The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About102291 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER - 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE OCTOBER 22, 1991 - 7:00 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:00 PM Main confdrence Room - Temecula City Hall, 43174 Busines~ Park Drive, CIo~ed session,. pursuant to Government Code Section No. 54956~9{b) regarding Potential Utigation Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-39 Resolution: No. 91-103 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Pastor Jay Beckley, Rancho Community Church Flag Salute Councilmember Birdsall ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 211gend.e/102281 I 10117/91 CONSENT CALENDAR 2 Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of, the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Resolution ADDrOVing List of Demands 3 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A City Treasurer's Reoort as of September 30.1991 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file report. 4 Award of Contract for Study of User Fees and Charges and I:)evelooment Imoact Fees RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 This report will be forwarded under separate cover. 5 Ordinance Establishing the City Clerk as Custodian of the City Seal and Insignia RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE CITY CLERK AS CUSTODIAN OF THE CITY SEAL AND INSIGNIA 2/ageride/1022e 1 2 10117/l I 6 Revised Vesting Final Tract Mao No..~3.~67-1 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-1, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Final Parcel MaD No. 21769 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 21769, subject to the Conditions of Approval. 8 City/State Electrical Aareement for Traffic Signals and Safety Lighting RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT REVISING THE EXISTING BILLING SYSTEM FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may 'be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 2/egenclkt102281 3 10117/11 9 Vestina Tentative Tract Mao No, ~4183 Southeast corner of DePortola Road and Meadows Parkway (Continued from the meeting of October 8, 1991 ) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24183 TO SUBDIVIDE A 48.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 155 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS AND 1 PARK SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 5 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 (THE MEADOWS), AMENDMENT NO. 1, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-023-002 10 Directional Sign Ordinance - "Kiosks" RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance emitled: ORDINANCE NO, 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER FOUR TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS 11 Chanoe of Zone No, 17/First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No, 23125 (Sterling Homes) Northeast Corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage Road RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Accept Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23125;. 