "Effective Date") by and among the City of Tcmecula, a California w,,nicipal corporation ("City") and the persons and entities listed below ("Owner"): KRDC, Inc., a C-llfornia corporation, formerly known as Bedford Developmere Company, a Cnllforuia corporation, and Mesa Homes, a c~lifornia corporation A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864, et seq. (*Development Agreement Statutes"), Owners predecessor in interest, K~i~er Development Company and the County of Riverside ("County") entered into Development Agreement No. 4 recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County on November 7, 1988, as Instrument No. 325513 ("Development Agreement"). B. The Development Agreement encompasses a project formerly located within County approved Specific Plan No. 219 known as 'Paloma del Sol", a mixed use subdivision (the "Project) to be developed on property owned by Owner which became a part of the municipal boundaries of the City when the City incorporated on December 1, 1989. 01 -O~-slt~ 11221 62043 C. Pursuant m the provisions of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City ' ' became the successor-in-interest to the County under the Development Agreement upon incorporation of the City. D. Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City and Owner propose to restate and mend the Development Agreement to substitute thi~ Agreement for the Development AgreemenL E. Pursuant and subject w the Development Agreement Statutes, the City's police powers and City Resolution No. 91-52, City is authorized w enter into binding agreements with persons having legal or equitable interest in real property located w~th;n the City~s municipal boundaries or sphere of influence thereby establL~h;ng the conditions under which such property may be developed in the City. F. By electing to enter into thi~ Agreement, City shall bind future members of the City Council of City by the obligations specified herein and further l;mit the fuRl.re exercise of cef governmentaJ and proprielary powers of members of the City Council Likewise, Owner shall bind its successors in interest to the obligations specified in th;~ Agreement. G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by the st~f-f of the City, the plnnning Comrnie~ion of the City and the City Council of City and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable. H. City finds and determines that it will be in the best interests of its citizens and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into th[~ Agreement. L All of the procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met with respect to th;~ Agreement. J. City was incorporated on December 1, 1989. Pursuant to c~lifomia Government Code Section 65360, the City has thirty {30) months following incorporation to prepare and adopt a Ol-QB-~F~ 1ZZZl-eX~p4. F:~D(~"'k152~d:u,~O12.1Z; 2 G2043 general plan. This 30-month period may be extended by approval of the f'-l;l~ejrnia Office of F}~nn;n~ and Research ("OPR"). OPR has mended this period and authorized the City to enter into development agreements so long as the City Cotmci] makes the findings set forth in ("~lifornia Government Code Section 65360 ("Section 65360). During thk 30-month periocL the City may approve development project~ without being subject to the requh'ement that its decisions be consistent with the general plan so long as the findings set forth in Section 65360 are met which findin~ the City Council of City have made. IC Riverside County Ord;n~nce No. 659 establishes public facilities and services impact fees for residential development wifhin City CRSA Fees"). City requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from development of the Property in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the development. L Tae Development Agreement provided for public facilities and services impact fees ("County Impact Fees") bigher than the RSA Fees. These bigher fees, particularly during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent City from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequendy, the City desires to reduce the County Impact Fees for residential development in the Project to a level comparable to the RSA Fees. M. Effective January 31, 1992, the City and Owner entered into a Mcmorundum Of Understanding ("MOU') which, .rnong other things, establishes the terms and conditions under which thi~ Agreement would et~rnlnRte the County Impact Fees and replace it with a City Public Facilities Fee. N. Effective August n, ~992, the City and Owner entered into a Restatement and Amendment of the MOU ("Amended MOU') to provide., -rnong other thln~S, that for a period of two years, Owner shall pay Interim Public Facilities Fees alld dedicate to City cert-ln park land and recreation facilities in order to satisfy (:)wner's Qnirnby Park Fee obligation. 01-QSo~rJ F:~q-%1$Z%..~,DG012.12; 3 G2043 O. Under the tel'lIB of the Amended MOU, Owner is oblifated to pay a Public Facilities Fee for non-residential development ('Non-Residential Public Facilities Fee") and enter into an alp'cement to pay said Non-Residential Public Facilities Fee in the event City has not adopted a Non-Residential Public Facilities Fee at the time Owner requesB City to issue building permix(s) for commercial development in the Project. P. A dispute has arisen between the City and Owner over the mount of fees or land dedication for park or recreational purposes Owner is required to provide to City as allowed under Seaion 66477 of the C'-~lifornia Government Code (*(~;rnby Park Fees'). Q. On May 20, 1987, the County mended Orrl{n:mnce No. 4~0 authori~ng the imposition of 0~drnby Park Fees. Ordinance No. 460 required adoption of an implementation resolution designating a recipient of the Quimby Park Fees. On lane 2.8, 1988, pursuant lo Resolution No. 88-218, the County desi.,~nmted CSA 143 as the recipient of (D"imby Park Fees subject to the adoption of a rn,~ler plan. On .lane 27, 1989, pursuant w Resolution No. 89-331, the Coun-~ adopted a nnsler plan for CSA 143, establishing the (>wirnby Park Fees at three (3) acres per 1,000 new residents ('County Park Fee Standard'). R. Pursuant to Resolution No. 90-53, adopted on May 8, 1990, City has adopted C~drnby Park Fees of five (5) acres of land for parks and recreational purposes, or payment of fees in lieu thereof, for every 1,000 people to reside in the proposed subdivision (*City Park Fee Standard'). S. The City interprets the Development ASreement to permit the imposition of increased On;rnby Park Fees computed on the City Park Fee Standard and has required Owner to pay Oulrnby Park Fees based on the City Park Fee Standard as a condition of issuance of builrlln~ permits for Palores del Sol. Owner disagrees with th;~ position and interprets the provisions of the Development Agreement to lirnil the City's authority to impose Q, irnby Park Fees based on the park 01 -ca-9,'; 12221 F:%~a.,,,l$Z%rZIBOQlZ.12; 62043 and open space requirements of the Speci~c Plan as approved by the County and incorporated into the Development A~'eement. T. In order to avoid a legal challenge to the Qttimby P~rk Fees and to prevent the l~'nninE Of ~ relevant statutes of limitation while an~mp,~ are being made to resolve thi~ dispute, Owner and City have entered into a Standstill Agreement effective on April 9, 1991, ~ -mended ("St~-dstill A~recment"). U. City and Owner acknowledge that development of Paloma del Sol will reset m a generation of si~iacant municipal revenue, public infr~truct~re facilities and the enhancement of the quality of life, including recreation facilities for present and future residents of the City. The benefits to the City and Owner contemplated by development of the Paloma del Sol Project include: {1) the opporv,nlty for a residential-commercial project creating si~ifi~nt job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorera ?xx revenues for the Cit~, (2) p-'iyment of substantial impact fees to be used to solve City and regional tr~f~c infi-astI'~ct-llre demands; (3) a payment of public facilities fees; (4) participation in special assessmere and/or cornm,nity facilities districts to f'~n~nce City and regional ~nf'rlBtrtlCtlXre improvements; {5) the creation of signfficsat park, recreation and open space dedications for public use and the protection of si.~Znificant natural resources. V. The City and Owner acknowledge that due w the present economic recession, none of these benefits to the City are possible unless the Paloma del Sol Project proceeds with development. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the present stmcrare of fees and private recreation and open space requirements creates substantial impediments to development of the palorn~ del Sol Project. 01 -tin*93 1~221 F:~DGL'~T.SZ~v~12.12; 62043 W. Without adrni~ng or determining any rights or obligations as between Ci~ ar Owner, each to the other, with respect to the amount of the Ouimby Park Fees, and solely to avoid the potential expense and inconvenience of protracted litigation. and to balance the needs of the Cizy to provide adequate parks and re~eational hcl]ities with the di~culty of land development in today's economy, City and Owner agree that in lleu of additional (}~imby Park Fees, Owner will dedicate and develop parkland as descn'bed in this Agreement. X. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the effective date of thi~ Agreement, Owner shall deliver to the planning Depa~huent a check payable to the County Clerk in the mount of Eight Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00), which includes the Eight Hundred Filly Dollar ($850.00) fee required by Fish and G~me Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00) County zdmlni~trative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determinntion required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight {48) hour period the Owner has not delivered to the Planning Depax tment the check required above, ~ A~eement shall be void by reason of failure of condition. Fish and Gnme Code Section 711.4(c). Payment of this fee shall satisfy the 0wnefs obligation to pay a similar fee required in connection with the approval of Amendment 3 to Specific Plan 219 applicable to the Project Y. City Council of City has approved thi~ Agreement by Ordinance No. 92-19 adopted on January 1~ 1993, and effective on February 12, 1993. On the Effeclive Date, the Development A~reement shall be terminated and of no further force and effect having been replaced by thi~ Agreement. NOW, TKEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recit~|~ and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration. the receipt and su~ciency of which is hereby acknowledged and incorporated herein, the parries agree: 01 -i-e'3 't22~1 62043 City. Definitions, In this .Ageement, unless the context otherwise requires: 1.1 'Association" is the Paloma del Sol Association (HOA). 1.2 "City" is the City of Temecula, 13 "City Public Facility Fee" is an ~mount to be established by Ordinance of 1.4 "County" is the County of Riverside. 1.,5 "County Public Facilities and Services Fee" means the County Development AFeement Fee as set forth in Section 4,2 of the Development Agreement. 1.6 "Development Exaction" means any requiremere of City in connection with or pursuant to any t --d Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the comtrucdon of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests. 1.7 'Development Plan" m*~,,c the ;:ri~,,_~ Development Approvals defined in Section 1.8 below which axe applicable to development of the Property. 1.8 'Existing Development Approvals' me~n~ those certnin Development Approvals in effea as of the effective date of thi~ Al;eement with respect to the Property, inchidin~; without limitation, the 'Existing Development Approvals' listed in Exhibit A which were approved by · e the City. 1.9 "Financing District" megn~ a comm,ni~r facilities district formed pursuant to the Melio-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 (C~llfornia Government Code Seaion 53311 et.l~(l., as nmended), an assessment district formed pursuant to the 1 ~ndscaping and Lighting Aa of 1972 (c~lifomia Streets and Highways Code Seaion 22500 et l~gl., as mended), a special assessment dist~ia formed pursuant to a M-nicipal Improvement Act of 1913 (C~llt'ornia Streets and Highways Code Section 10102, as mended), or any other special assessment distrim existing pursuant 01 .a$.$r~ 12221.nrvv..c F: VX~C%lSZ%92%~43Q12.12~ '7 62043 to State law formed for the purposes of finandng the cost of public improvement, facilities, setvie" and/or public facilities fees within a specific geographical area of the City. 1.10 "Interim Public Facilities Fee* me~n~ an ~rnount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per each residential ,,nit developed in the Project. 1.11 "I and Use ReBulations" mc~n~ all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of City, govcrnlng the development and use of land including without limitation, the pertained use of land, the density or. intensity of use, subdivision requiremen~ the maximum height and size of proposed builrli-~s, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and consn'uction s2ndarcis and specifications applicable to the development of the Property listed on Extdbit B which are a rn~r~er of public record on the Effective Date of thi~ A~reemenr. 't and Use Regulation" does not include any County or City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, re~.tlalion, or official policy, governinS', (a) The condua of b-~n~sses, professions, and occupations; (b) Taxes and assessmenu; (c) The conn'ol and abatement of nuisances; (d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property;, (e) The exercise of the power of eminent dorn~;n 'Owner' menn~ the penon having a legal or equitable interest in the 1.12 ~operty; 1.13 'Passive Park Improvements* means park facilities, including picnic tables, tot lots, honeshoe playing areas and bar-b-ques. 1.14 'Project' is the development of the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. 01-N;-9) 1Z221 -OOO~ F:%~C~"'%15~Y~.~212.12; 8 62043 1.15 'Propert3?' is the real property described in ExMbit C. 1.16 "RSA Fee' means the mount of the public facilities fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 1.17 'Subsequent Development Approvals* me~-~ all Development Approvals required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property. 1.18 "Subsequent T and Use Regulation' menn~ any t and Use Regulation adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement. 2. Interest of Owner. 0wncr represents that it ha~ the fee ti~e roterest m the Property and that all other persons hoJt~ing legal.or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by thi~ Agreement, 3. E~ibi~. The following doc-ments are referred to in thk Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof by thi~ reference: Exh'bit Designation A B C D E F 4.1 Description Existing Development Approvals Existing I and Use Regulations Legal ducription of the Property Public Facilities Fee Agreement (Non-Residential) Map of Parks, Paseos, Slopes and Greenbelts City Park Standards The term of thi~ Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall extend for a period of ten (10) years thereafter, ,nle~ thi~ Agreement is terminated, modified or extended by ciralx~t~nces set forth in thi~ Agreement or by mutual consent of the panics hereto. 01oe~-~ G2043 4.2. This Agreetuent shalJ terml-ate and be of no force and effect upon the occurrence of the entry of a final judgetuent or issuance of a final order a,r'ter exhaustion of any appes~s directed against the City as a result of any lawsuit filed against the Ci~ to set aside, w~thdraw, or abrogate the approval by the City Cotmall of City of this Agreetuent. S. Assignment. 5.1 Riiht to Assiln- The Owner shall have the fight to se~L tr=-~r, or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Governmen! Code Section 66410, et seq. or Riverside County Orttln~nce No. 460, as the saxne was incorporated by reference into the Tetuecttla Municipai Code by Orrlin=nce No. 9004) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm, or corporation at any ~irne during the term of A~reetuent; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer, or assi~nnnent shall include the and assumption of the rights, dudes, and obligations arising under or from thk Agreement and be rn=de in strict cotupHance with the following conditions precedent: {a) No sale, transfer, or assiEnment of any right or interest under thi~ A~eetuent shall be tuade unless tuade together with the sale, transfer, or assiEnrnent of all or a part of the Property. (b) Concttrrent with any such sale, tr=n~fer or assiSnrnent, or wilhln farteen {15) business days thereafter, the Owner shall notify City, in wridng, of such saie, a'~n~fer, or ass~.rnrnent and shal] provide City with an executed a~reetuent, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, by the purchaser, transferce, or assignee and provitt~nS therein that the purchaser, tr~n~feree, or assignee expressly and tmconditionally ass-rues all the dudes and obligations of the Owner under fhi~ Agreetuent. Any sale, transfer, or assjL,.~nment not tuade in strict cotupliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute a defattlt by the Owner under thi~ A~reetuent. Notwitttsmnding the failure of any 01-fe-~ 12221 -{;IX)6{ h'~lXt~lS2~,vf,',.,~12,12; "lO 62043 purchaser, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreemere required by Paragraph (b) of thk Subsec~ion. the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser. transferee, or assignee. but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure m such purchaser, trnnderee, or assignee unLtl alld -nlesS SUCh agreement is executed. 5.2 Reles~e of Transferrin~ Owner. NOtWilh~,tnnHinE al2y Sale, Lr~nffer, or assiL'nment, a u~-~ferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless such t~nnfferring Owner is given a release in writing by City, which release shall be provided by City upon the full satisfaction by such transferring Owner of all of the following conditions: {a) The Owner no longer has a legal interest in all or any pan of the Property except as a beneficiary under a deed of trusL (b) (c) The Owner is not then in default under thi~ Agreement. The Owner has provided City with the notice and executed agreement required under Paragraph {'b) of Subsection 5.1 above. (d) The purchaser, tr~nfferee, or assignee provides City with security equivalent to any security previously provided by Owner to secure pe~ormance of iu obligations hereunder. 5_3 Term/nation of Agreement with Reject to IndividualLots upon Sale to Public and Completion of Construction The provisions of Subsection 5.1 shall not apply to the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which has been finally subdivided and is mciividually (and not in "bulk') sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate user. Notwithstanding any other provisions of thi~ Agreement, thk Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subjea to th{.~ Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions: F:'%ZXC~lSZ%9'a33OOIZ.1w~- 11 62043 (a) the lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in ' 'bulk*) sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other tlhimate user; and (b) a C.,erfi6ate of Occupancy has been issued for a buiJ~ing on a lot, and the fees set forth in thk Agreement have been paid. 5.4 Subsequent AssircLment- Any subsequent sale, tnn~fer, or assiEnment after an initial sale, transfer, or assig-m~nt shall be made onJy in accordance with and subject to the tel'l:~s and conditions of thi~ Section 6. Mortgagee Protection. The pardes hereto agree that ~i~ Agreement shall not prevent or limit Owner, in any w~-ncr, at 0wnefs sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device securing ~n~ncing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that the lenders prov~rlln.,, such {~nnnC'h3E may require certain Agreement interpretations and modlf~cations and agrees upon request, b-ore time to time, to meet with the Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification City wffi not -nreasonably withhold i~s consent to any such requested interpretation or moHiacadon provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of ~h{~ Agreement. Owner shall reimburse City for a.uy and all of City's costs associated with said negotiations, interpretations, and modifications and shall make reimbursement payments to City within thlrly (30) days of receipt of an invoice fzom City. Any Mortgagee of the Properny shall be entided to the following rights and privileges: (a) Neither entering into ~h{~ Agreement nor a breach of ~hi~ Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, ti{rnlni~h or impal.r the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. 