2/eelride/102201 4 1011 1/~1 ~ 11.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: 11.3 11.4 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 17 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 88.4 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-A-2½ (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - 2½ ACRES MINIMUM) TO R~I AND R-5 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN SPACE COMBINING ZONE-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926-707-020 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2½ (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - 2½ ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND R-5 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN SPACE COMBINING ZONE-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926- 070-020 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23125-A 215 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 88.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'8 PARCEL NO. 926- 330-004 AND 926-070-020 2/egeete/102291 6 10117/91 COUNCIL BUSINESS 12 I-15 Overcrossing Traffic Directors RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO, 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $63,000 TO TRAFFIC GUARD PROGRAM DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Capital Improvement Program, October 29, 1991,1991,5:30 PM, Main Conference Room, City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California Next regular meeting: November 12, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEMECU;A CONIMUNIT'F~I:RylCES D}tTRICT MFrI'IN~: i":{To be held at. 8~0) CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENT: 21leeride/102291 Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-0:~ Resolution: No. 91-13 President J. Sal Muf~oz DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mufioz Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink 'Request to Speak' to the City Clerk, When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address for the record, e 10117/11 DISTRICT BUSINESS Boys and Girls Club Reauest for Funds RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Consider a loan to the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley to purchase a 5,000 sq. ft. modular building. 1.2 Authorize staff to enter into an agreement for a loan of ~24,800 with the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula. November 12, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting Temecula Community Temecula, California TEMECUI A REDFVELOPMENT A~FNCY MFFTINR CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Peg Moore presiding AGENCY MEMBERS: Next in Order: Ordinance No. 91-02 Resolution No. 91-11 Birdsall, Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks, Moore PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink 'Request to Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. 2/egende/102291 7 10/17,91 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting November 12, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 2/agende/102211 · 10/17/'11 ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $1,819,706.04 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 221h day of October, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 215 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 10/04/91 CHECK RUN #1 10/09/91 CHECK RUN #1 10/11/91 CHECK RUN #1 10/14/91 CHECK RUN #1 10/10/91 PAYROLL TOTAL CHECK RUN: TOTAL CHECK RUN: TOTAL CHECK RUN: TOTAL CHECK RUN: TOTAL CHECK RUN: $422,342.59 $41,336.40 $410,364.76 $853,729.86 $91,932.43 $422,342.59 $41,336.40 $410,364.76 $853,729.86 $91,932.43 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR THE 10/22/91 COUNCIL MEETING $1,819,706.04 RE~ BY KARMA MCINTY MAI~K OCHENDUSZKO, ASSISTANT ~MANAGER ,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. ,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Cnec~ Da[~ venoGr Invaics :aLe P/C Date Descriefion Gross Discount Net ~7745 08/30/9! HUNTESCR HUNTINGTON ESCROW SERVICE 885891 88/50/9! 88/38191 'BUS BARN' PMT 25,875.80 8.08 23,G75.80 Check Totals: 00~7814 09/~9/~! HYATTGRA HYATT GRAND CHAMPIONS 890991 09/89/91 09/09/91RCTC CONFERENCE/OCT 2-5 Check Totals: 888~7931 09/20/91 GiLLiS-2 C.~. 'MAX~ GiLLiS 878191 07/01/9! ~259 ~7/01!91 SERVICES RENDERED/JULY 91 083091 08/30!9! 0259 67i0i/9! SERVICES RENDERED/AUG 91 2Z,875.08 8.0~ 23,875.80 231.88 0.00 23!.88 231.88 0.00 231.08 2,850.00 8.0~ 2,050.00 4,975.08 8.08 4.975.00 Check Totals: 000~797~ 09/23/9! GILLIS-2 C.~ 'MAX~ GqL!S 092871 ~/28/?I ~259 ~7101/9! SERVICES RENDERED/JUNE 9i 7,~25.0~ 8.~ 7,~25.00 2.950.0~ 0.00 2,958.80 Check Totals: ~0~8~52 !0/0i/91TEMECULA TEMECULA CREEK INN 10~191 1~i81/9I i8!01/9i LUNCH DEF'/TOP 2~ SLS T~ GCT!~ 2,95~.8~ G.00 2,950.00 25~.08 8.00 250.00 88808053 1~/01/9i FIRSTAM Check Totals: r.n~, AMERICA~i ~,~_, CO I~/01/91 09/50/9! LABELS FOR PUB. NOTICING 258.00 ~.80 250.00 75.00 0.0~ 75.00 Check Totals: 80880~54 18/8!/91 LUNCH&ST LUNCH & STUFF C~TERiNG i~191 10/0i/91 1~/0i/91 COUNCIL DINNER/MEETING OCT I 75.8~ 8.08 75.08 85.60 8.80 B3.6~ 08088056 iB/02/91 TARGET Check Totals: 89/26/91 POLAROID FiL~ FOR ICED 83.6~ 0.00 83.68 i93.85 ~.80 ..... Cheu Totals: 08008859 !0/0~!91 ACCURATE ACCURATE LANDSCAPE :.'s~.:-~ ~,,~..'~, ~. ~,~,o .... EXCEEDED PO ~B:~ 188.65 0,00 108.65 Check Totals: 00008060 10/04/91AGRiCRED AGRiCREDiT ACCEPTANCE CORP. ~90i91 ~S/~I/9! 0230 ~7/01/91LEASE/FURGSN TBCTR/SEPT ~915~i 09/'~9~ 09/15/9! 670004180~I~0062/ i0819% 10/0i/9i 82~8 87/0i/9! LEASE/FURGSN TRCT/OCT 9! 188.85 ~.77 5~.7T 846.02 0.00 84~.~2 0008806! 1~1~4/9i APPLEONE APPLE ONE '~.~s 09!25/91 18787 Check Totals: 09/12/91 TEMP.SERV./WEEK ENDING 9/21 1,722.81 0.00 1,722.8! Check Totals: 000~8062 18/84/91 BOYSCOUT BOY SCOUTS OF A~ERiCA 07119! ~9/11/~i 09/11/91 INITIAL MEMBERSHIP EXPLORER :E. 7.13 ~,00 5S7.13 577508 CADET U~;IFORF. e?,'27.':'t i~625 Check Totals: 6C.i[ g.OC 6~.!C e:E:,.'~.:'~: RUGS:E:TY HALL:R~ITLS~WASTE ~:: ~: eC '.0C 22 ~ ~0880:5~ i~4,'9! CAL!FORii CAL!FORNIA~ Cnac:. Totals: e, 7/~i/~l PUBL.LGL NTC;F'LAH.COM~:COUNC= '2'2.0C g.Og 22.80 Check Date VenOor Name Invoice Date F'/O Date Descriotior! Gross Discount Net 07~191 07/01/91 07/01/91NTC PUB HEARNG/6/11-6/i8 !85.88 0.8~ 185.8~'~ 070i91-A 87/81/91 87/~i/91NTC PUB HEARNG/06/~6/91 97.0! 