01 -rm-gS 12221 -(XJ)66 F:"4XL'~lSZ~92~0312.'i2~ 12 62043 (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any pan thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from City of any default by the Owner in the perfor~-~nce of the Owners obligations under this Agreement, {C) If City tlme]y receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to the Owner under the terms of th{~ Agreement, City Shal! provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sexvl{ng the notice of default to the Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the fight, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the rem~inl-E cttre period allowed such party under thi~ Agreement, {d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any pan thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of rout, or deed in Lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Propen3,, or pan thereof, subject to the terms of th{~ Agreement, Notwiths?a-rl{nE any other provision of ?h{~ Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under rhi~ Agreement to perform any of the Owners obligations or other ar'fir'madve covenants of the Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, provided however. that to the e_x'tent that any covenant to be performed by Owner is a condition precedent to the performance of a COVenant by City, the perform.-ce thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to C. ity's performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, tr~n~[er or assi[~ment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subjea to the provisions of Section 5.1 of th{~ Agreement {e) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, pumaant to subsection (d) above and who elects not to as!n~me the obligations of the Owner set forth herein shall not be enti~ed to any fights to develop which have or my have vested as a result of this A~reement, 62043 7. Binding Effect of AFeemenL The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors-in-interest to the parties to iL 8. Relationship of P~r~ies. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City and Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contraaor and not the agent of City. 9. Changes in Project No change, modification, revision or alteration of Existing Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval by those agencies of the City equivalent to the County agencies that approved the Existing Development Approvals in the lust mst-nce (if the County had granted the approvals) or by the same City agency that granted the Existing Development Approval, (if the City granted the approval in connection with the adoption of thi~ A~reement). 10. Timing of Development. The parties acknowle,dge that Owner cannot at thi~ time predict when, or the rate at which phases of the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon n,,merous factors which are not within the control of Owner, such as ra.rket orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the C~llfornia Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Carnarillo. 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), that the faLlare of the parties therein to provide for the rimlng of development resulted in a later adopted Laitiativc restriaing the t~rning Of development to prevai] over such parties, agreement, it is the parties, intent to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and prOv~Hing that the Owner shall have the d~ht to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and at such times as the Owner deems appropriate within the exercise Of itS subjective business jud,L, ment, subject only to any timing or phasing requirements set forth in the Development Plan, F:'J)~C'~lSZ~'Z'~/~12,12; 14 6204 11. lndernsfily and Cost of Litigation. 11.1 Hold H~rmless. Owner agrees w and shall hold City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injus7 including death and clnim~ for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirea ! operations of the Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relate to the Project. Owner agrees to and shall indemni~, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of C)wner's activities in connection with th Projec~ This hold harmless agreement applies to a.U d~m.ges and cl~ir.~ for damages suffered i a~eged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in thk paragraph, regardless of whether or not Cix7 prepared, supplied, or approved pl~n~ or spec:L~ca~ons for the Project and regardless of whether or not the insurance policies referred to herein are applicable. 11.2 Counw T i~gat~on Concerning ~greement. In the event the County seeks to chaJ/enge the fight of City and Owner to enter into thi~ Agreement or to termln~te the Development Agreement, and hssl/tutes an act/on. suit or proceeding to chaltenge th~s Agreement or invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of thi~ Agreement or the amendment of the Development A~'eement or take such other acl/on(s) which resuh in -nreasormble delays in the development of th Propert)', City and Owner agree to cooperate and paracipate in a joint defense in a~, action against the paraes, theh' officers, agents and employees, ~om and ag=in~l any and aJ/such obligal/ous, llab~I/ty, su~t, claim, loss, ~ud~a~-ent or llen, resu/tl-g from such action(s) brought by County, (but excluding acaons to expunge any B pendens) and to share equaZ]y the costs assochted w~th attoroe~ fees, costs and damages (including the rli6erence in the ~mount of any 1-ter~n Public Facilities Fees and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee pa/d by Owner to City pursuant to the 01 -m-e'3 1222'1 F: '~l:t~lsz~vru.~301Z 62043 terms of ,h~ A-cement) that the parties may incur as a result of any such action or lawsuit to challenge City and/or Owners legal authority to enter into this Agreement and/or terminate the Developmere AgreemenL City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s) brouF, ht by the County as herein provided. City and Owner each reserve e the right to withdraw h'om the defense of the County litigation in the event the County prevaih at the trial level and there is an appeal If either party withdraws after the trial and there is an appeal, the remnln{ng party shall pay ali of the costs and fees associated with said appeal 11.3 Public Fadlities Fees Shortfall. In the event the County prevnil~/n any legal acdon or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of thi~ Agreement and a trial court determines that Owner and/or the City is liable to make up any shortfall be~veen the amount of the Interim Public Facility Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case v. ny be, and the County Development Agreement Fee wh/ch would otherwise have been imposed pursuant to the Development Agreement, then City and Owner shall each share eq-=liy in paying mid shorrfa 11.4 County Prevails in Iatiga~on - Severability. In the event the County preva{l~ at the trial court level against the City or the Owner as desert'bed in Sea/on 11.2 of thi~ AgreemenT~ the mount of the Interim Public FacUjty Fee or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be, shall revert to the grnount of the County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry of the final judgment in favor of the County. In the event thi~ Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competent jtu'isdia/on, the provisions set forth in See'don 12.3(a), (b) and (c) of this Agreement shal/no longer be enforceable and fa'om the date of said final jud~nent or wT~ng of invalidity, Owner shall thereafter pay the County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Sea/on 4.2 of the Development AFeement. ALl other provisions of thi~ Agreement shall remain valid and enforceable notw~ths~=nding said ruling of invalidity. F:%DCC%.lSZ%,v,C'~12.1,~ 16 (~204~ 11_5 Third Parl;y Litigation ConcerrtixXg AFtcement- Owner shrill defend, at its exl~ense, including attorneys' fees, indemz~i~., and hold hansdess City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim; action or proceeding against City, its agents, offcers. or employees to attack, set aside, void, or AnnUl the approva] of ehi~ Agreement or the approval of any permit gral:tted pm'suant to this Agreement brought by a third par~ other than the Cotmty. City sha.B promptly noti~. Owner of any such claim. action, or proceeding, and City sha]] cooperate in the defense. ff City f~ik to promptly not~7 Owner of any such Claim; action, or proceeding, or ff City f~1~ to cooperate Ln the defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemni~/, or hold harness City. Cit~ may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such ClAim. action, or proceeding 11.6 Third Party l.itigation Concerning the General Plan. City is a newly incorporated city fnlllng within the scope of Section 65360 and thus not subject to the requixement that a General Plan be adopted or that development decisions be consistent therewith so long as the City makes certain findingS, ~bich the City has made at Section J of the Recitals to thi~ Agreement. Notwithstanding these finclings City shall have no liability in damages under thi~ Agreement for any failure of City, to perform under thi~ Agreement or the inability of Owner to develop the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan of this Agreement ff such failure or inability is the result of a jucticial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the findingS made under section 6s360 or ~e future Oenera~ Plan, are inv~dated or ~,,~<tequate or not in compliance with law: 11.7 Environmental Assurances. Owner shah indemniC'y and hold City, its officers. agents. and employees free and harn:aess from any liab~ity, based or assertcot, upon any act or om~,sion of Owner, its officers, agents. employees. subconu'actors. predecessors-in-interest. succe~ors. ~igns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal state, or lo~ law, or,ti,~,~ce or relation relating to industrial hygiene. sotid or hazardous waste or to environmental 01-C~B-93 1ZZZI-nNv~ F: ~13L~lSZ~v~,'nnl;. 121; 62043 conditions on, under or about the Property. Said violations shall include, but not limited to, soil an groundwater conditions, and Owner shall defend, at its expense, including attorney~ fees, City, its officers, al;ents and employees in any action based or assened upon any such alleged act or omission, City may, in its discretion, padpate in the defense of any such action. 12. Public Benefits. Public Improvements and Facilities. 12.