0.08 97.~. ~98591 (~9/05/91 18626 07/01/9t PUBL.LGL NTC:PLAN.COMM:COUN~L 7~.76 8.08 79.7~ 878i9>1 87181/91 18436 05/29/91 WANT AD:REC LEADER&VOL COORD 84.00 0.~8 84.8~ ~7~1~1-2 87/~1/91 10454 85/3~!91 LIFEGUARD WANT AD 14.0~ 0.~0 14.08 078191-5 07/01/91 10418 06/27/9! WANT AD ACCOUNT CLER~ 19.67 ~.~8 19.67 ~7319t-! 87/51/91 18556 87/26/91 PRINCIPAL ENG.AD;RUN 7/2E 25.[ O.8E ~73191-2 87/51/9! I~555 ~7/26/9! SR. ACCT. AD:RUN 7/2~ 19.0~ 8.80 19.8~ 873191-5 87/31/91 ~7/51/91 CLASSIFIED AOSRULY 208.95 8.00 208.97 070191-5 07/01/91 ~7/0~/9! CLASSIFIED ADS/MAY 410.78 0.80 41~.7~ 88268 88/29/91 10626 ~7/81/91PUBL,LGL NTC;PLAN.COMM:CGUNCL 51.75 0.80 51.75 84536 09/17/91 10626 87/01/91 PUBL,LGL NTC;PLAN.COMM;COUNCL 64.28 0.08 64.28 08828-1021 09/19/91 18626 07/81/91PUBL,LGL NTC;PLAN.COMM:COUNCL !34.46 0.80 I~4.46 02161 09i!6i91 18626 87/01/91PUBL,LGL NTC;PLAN.COMM:COUNCL 27.1~ 8.88 27.10 091191 09/11/9! 18812 09/11/9i 1YR.SUBSC.NEWSPPR:PLANNtNS 51.20 8.~8 51.2~ 088791 08/87/91 1058~ 08/85/9! AD:GEN.PLAN MTG:RUN 8/7/~i 111.00 0.08 872591 07/25/9! 18428 87/12/9! AD FROM MAYOR RE:INLAND SVC 777.87 8.80 777.87 ~72591-I ~7/25/9i 10557 87/09/9I 1/2 PAGE DISPLAY AD; 7/7/?i 578.~2 8.00 ~78.92 ~83!9! 88151/91 18647 08/21/91 DISPLAY AD:RDA COMMITTEE 501.19 8.88 381.19 ~7/~!/91 ~7/0i/9! 87/81/91 APRIL ADVERTISING 10~.1~ 0.88 00008866 10/04/9i CALIFPRK CALIF. PARK ~ REC.SOCIETY 092~9! 09/26/91 09/26/91 Check Totals: 5,216.66 0.00 3,216.66 INC AGNCY MEMBERSHP/!i/!-!I/5~/92 565.8~ 8.08 565.08 0'8008867 10/8~/$1CALMUNi 100!9i Check Totals: CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL BUSINESS 1S/~1./91 i~/81/91 MEMBERSHIP ANNUAL DUES 365.00 ~,0~ Cnec~ Totals: CANYON REPRGGRAP~iCS ~?/$I19i ~7iE!/91 XEROX COPIES/O!/iB/gi 07/0i/?i 07101/91 MYLAR el/22/91 ~8/~7/911~594 ~8/07/9! BLUEPRINTS~ PLANN!NS 4~.08 0.0~ ~e.~e 7~.29 0.8D 7~,29 6!.~? ~.8~ 61.~9 Check Totals: 00008069 i~/84/91CHANNENi CHANNEN iSLAND HOTEL i0/10/91 10/18/91 18/10/91 TRAINING BICYCLE PATROL ~'~ 14 e.oe 371 ,i 64.~ 0.8~ 64.Be 0080887~ 1~/~4/91 COBB THE COBB GROUP 88/29/91 10596 Check Totals: 08/07/9! i YR.SUB.PARADOX JOURNAL Check Totals: 00008071 10/~4/91 COOKP.UM Jl~. COOK PLUMBING ~ ~ !~/.'.3/~! 18/83/ql REFUND/RECEIPT ~6232 69.0~ 0.00 .59.~e 5f.08 B.Se 5e.oe Check Totals: 00~08~72 ~i/o~ rm'N~vAn COUNTY OF RIVERSTne ~9~591 ~9/05/91 ~9/~5/91ASSESSOR'S MAPS/ 38.08 0.80 3~.08 25.0~ 8.08 25.~C 25.0[ t,.~.~' ~.-..~: 71.95 e.~ 71.~f Check 7i.95 c,oe vi,}~ SB¢eBg~4 !e/64'91 CPO~ CPO. A FOUNDATIO:, Check Date VenOor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 18/84/91 18/~4/9! 1~/84/91 TRAINING FOR SERGEANTS 273,~8 0,g 275.8~ Check Totals: 00008075 !0/04/91 DIVERSIF DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY SERVICE 654 87101191 1~557 ~7181i91TEMP SVCS WEEK ENDING 6/2~ 271.88 ~,8~ 271,e~ 496.88 8.88 496.~ 88808076 18184191F!RSTA~ 1918419 Check Totals: FIRST AMERICAN UT'P CO 89/19/91 10855 89/19/91 PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT;PREP 496.88 e,SB 496,ee 588.0~ 0.8~ 580.e~ 88888877 10/84i91 GETPAGED SET PAGED 8894595-IN 89/86i91 8246 88952~9-IN 89/18/91 8228 895249-IN 89/10/9! 