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that development of the Proper~y will result in substantial public needs which will not be fully met by development of the Project and ~rther acknowledge and a~ree that th{~ Agreement confers substantial private benefits on the Owner which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accorr{(ngly, the parties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on the Owner by provici(n~ more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting fi'om development of the Project. 12,2 Public Facilities Fee (Non-Residential1. The developer(s) of the Proper shall pay a capiLtl or impact fee for road improvements and public facilities in an -mount the City rn~y adopt for non-residential development, The term "developer(s) of the Properpy or Project" as used in th{~ Section shall mean the person(s) who seeks a building permit to construct s~'uctures on the PropenT. These individuals or entities shall be referred to as the "Developer". If an interim or ~n~l public facLUty mitigation fee or benefit district for non-residential construction has not been 6na.Lly established by the date on which Developer requests building permits for commercial construction in the Project or any phase thereof, the Developer, Lf required by City, shall execute an Agreement For Payment of Non-Residential Public Facility Fees subst~ndally in the form attached marked Exhibit D and made a part herein by th{~ reference. 01 -Q6-;~,, 12221 62043 123 Public Facilities Fee (Residential~. (a) In lieu of the County Development Agreement Fee. RSA Fee or City Public Facility Fee, for a period of two (2) years commencing on January 31, 1992 and ending January 30, 1994, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee of Three Thousand Dollars (13,000.00) per dwelling .nil 'Zl~e lnteriln Public Facilities Fee shall be paid at the time of i~uance of building permits for each residential unit consu'uaed in the Project. (b) Owner shall al~o pay all other development exactions in existence of January 31, 1992 and throughout the term of thi~ Agreement, inciuding but not llmi~ed Fire, Dr~in~Se, Traffic Signal Mitigation, K-Rat and Library Fees pursuant to the provisions City or,~nances and resolutions in existence when paid. From January 31, 1992 through January 30, 1994, Owner shall not be entitled to the K-Rat Fee crediL (c) On January 31, 1994, the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be adjusted to equal the mount of the City's Public Facfiities Fee imposed on all projects in the City at that time. Therea.f'ter, the City's Public Fadli~es Fee shah be substituted for the Intex-Lm Public Facilities Fee. In the event the City has not adopted a City Public Fadlides Fe by January 31, 1994, Owner shall continue to pay the Interim Public Facilities Fee until such time as the City adopts a City Public Facilities Fee. 12.4 Public Facilities Fee Credit. Commencing on the Effective Date of thi~ Agreement, Owner shah be entitled to a credit agaln~t future payments of Interim Public Facilities Fees or City Public Facilities Fees in an mount based on the total of the cllf'ference between the mount of the County Development Agreement Fee (exciurlln~ any reduction based on the K-Rat Fe credit) and the mount of the Interi/n Public Facilities Fees plus h'brary Fees paid by Owner to City for issuance of residential building permits for the Palom~ del Sol Projea during the period from January 31, 1992 to the Effective Date of this Agreement (*Public Facilities Fee Credit Amount'). Os-osovl 12221-0SX3~ F:%DCL'~lSZ%~Zn'snn~!Z.1:s~ 19 62043 City shall be responsible for deter~nln;ng the Public Fadlities Fee Credit Amount based on its of:8 records of building permits issued for the Paloma del Sol Project since January 31, 1992. Owner shall have one year fxom the Effective Date of the Agreement to apply the Public Facilities Fee Credit Amount to the payment of Interim Public Facilities Fees or the City Public Facilities Fees, as the case: may be. 12.5 Parks. Greenbelts and P~t~eos. As additional consideration for entering ~nto th~ Agreement, Owner agrees xo dedicate to the City, or cause to be dedicated, and City a~'ees to accept when offered, park land, greenbelts, slopes and paseos equnlli~g approximately 166.S acres. Owner and the Association may also dedicate approx/rnntely 27.5 acres of park land and paseos to the City. The park land, greenbelts, slopes and paseos are shown on Exhibit E which is auached and made a pa~ hereof and incorporated by thi~ reference. Owner shall improve, and Owner and/or the Association shy dedicate, or cause to be dedicated in fee or by grant of easement to City and City agrees to accept parldand, greenbelts, slopes, paseos and recreation improvements when offered f, dedication. Notwit]:~tm~cllng the descriptions and references to lots, u'acts and areas in Seczions 6 and 7 and Exhibit A of the Amended MOU: (1) Lot 68 of Tract 2412;4-3 is not a part of the 5.9 Acre Paseo Park:; (2) rifle to Lot 68 of Tract 2413~-3 and Lots 86, 87 and 88 of Tract 24134-1 is vested in the Association and these lots may be dedicated to the City in the Association's sole discretion somerlme Lu the future as a part of the 142 acres of rem~i-lng open space areas referenced in Section 8 and on Exhibit A of the Amended MOU; (2;) tide to Lot 12~ of Tract 2412;2;-5, Lots 81 and 82 of Trac~ 24133, Lo~ 161 of Tract 24132;-1, and Lot 112 of Tract 24132;-2 is vested in Owner and may be dedicated to City in Owner's sole discretion sometime in the future as part of the 142 acres of remninlnS open space areas. 12.6 Main Recreation Are~. The six w~in recreation areas and the terms for dedication to the City are described as follows: 62043 (a) An eight-acre park located in Specffic Plan Planning Area No. and within Tentative Tract 25417 (8-Acre Park) will be improved with two baseball diamonds/soccer field comblnntion with Lights, restroom and concession building, group picnic area, arink~g fountains, trash receptacle~ and parking lot. (b) A seven and seventy-four hundredths (7.74) acre park located in Tract 24133-2, Lot 114 ('7.74 Acre Park') will be improved as a 'passive park' and may be defeated to the Cit~ in Owners sole discretion sometime in the future. (c) A thirteen and eighty-four hundredths (13.84) acre paseo park located in Tract 243.33-3, Lot 106 ("23.84 Acre Paseo Park") currently improved with tot lots, basketba.13 courts, tennk court, picnic areas with tables and barbecues, wallcways/bikeways with Hgh~ug and my be dedicated to the City at sometixne in the future by Owner with the prior consent of at least a majority, of the members of the Association or by the Association if Owne tnnsfers ownership to the Association before dedication to the City. (d) An approximate five and nine tenths (5.9) acre paseo park located in Tract 24134-3, Lots 68, 69, 70, 71 and a portion of Lot 83 of Tract 24134-F ("5.9 Acre Pasee Park") currently improved with a tot lot, basketball court, picnic areas with tables and barbecue, walkways/bikeways with Ligbd. ug. This park is owned by the Association and may at the discretion of the Association be dedicated to the Ci~ somelime in the future. (e) A seven and fortT-four hundredths (7.44) acre park located in the Eastside (future) Tract 24186-4, Lot 1 ('7.44 Acre Park*) planned to be improved with a combination soccer/baseba~.l field with H?.hts, restrooms and concession building, group picnic area., drh:lking fOtLT3tskln~, trash receptacles, parking lot. (f') A me and thirty-five hundredths (935) acre paseo park located in the Eastside (future) Tracts including: Lots 159 and 160 of (future) Tract 24186-1; Lots 121 ant ol -,~-,~ 12221 -o~u6,1 F: MX:L"~lS~.9'ZK13QOIZ. 12S; 2 1 62043 129 of (future) Tract 24186-2 and Lot 121 of (future) Tract 24187-F ('935 Acre Paseo Park" planned to be improved with a basketball court, tot lot, picnic area, walk'way/bikeways with lighting landscaping and irrigation 12.7 Remainin; Open ~pace Are~% (a) The remaining recreation and open space areas consist of approximately 142 acres of greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway and slope landscapinl~, both east and west sides of Paloma del ,SoL (b) Those perimeter and interior greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, parks and slopes shown on Exhibit E which are wansferred to the City will be maintained by the Temecula Comm.nity Services District ('TCSD"). All assessments for maintenance shall be in compliance with the shandards and formulas imposed by the TCSD on all other property within the City. 12.8 Tirnine of Park Improvements and Transfer to City. (a) The 8-Acre Park shall be fully improved and transferred to the City as soon as April 30, 1993, but no later than lane 30, 1993. Park improvements shall include but not be limited to: (1) two lighted ball fields not less than 300 feet in length, with multipurpose sports overlays wili~ng Musco Lighting; (2) fencing at least 25 feet between the ball fields and parking and/or streets; (3) approximately 1200 square foot concession facility with restrooms and storage areas; (4) bleachers installed on concrete pads in viewing areas; landscaping. sil~nage, flag poles, water drinkin5 fountains, refuse receptacles, picnic tables, barbecue pits, pedesu'ian benches and meandering walkways in accordance with TCSD requirements. Reasonable prlm.ry and secondary access and drainage from De Ponola Road and Campanula Way shall also be provided in compliance with the min;m.m requirements of Ordinance 460 and City Standards or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Additional 62043 street improvements to De Portola and construction of Carnpanula Way adjacent to the 8-Acre park will be completed as development of the adjoining traas occurs, but not later tha.u five (5 years from the Ba~ective Date of this Agreement (b) lmp. rovements to the 93S-Acre Paseo Park (Trac~ 24186, Lots 451, 452 and 453; Tract 24187, Los 368 and 369) shall be completed prior to issuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24187 and 24188. (c) Improvements to the 7.44--Acre Park shall bc completed prior to th~ Lssuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24182, 24184, 24185 and 24186. Other equivalent parks in the vicinity rn,y be substituted for improvement of this park if approved in writing by the City. (d) Improvement to and tnnsfer of the remaining 3.42 acres of greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway and slope landscaping, both East and West sides of Paloma del Sol shall occur in accordance with the current TCSD funding procedures and practices and according to the following schedule: Tracl 2~133 The 7.74-Acre park shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 23761h building permit within the West side maps, bounded by Margarim Road to the West, Pauba Road to the North, Meadows Parkway to the East and State Highway 79 to the South, and will be deci/cated to either the Association or the City. F:'~,Dr~'VISZ'v~4.'u.~QTLt~-': 2 3 ~2043 Trac~ 24182 To be developed as active park with facilities that may include one junior tot lot, one toddler tot lot, two full basketbaR comb with half court at each end, group picnic area, drinking fountains, wash receptacles and benches. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50~/e of the building permits for Lots 1 through 275. To be developed as a Passive Park. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 276 through 443. Tract 24184 To be developed with paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the bl.li]ding permits within the Tract. Tract 24185 Lots 365 and 368 To be developed as Passive Parks. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tra~ 01'rm-FJ 12:221-(XX)61. F: %~;..x1.~2%9'xru~12, 1~: 2 4 62043 To be developed as paseos v, ith activity nodes with passive recreation, To be completed and dedicated w the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building pen~ts Within the Tract. Traa 24386 To be developed With paseos and activity nodes with passive recreation. To be completed With the ?.44 Acre Park within Lot 460. The 7.44 Acre Park. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of the 100th combined building permit within Tracts 24182, 24184, 24185 and 24186. Other equivaient parks in the vi~nlty Blay be substituted for development of thi~ park if the ahernatives are approved by the City. Lots ~,~'7. 458 and 456 To be developed with paseos and activity nodes With passive recreation To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tract. Lots 451. 452 and 453 A portion of the 9_35 Acre Park. To be developed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of the 100th combined buiJrllng permit within Tracts 24187 and 24188. F :~3c~15~.92133aol2.12s 2 5 62043 Tract 24181 A portion of the 9.35-Acre Park. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of the 100tin combined building permit within Tram 24187 and 24188. Lots 372 and 373 To be developed as paseos with activity nodes with passive recreation. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits within the Tract Tract 24188 To be developed as a P~,tive Pare Prior to i.~,,~nce of 50% of the building permits for Lots 217 through 351. Lots 372 and 378 To be developed as Passive Parks. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 1 through 216 To be developed as paseos and activity nodes with passive reaeation. To be completed and dedicated to the City prior to issuance of 50% of the building permits for Lots 1 through 216. 1 L, ~ (e) Owner m~y extend the improvement completion and park transfer dates as set forth in ~ Agreement with written consent from the City. 01-~-,.~ 12221-00066 F:V)C)t~lSZX94u.~012.1~: 26 ~U43 (f) City shall receive and approve all park and recreation fairies improvement plans in accordance with the City's park standards, procedures and specifications except the City shall accept without any modifications to the improvements to the 13.84-Acre Paseo Park and the 5.9-Acre Paseo Park as currently construaed and installed provided these parks are transferred to the City. (g) The approximately 194 acres of parks, greenbelts and paseos shall be transferred to the City by ~at deeds from Owner and the Association, depending on ownership. The form of the grant deeds shall be approved by City and Owner. City a~ees to accept the parks and any improvements within a reasonable time of being offered for dedication The City shall be responsible for establishing any m~inten~nce obligations with the TCSD associated with the parks, paseos and greenbelt areas described in rhi~ AgrecmcnL 12.9 l~ndsclpe Development 7ones. 1 =ndscape Development Zones (I..DZ's) and Monuments shall be completed with the following rlmln,,w (a) LDZ's and Monuments along Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, State Highway 79 South, De Portola Road, Meadows Parkway and Margarita Road shall be completed immediately aher each street is completed with full improvements on the Project side. (b) 1 l')Z's and Monuments along all other streets shall be completed with the completion of all bui]rtings within each phase of the respective final maps for the Projca. 12.10 Park Improvement Fee Credits. At the tlmc of completion of the improvements and tr'~n~t~er of each of the public parks as provided in thi~ Agreement, Owner shall receive a credit against payment of future Interim Public Facilities Fees or City Public Facilities Fees based on the actual improvement cost incurred by Owner for both of said public parks (8-Acre Park 01 ,&.k~,~ 12Z21 -~ F:,,Ill~152~vt-,--nn1Z.12~ 27 62043 and 7.a,4 Acre Park) up to a total maximum credit of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000). Owner sh have the term of this Agreement within which to apply the park improvement fee credit towards biterim Public Facilities Fees or City Public Facilities Fees. City shall have a right to review, audit and vcrify all costs associated with said park improvements under procedures to be mutually agreed upon between the panics. For purposes of calculating credits under ~hk Section, "Improvements" shall be defined as onsite work only (design, grading and construction), excluding s~eet and utility work within the public right-of-way and any onsite environmental mitigation costs such as tone removal and weUa~ds mi~ga~om 12.11 Park Fee Obligation. Upon execution of thk Agreement by the parries, regardless of tindue delays or the outcome of any lawsuit or action brought by County or terms of settlement of any action or proceeding which may be instituted by the Cotmty ag~i-~ City and/or Owner relating to thi~ Agreement, Owner's Q,~rnby Park Fee obligation for the palorn~ del Sol Project shall be satisfied excluding Tract 24183 which currently satisfies the City Park Fee St~ndar, Owner's Chfirnby Park Fee obligation with regard to planning Area 6, as shown on Exhibit E, shall also be satis~ecL 12.12 Park Improvements. Except for the park improvements, recreation facilities and landscaping constructed and installed prior to the effective date of thk Agreement, Owner shall submit to the City for approval by the Parks and Recreation Cornrni~-~ion and City Council preHrnlna_ry pla~s and cost estimates associated with park improvements, recreation facilities and landscaping to be consu'ucted and installed on those parks, greenbelts, and paseos to be transferred to the City. In evaluation of said preliminary plnn~; City shall apply the park standards set forth in Exhibit F atuched and made a part herein by this reference. The approval of the Parks and Recreation Cornrnksion and the City Council shall not be unreasonably withheld. For all park hnprovements, recreation facilities and landscaping constructed and installed pursuant to the 01-08-9] 1ZZ21 -~ F:M)iOC%15Z~.t2~OO1Z.12; 28 G2043 Development Plan in thi~ Agreement, except the park descn'bed at Section 12.6(a) (8-Acre Park), Owner shall enter into an Improvement Agreemenz and post performance and labor/materials bonds for said improvements concurrently with recording the tracts where the improvements are located. 12. D Conflict with 'l'imir~ of Improvements. If any conrllct exists with respect, tO the t;irn~ng Of dedications and/or construcxion of improvemenu of parkland, paseos, greenbelts or slope axeas between th;~ Agreement and the Amended MOU, the timing provisions in this Agreemen shall prevail and be controlling with regards thereto. 13. Reservations of Authority. 13.1 1 .imitations. Reservations. ~nd l:~ceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of thi~ Agreement, the following subsequent 1 =nd Use Regulations shall apply to the development of the Property: (a) Processing fees and charges imposed by City to cover the earlranted actual costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Exi.sling Development Approvals r~,~ated or issued. (b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendation, appeals, and any other m=tzer of procedure. (c) Regulations imposing Development Exactions; provided, however, that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to development of the Property unless such Development Exacxion is applied -nlformly to development throughout the City. (d) Regulations governing construction standards and specilications including without limitation, the City's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code and Fixe Code. 01-(38-9~ 12221-00061, F:%I)C~"%I52%92t~U~IZ.1~ 29 62043 (e) Regulations which may be in con~ic~ with the Development PIer but which are reasonably necessary to protect the public health and safety. To the enent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed so as to provide Owner with the rights and assurances provided under thi~ Agreement. (f) Regulations which are not in conflict with the Development Plan. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, lirniting the rate or tlminS of development of the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property. (g) Regulations which are in conflict with the Development Plan provided Owner has given writlen consent to the application of such regulations to development of the Property. 132 Subsequent Development Approvals. This A~reement shall not prevent City, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals; from applying the Subsequent 1 ~nd Use P, egu.lation~ which do not conflict with the Development Plan, nor shall thi~ ASreement prevent City from den.vinfg or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the Existing or Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the Development Plan. 133 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of ~hi~ Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of rhi~ A~'eemem shah be modified or suspended a.s may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that thi~ Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the enent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations'do aot render such rem~inlng provisions impractical to enforce. 01*{!-Sr5 1ZZ21-~064. s~: VX:C'dSZ~12.12G 3 0 62043 13.4 Regulation bv Other Public A~encies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority. to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City. and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. 13.5 Tentative Tract MIp l~aension. Punuant to the provisions of Seaion 66452.6 of the Government Code, the tentative subdivision map(s) or tentative parcel map(s) (vestec or regular) approved as pan of implementing the Development Plan, shall be extended to expire at the end of the term of ,hi~ Agreement. 13.6 Vestirl~ Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision m~p, or tentat/re or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of th Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, and Riverside County Orrlin~nce No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference inw the Temecula Municipa/Code by Ordinance No. 90-04, and if this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to the Owner, then and to that extent the rights, obligations, and protections afforded the Owner and City respect/vety, under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede the provisions of thi~ Ageement. Except as set forth immediately above, development of the Property shall occur only as provided in ~ Agreement, and the provisions in thi~ Agreement shall be controlling over at conflicting provision of law or OrdinAnCe concerning vesting maps. 14. Development of the Property. 14.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of rhi~ Agreement, incluHing payment of the Interim PubLic Facilities Fee or City Public Facility Fee, as the case my be, and the Reservations of Authority, the Owner shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of the Development Plan. The Projea shall remain subject to all Subsequent 01-08-9'1 1ZZ21 F:%ZX~,1SZ%vtu_~012,121 '11 62043 Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Developmere P' Except as otherwise provided in ~'hi,~ ASrccmcnt, the permitted uses of the Propen),, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public pttrposes shall be those set forth in the Developmere Plan. 14.2 1:fleet of Agreement on I ~nd Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of thi~ Agreement, including the payment of the Interim PubLic Facilities Fee or City PubLic Facilities Fee, as the case may be, and the Reservations of Authority, the n.des, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the Properly, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the mar~rn.rn height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvemere and consu'uction srnndaxds and specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the Existing l~nd Use Regulations. City shall exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in connection with Subsequent Development Approvals in accordance with the Development Plas~ and as provided by this AgTeement includin~ but not l{mi~ed to, payment of the Interim PubLic Facilities Fee and C~ Public Faci~ty Fee, as the case may be, and the Reservations of Authority. City shall accept for processing, review, and acdon all appLications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such appLications shall be processed in the normal m~nner for processing such m~ners. City may, at the request of Owner, contract for p}~nnlng and engineering consuJr~n~ services to expedite the review and processing of Subsequent Development Approvals, the cost of which shall be borne by Owner. 14..~ Changes and AmendmenLS. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project wi~ require Subsequent Development Approvals and may demonsl:rate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the E. xis1~ug Development Approvals. In the event the Owner finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, the Owner shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to effectuate such change and City shall process and act on such application in accordance with the I~nd Use 01 -(~-93 TZZZ1 -O0~ 62043 Regulations, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement including the Rescrvation~ of Au~onty. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated herein as an addendure to this Agreement and may be further changed from time to time as provided in thi~ Scc'don- Unless othcrudse requixed by law, as determined in City's reasonable discretion, a change ~c the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed "minOr" and not requixe 3xl axllen~rnent to thi~ A~cemcnt provided such change does not: (a) Alter the pcrmitT. cd uses of the Property as a whole; or, (b) I.ncreasc the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; (c) Increase the rn~im.m height and s~ze of pertained bu~H~n~; or, (d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes within the Property as a whole; or, (e) Constitute a project requiring a Subsequent or a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Reso~ces Code. 15. Periodic Review of Con~liance with Agreement. (a) Purs~m nt to City Resolution No. 91-52, as it my be subsequently amendet City shall review this Agreement at least once during every twelve (12) month period fi'om the Effective Date of Thi~ Agreement. The Owner or successor shall reknbttrse City for the actual and necessary costs of this review. (b) During each periodic review by City, the Owner is required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the term~ of the Agreement. The Owner agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City in the exercise of its discretion may require. 16. Financing District. Upon the request of Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the u~e of CFDs, special assessment dktricts, and other s~m[lar Financing Districts for the 01-1~-9~ 1Z221*O(Xi6,& F:'%,IXL'%lSZ',,V,c'-d.,s4)OI2,12G 3 3 62043 f~n.~cing of the construction, improvement, or acquisition of public infrastructm.e, facilities, lands.: improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located within or outside the Property. h is acknowledged that nothing cont-lned in this Ageemem shall be construed as requiring City or City Council to form such a distric~ or to issue or sell bonds. 17. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be mended or cancelcd in whole or in part only by mutual consent of the par~ies and in the m~nn~r provided for in Government Code Sections 65868, 65867 and 68867.& ff the AmetFIment is requested by the Owner or its successor, the Owner/successor agrees to pay City any Development Agreement Amendment fee then in existence as established by City Coundl Resolution, or ff no such fee is established, to reimburse City for the actual and reasonably necessary costs of reviewS. rig and processing said AmendmenL 18. ~nforcement. Unless ~n~ended or canc~led ns herein provided, thk Agreement is enforceable by any party to it notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subd~v~.sion, or bttBd~ng regulations adopted by the City which alter or mend the rules, regulation.s, or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement, and consu-uction standards and sp~d.fications. 19. Events of Default. Owner is in default under thk Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: Ca) If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any rn~terial respect when it was m~de; (b) A ~nding and determination by City that upon the basis of substantial evidence the Owner has not complied in good faith with one or more of the ternn or conditions of tinis Agreement. F: 'U~"~lS~.92iZS~ 12, 12~ '~ 4 62043 20. Procedure Upon Default. (a) Upon the occurrence of a_n event of defaui~, City may terminate or modi~ this Agreement in accord~x~ce with the procedure adopted by the City. (b) City does not waive any claim of defecl in performance by Oumer impli.,ec if on periodic review the local City does not propose to modify or terminate this Agreement. (c) Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third person (d) Non-performnnce shall be excused o~ly when it i.s prevented or delayed b acts of God or an emergency declared by the Governor. (e) All other remedies at law or i~ equity which are not otherwise provided for in thi~ Agreement or in Ci~7's regulations governing development agreemenu are available to the parties to pursue in the event there is a breach. 21. D~rnages Upon Terminatioa. It is acknowledged by the panics that City would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be Hable i~ d~m~$es under or with respect to ~hi~ Affreement or the application thereof. Ia general, each of the parties hereto may pro'sue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of ~ny provision of this Agreement, except that City, and its officers, employees and agen~ shall not be liable in damages to Owner or u~ any assignee, u-~n~feree of Owner, or any othe~ person, a~d Owner covennn~s not to sue for or claim any damages for breach of that Agreement by City. 7.2. Attorneys' Fees nnd Costs. ff legal action by either party is brought because of breach of thi~ Agreemen~ or to e~force a provision of th{~ Agreement, the prevnilin$ party is endfled to renson~ble attorneys fees and cour~ costs. 01-08-~3 1ZZZ1 F:~&X~"'~152'%Y.",'te'~12,12; 35 writing and delivered in person or sere by certified m:~iL postage prepaid. to City shall be addressed as follows: To City: City of Tcmecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecul~, CA 92590 Anen~on: City Attorney Notices required to be given to Owner shall be addressed as follows: To Owner: KRDC, Inc. 3470 Mr. Diablo BIrd., Suite A-100 I ~fayeRe, CA 94549 Attention: Dennk lVL K!immek, Esq. With a copy to: Penis, Tester, Knzse & Krinsky 18881 Von Karmsn, 16th Floor Irvine, CA 92715 Atlention' Dennk D. O'NeiL Esq. A party tony change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and therea.f'ter notir shall be addressed and n'~n~mitted to the new address. 24. Cooperatiorh City a~rees that it shall accept for processing and promptly t~ke action on aiJ applications, provided they are in a proper form and acceptable for requh'ed processing for discrefonary permits, t:aa or parcel maps, or other land use entitlement for development of the Project in accordance with the provisions of rhi~ Agreement. City shall cooperate with Owner in providing expeditious review of any such applications, permits, or land use entitlement and, upon request and payment of any costs and/or extra fees associated therewith by Owner, City shall assign to the Project planner(s), bulldlng inspector{s), and/or other st.3.ff personnel as required to insure the timely processing and completion of the Project. 62043 Notices. All no~ices required or provided for under rhi~ Agreement shall be' No~ice required to be given 01 _ms_f] 17'~1 -N'tl~4 Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms. 62043' (a) The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. (b) If there is more than one signer of thi~ Agreemenu theix obligations are: joint and several. (c) The time l~mlU set forth in this Agreement m~y be extended by mutual written consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of the Agreement. (d) This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and ~Z-~ No other person, including but not limited to third party beneficiaries, shall have any fight of action based upon any provision of thi~ Agreement 26. Coun~e~arts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an orj~n~l, but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same imtrument. [N WITNESS ~/HEREOF ?hi~ Agreement has been executed by the parties on the day and yeax f~st above written. Attest: By: jJ. Sal Nunoz ~iayor . (~u~he . Greel~ :~y Clerk Approved as to form: S&~fi F. Field, City Anorney Ore-m-g3 l,::,~153%,v.k,~lZ.l?e 37 62043 KRDC INC. a California corporation, formerly known as Bedford D clopmen ompany, a California corporation By: n~ President Y: V.P. ~nd Secretary Willia~~esident imrnek, .~ecretary 62043 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTYO C C b ) SS. On d~uu~u I/, JC~ before me, b. ~~r~ , a notary public in and for said State,'personaliy appeared ~v~e.v{' L- personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis o~tisfaaory evidence) to be the person(s) whose nnme(S) is/are subscribed to the within insu'ument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instv,ment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the irsw,ment. W1TNESS my hand and official seal STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF C_~-~ ~4~_, ) On do~gtuu tl, IC~q~ before me, L -/')~L~O~ , a notary public in and for said State, personnny appeared personaliy known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the penon(s) whose wine(s) is/are subscribed to the within in~tr,,ment and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the s~rne in his/her/their authorized capacity{ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instn2ment the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of wl~ch the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WTrNESS my hand and official seal. Signature ,~J (Sezl 62043 STATE OF CA~ n::ORNIA ) coum",' ) ss. ) public in and for said grate, l~rso-~|y appeared ('/2,,,/t-,-2, yt'/./-~.-¢, ,..o f' , personally known to me (or proved to me on the b~sis ot satisfaaory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized c~pacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) aaed, executed the insw~ment. Sigzmture WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL (seal) STATE OF C_~T rFORNIA ) ) COUNTY OF ) On before me, , a notavL. public in and for said State, personally appeared person~ny known to me (or proved to me on the basis of samfactory evidence) to be me person(. whose n~me(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the nine in his/her/theh' authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature{s) on the instrument the person{s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instmmenL WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) F:",4X~'~I$ZYrZtT",-'~ql:L IZ; 4 0 62043 EXHIBIT A EXISTING DEVELOPM'I:.NT APPROVAI ~ SPECIFIC pI ~ Specific Plan No. 219., Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3 COUNTY ZONING Ordi=~nc~ No. 348,29!9 (Zone Change No. 5140) Cotmty Zone Change No. 5621 RESTATEM'FNT AND AMENDIVI~NT OF M;MORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Dated August 11, 1992 Approved by the City Council on August 11, 1992 CITY ZONING Ordinance Nos. 91-13, 92-08 Resolution No. 91-36. City Zone Change No. 18 COUNTY MAPS Vestin8 Tentative Maps Nos. 24131-24136, 24182-24188 Parcel Map No. 23432 CITY MAPS Parcel Map No. 25418 Vesting Tentative Map No. 24183 The development approvals listed above include the approved maps and all conditions of approval COPIES OF THE EXIS'IING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAl -~ LISTED ABOVE ARE ON FII..E IN THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AND ARE ]iNCORPORATED FEEREIN BY REFERENCE. Ol-Nt.,M IZ221,nrev~ F:'~CC'd5~92~X)12. lZ; EXHIBIT B EXISTING ) ~kbrD USE REGULATIONS OrOln:~nce Nos. 89-1 through 92-20 Resolution Nos. 89-1 through 93-12 62043 01-08-93 G 04 a,, of S4pt. 1, 1992 TIIIt certmn pr0plny Io~ate~ in the CIty of TIm;kill, County of RNefm~e, Slits of CNItorn/, deecrbed as follows: Lots 43 throuO~ SO.and 70 through 72 of Tract 24134-1 u per me ~ in Book 230, Pigel ;4 t~rou~ 92 of Maps in the Office ot me County Recorder of u,i;I RiverHole County end, Lois 31,34, 47 through 49.52.53,ena 55 Dvmagh 6~ of Tf'lCt 24134-8 IS per alp fDed In Oool~ 231, Pigel I through 8 Of MIDI in the Office 01 b'a County RecorOer of said Riverlde County and, Lotl 41 mrouOh 80 of Tract 24134 Is per map riled In 8001( 232, Pigel 42 mrou~ 49 of MiDs in the (:aftice of I~e County Recordt' of / Riverrode County and, Lots 3e through 45,an~ 73 througl~ 96 Of Tract 24135-2 Is per ma,o flied In Bcx~ 230, I~s 42 Ihrough 47 or MII~ In the Office or l, ne County R~corder of ~ Riv~ride County and. Lots ? through 9, 12 Dqrou~ t 4, 17, 19,21, 27 through 34. 38.39,42,43,bl,52,63,aT,72 grid Lot 106 of Tract 24133-3 Is per rna~ filecf in Boo,, 230, Pages 43 mrou~fi 54 of MIDI In the Office or g~e Cocalty RIGorclef of ~ Riverside County end, Lots 52 through 6O.lrgl M through 73 of Tract 24133--4 u ~ mlp filed in g(x)k 232, Pigel ~ mrou~l 54 of MI~I In the Office of t~e County ReCorder 0! II~ RlverNOe County. ExHmrr C 62043 L /// I~omaDWSmlsolsn~ 62043 That certain property Iocat~l in the City of Ternscull, County of RiverNee. Stile ol Callton'all. deicfiDe(I IS fOllOWe. pamela 1 tlvmj~ S1 m leatoll MAp 2348~ u per m&p rilH in Book 1am. Pages 38 mfougn 81 ~ Pareli Male In b~e office of me Coumy Recorder of said RIveflldl CIDufRy. EXCEPTING therefrom tholt plrcllS Oelcribe(I IS lollowl: lot 102 Of Tract 24132-1 is l~r mID fill In Book 227, Pa~es 88 tlYougfl 99 Of MIDS aft Me office Of gle Courity RI4:~WdIf of Mid Rlvl~dde County InCl, Lot 114 of Tract 24132 U per map ~le{l In ioak 227, Page~ 97 through 1 "10 of MIpl in me ofiioe of the County Rateraser of slh:l RiverdOe County and, LOll 43 rareugh 50. 70 Ihrougfs 72. em:118 lifouRn el of Tract 24134-1 as per mID fll149 In Book 230, Pages 8,l tarough 92 of Mal~ In the C~flce of me County Re;Kder of sadd RiverNell County and, Lots 1 trarougfl 35,47 through 49,arg152 IhrouStt 7t of Tract 24134-3 as per mad filed In Boo~ 231, PeW 1 hough 8 of MIDI In me OffI cl of fie CouIlty Rl~gl'Olr OI said Rivermale County ind, Lots 41 througiq 60,1ncl LOT 83 of Trlct 24134 u IDIf mID filed in Book 232, PaOli 42 lhrou~ 49 of Maps in me Grace ol t~, County Recerdw of said Riverskl L.oII 31 throuf~ 49,lnc173 through 95 Of Tract 2413,1-2 u per mild filed In Book 230, PaW 42 t~rOURi~ 47 of Maps in Ire.Office of !he County Recorder of lal(l Rlvere~0e Loll 7 through 9,12 through .14, 16 '~rol,~fi 98, Ind Lot 10e of Trill 241334 et per ml.p filed in Book 2'j0, Pigel 41 through 54 of Mlpl in b'w OfflCt ol Ihe County Rlco*0er ol said Rive Courtly end, tm 52 througfi 10,1nd 68 through 71 of TrsCl 24133--1 IS per rnlp filed It1 Book 232, Pages 5Q througtl H Of Mipl tn the Office o~ the County Recor0er of IIk:l Riverlids County. 62043 RECORDED BOOK 159, PAGE5 38 Parcel Map No. 234: 620.: RECORDING REQUES I r-D BY:~ WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: C~ of Temecula 43174 Business Park Ddve Temecuta, CA 92590 Attn: City Clerk ! (Space Above For Recoroer's Us AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FEE This Agreement is made this day of ,1993, by and between me City of Temecula ("City") and Bedford Development Company, a California corporation, and Mesa Homes, a California corporation (collectively, "Developer). RECITALS Developer is the owner of real property (the 'Property") in the City of Temecula tiescribed as follows: Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated heroin by reference. B. Developer proposes to develop the Property pursuant to (the 'Project'). C. City has determined that the Project will impact traffic and the demand for othe~ public facilities within the City as defined in the for the Project. These impacts must be mitigated by payment of a fee for additional road and public facility construction, which fee shall be identffied as set forth hereinafter. D. The City proposes to impose a public facil~ fee upon new non-residential ,,-o,-. ,-,,,-0=,, emmrr O F:M)C~\152\9211nnnl .~ 62043 developments within the City in order to construct additional public facility improvements to serve and benefit new developments, including the Project. These fees shall be known as the Non- Residential Public Facility Fee. E. The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between City and Developer dated ,1992, ('Development Agreement') requires that Developer execute this Agreement prior to issuance of a building permit or conditional use permit, or recordation of the final map, as provided specffically in the conditions of approval. F. In order for Developer to proceed without payment of the Non-Resiaemial Public Facil~ Fee in a timely manner, City and Developer have determined to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 66007 and the Development Agreement. G. The term "public facility' shall refer to public and municipal infrastructure, such as roads, highways, flood control facilities, city hal[, police stations, community centers, theaters, parks and similar public infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. a. The City Council will establish the amount of the Non-Residential Public Facilit~ Fee at some time in the future. The Fee will be based upon the square footage of each development, the vehicle trips generated by each development, or similar measure(s). The Non- Residential Public Facility Fee also shall establish the specific improvements to be constructed and their cost, the benefit assessment area and the method by which he fair share, pro-rata obligations of each property are to be established based on impact on traffic and demand for public facilities. b. Developer shall pay the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee on each building at such time as it receives its certfficate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs 11-0;'-9Z 1ZZZ1-nnnz~ F:%/X)C'%,152%rZ1101X)I .AGII 2 62043 first. c. The Council also may eatablish an Intenm Non-Residential PuiDliC Facit~ Fee to be followed by a Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. If only the Interim Non-Residenti~ Public Facility Fee has been established at the time the Developer seeks issuance of its certfficate occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first, then Developer shall pay the linerim Fee pric to issuance of the certfficate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs firat. Later, when the Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee is established, the Developer will be reimbursed far an difference between the Interim and Final Fee if the Intedm Fee exceeds the Final Fee, and snail the shotflail if the Final Fee exceeds the Intedm Fee. d. If the certfficate of occupancy or final inspection occurs prior to the establishment of the Interim or Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee, then Developer shall pay a deposit of $10,000 prior to the issuance of'the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, which amount shall be a credit against the Interim or Final Non-Residential Public Facility/Fee. A letter of credit may be provided in lieu of the $10,000 deposit. e. If either the Final or Interim Non-Residential Public Facility Fee is estal~lished after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the Developer shal pay the Interim or Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee ten (10) days after receiving notice from the City that it has been established. f. Notwithstanding the alcove, Developer snail provide City with written notffication of the opening of any escrow for the sale of the Project and shall provide in the escrow instructions that if the Intedm or Final Non-Residential Public Facility Fee has been established, the Fee shall be paid to the City from the sale proceeds in escrow pdor to distributing the proceeds to Developer/seller. 11-0;-q2 F: ',XX)L'%lSZ%~21 lre~l ,AG~ 62043 g. City shall record a release of this Agreement upon payment of all Non- Residential Public Facility Fees owing and shall provide Developer with a copy of such release. 2. Use of the Non-Resiclential Public Facility Fee. The Non-Residential Public Facility Fee collected pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only to construct City-wide traffic and public facility improvements, which improvements are deemed to be of benef~ to the Project, and for~ expenses incidental thereto. There is a reasonable relationship between the Project and the Non- Residential Public Facility Fee in that the Project will impact traffic and existing public facilities anci, consequently, will require expansion of the City-wide street and highway system, and public facilities in order to. meet the added demand resulting from the PrOject. The mount of the Non-Residential Public Facili~'y Fee to be collected from Project represents the cost of facilities necessary to meet the incremental increase in traffic and demand for pubtic facilities resulting from the Project. 3. Information Provided. Developer shall provide to City, upon City's request therefor, any and all information .regarding access to the Project, traffic flow, trip generation facto,' and such other information as is reasonaPiy necessary to establish the Non-Residential Pubic Facility Fee. 4. Security for the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. a. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, Developer shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by City, in a form approved Dy the City Attorney, in an amount equal to the total Non-Residential Public Facility Fee for the Project. The amount of security may be increased upon City's request should there be an increase in the amount of the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee. The amount of security also may be reduced upon Developers payment of Non-Residential Public Facility Fees outstanding. Except for the deposit provided for in Section 1, no letter of credit is required if neither ll-O;-~'Z 12221-0 (0 6~ F: 'd30C\152%92110001 .Aim 4 the Intedm or Final Non-Residential Public Fac~Tm/Fee has been established as of the date of execution of this Agreement. b. As an alternative to collecting the fee from the letter of credit, if the Developer fails to pay the Non-Residential Public Fadllty Fee within thirty (30) days of the date demand is made, the City may assess a penalty of ten percent (lCPA,) of the amount owing and make said Fee, inclusive of penalty, a lien upon the described real property by recording a notice that said Fee is due under the terms of this Agreement with the County Recorder of Riverside County. The notice shall state the fact that said Fee, inclusive of penalty, is due under the terms c this Agreement and shall state the amount, together with the fact that it is unpaid and draws intere~, on the Fee and penalty at the rate set for'~ at California Revenue & Taxation Section 19269 until paid. c. The City may as an alternative to the lien procedure set forth above, bring legal action to collect the Non-Residential Public Facility Fee due. The Developer agrees that legal action by the City is necessary to collect the Fee the Developer agrees to pay the City a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees and court costs, together with penalty and interest 0eretrained according to Paragraph 4(b) of this Agreement. 5. Agreement Runs with Land. This Agreement pertains to and runs with the Property. This Agreement binds the successors-in-interest of each of the parties. 6. Waiver. By execution of this Agreement, Developer waives any right to protest the provisions Of the Development Agreement, this Agreement or the formation of any Public FaCilit Fee district, but not the nexus between any Non-Residential Public Facility Fee and the Project. 7. Binding AOreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon Developer and Devetoper's successors and assigns. 62043 8. Amendment/No Continuing Waiver. This Agreement may be modified or amended only in writing, signed by both parties. This Agreement contains the full and complete understanding of the parties and supersedes any and all pdor oral or written agreements or representations. A waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement by either party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver thereof. 9. Attorneys' Fees. Should either party determine that it is necessary to file a legal action to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in that litigation shall be entitled to its reasonaiDle costs, including but not limited to, attorneys' fees. 10. NOtices. NOtiCe shall be deemed given under this Agreement when in writing and deposited in the Unites States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: City: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: City Attorney Developer: KemOer Real Estate Management Company 3470 Diablo Blvd., Suite A-100 Lafayette, CA 94549 Attention: Dennis M. Klimmek, Esq. With a copy to: Pertis, Tester, Kruse & Krinsky 18881 Von Karman, 16th Roor Irvine, CA 92715 Attention: Dennis D. O'Neil, Esq. 11. Miscellaneous PrOviSionS. a. If any provision of this Agreement is adjudged invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected. b. If there is more than one (1) signer of this Agreement as Developer, their obligations are joint and several. 11-Q9-92 F: '~X;X;'~lSL~.f'Z110001 .AGi~ 6 62043 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties or their duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date set out alcove. CITY OF TEMECULA By: DaviO S. D~xon City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Scott F. FielO, City Attorney BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a California corporation By: , President By: Dennis M. KJimmek, Secretary MESA HOMES, a California corporation By: William M. Butler, President By: Dennis M, Klimmek, Secretary 12221 MX~'%152\~2110001 ,AGII 7 62043 STATE OF CAUFORNIA COUNTY OF ss. On before me, , a notary public in and for said State. personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on me basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscriPed to the within in~b.,ment and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(lee), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ss. On before me, , a notary public in aria for said State, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me o me Dasls of satisfactory ewoencs) to De the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 'tl-09-9~ 12221-0(X26~ F: 'k~(x:'%,152%92110001 .Ar-J 8 6204 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SS. On before me, , a notary public in and tor said State, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribec~ to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hiS/her/their authorized capacity(lee), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Se: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUN'T'Y' OF SS. On before me, , a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the Das~s of sa,jsfactory evlclence) to De the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(lee), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the enti~/upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Se I*1-0~-~2 12221-000b~ F:MX3;\1$Z~fZIlOQ01 .A~ 9 EXHIBIT A DESCRIP'FION OF THE PROPERTY 62043 F: UXX:X'ZSZX~I 1~X}1 .AGa 10 PAle: DSViQPMEKI' ~TANDARC4 twine specified t~roueh preilfrdrsmy review ' fluid, or as .,~,d · f.laKf/Goft kfl 'Rdd· with MuJ~t~pom OverSty: shag inciucfe t~htZr; to eccomn't3dfte nlOrrt urn. UgrmAg part spill I/McHy~he use .ol ML.tec~ tsgt'mng. HertZoft M Flel~ shell not be bu 1~an :75' in ~, m':d shag be · ufe mnoe from propeNd play ground/at lOT elMS. Penei.n9 8adl be itlf~lleCl along ·Me· ef ~ Ball Reid boundaries. Mult~urDoes Over~ shd nat overlay My perlion ~ · t.-led/tifc Bell Fiehie Infieid (dird Nef eras. Cocorote pads stall be los·gad at aH eMeMe.d vie .w~g ames. k Roam Ik~gcnng shag ~lude e enHk bar end · rrllMtenazl;e farrago morn shell net. be leg than 1200 ~em Ray gro~sd/:::~ lot areas shag ~4s'npdy wt~h el ADA re4uimments, arid provide ~r ·ddJtJorm[ shading. : perk s~s shag ;Nov(de Tat signage, fbo peMe, wear drinktrig ~vrfialra, ret~.ae receptacles, p/cnlc T. EI~U, hsrbeotJe p~la, end pe41~rten benches where Ipproprlela end or omen~u INcH'4d ~ry ~s TCSD, throug~.ut 1~ .~Xdc ilz. Open space I~ay and DIc:~ areas slag bo provide, end 'N irma of cover~6e shag be clearmlAH throug~ pream~ery review. Ovid propc:sect park-improveme· ·hal be revJewecf aM Epprr~sd by 't2'a proposed perk lmem'~U shd specify UM use of City apFoved maAuhClurSr$. rw[a~ lO~2ifk 62043 ~ommuglty Pgrks: L' hr~ " & .mSnmm. mnda~. EXh'mn' F 62043 1. 2. 3, t