8246 8895249/IN 89/1~/9i ~2!9 Check Totals: 89/~6/91 RENTAL OF I PAGER:! YR/SEPT91 07/8!/91PAGERS/SEPT 89/86/9! PAGERS/SEPT 87/15/9! PAGERS/SEPT 5~0.08 8.8~ 508.88 18.8~ 8.88 18.88 158.88 2.88 158.88 i2.58 e.ee !2.58 57,58 g.88 57.5C Check Totals: 08088878 18/84/91GLENNIES GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS 15127>0 88/16/91 18654 88/16/9! OFFICE SUPPL!ES:M!SC, !57545-0 ~9/24/9! !0~15 ~9/18/91 INDEXES;PRINTER:CARD PUNCH 157271-2 ~9/25/91 1~79~ 89/12/91 CARD FILES:FOLDERS;STAMPS 218.8~ 0.08 21~.08 78,58 0.80 78,58 156.26 8.88 156.2~ 74.56 8.88 74.5~ Chec~ Totals: 0808807~ 18/84/91 GLOBAL GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES 11886111 ~?/25/91 !~816 09/!6/91 DATA CARTRIDGES;TRAYS Check Totals: B8088088 1~184/9! GOVTFINO GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS A 8114298 ~8/15/91 08/15/91 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 512234 87/~!/9i ~7/~!/9! SUBSCR, SERVICE FEE 389,52 0.88 389.52 875.85 e.ee 875.86 875.86 8.88 875.0~ i65,8~ ~,88 165,08 00~8~31 1~/04/9'16RAiNGER GRAINGER 7205~35% 87/58/9i 10499 44i$786228 ~9/25/91 10499 423425~58~ ~8,'!5/9i I8499 Chec~t louis: 87/!5/91 WORKBENCH ~7/15/9! WORKBENCH/CREDIT 07/15/91 WORKBENCH 17~.0g g,~e 170.eg !84,76 0.08 !84,76 ,o~,76- ~,~: 184 ' .i~- t61,76 ~ 0a 161,7~ 88888882 i8/84/91GTEBILL GTE 1626~52C ~/16/9! 1625595C 89/16/9! i626645C 89/16/91 ~9/16/9i 09/!6/91 09/18/91 7141626~52/~i~-le~l= 7141625595/8/18-9/I! 7141626045/9/15-18/12 i6;,76 e.86 !63.7~ 1,788.88 g.Ge 1,7~8.88 429,88 8.88 429,8g 78.41 8.08 78,41 e0~09894 10/e4/9i HAf.~KSHA~ HANKS HARDWARE 10431~ 89/ii/91 18655 08/21/91 18668~ ~/25/91 18655 ~8/21/91 !874~ 88!2719! 13555 08121191 i84592 ~?;i~/9! 10655 ~8/21/91 ..... ~' '~55 88/21/91 !~32;7 8~'/$4/91 iossE 08.'21/9i I~55~9 O?!7/?I i~655 88/21/91 !04!6~ eU~9/9! I~655 88/2i/91 i8260~ 8~,:10/91 10616 89/13'91 Check Totals: M!SC,REPAIR EQUIPMENT:TCSD MISC,REPAIR EQUIPMENT:TCSD MISC.REPA!R EQU!PMENT:TCSD '~ ....."~ ~' EGU!PMENT;TCS[ g[SC.2EPA!R EOUIPHENT:TCS~ ~"~ c: ..... ~ EQU!PMENT:TCSD !,iQw ....rMl= ~iSC.REPA!R EOU!PMENT~TCS[ M!SC.REPA!R EQUIPMENT:TCSD ~EASURING WHEEL ..... * ~.00 ',216.2! ~.85 ~,88 0,85 28.05 o. Be 2s.85 2i.12 8.00 21.12 4.72 ~.8~ 4.72 68,~5 ~.Sg 68.45 32.27 C.00 32.27 2~.~9 e ~ .... 2.95 "~ ~.~ 2.95 %,90 0.~8 96.9'~ Check Date Yencot ~ame Invoice Date :'/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 106762 89/24t91 1~719 08,'27/91 ACCOUNT:REPAIR ITEMS; CIT~ 4.96 0.80 4.96 106965 ~9/25191 !~719 ~m~ 18.85 18.85 ~.~,/9~ ACCOUNT:REPAIR ITEMS; 0 ...... ACCOUNt:REPAIR ITEMS: CITY 4.75 0.80 4.73 182645 88158191 i07iq ~'?mi . .... '~ 08/27191 ACCOUNT:REPAIR ITEMS; CITY 19.57 0.08 19.57 I~2759 08/58/91 105065 ~9/85/9! 107i~ ~8/27!9! ACCOUNT:REPAIR ITEMS; CITY 0.8!- 0.00 ~.81- 102555 08/29i91 10719 08/2719! ACCOUNT:REPAIR ITEMS; CITY 18.2~ 0.00 18.2~ 106105 ~/!9/9! I~7!o ~8/27/9! ACCOUNI;REPAIR ITEMS; CITY 22.53 0.0~ 22.55 105975 ~9/!9/91 1~719 08i27/91 ACCOUNT:REPAIR ITEMS: CITY 64.88 106184 89/20i91 271q 08/27/91 ACCOUNT:REPAIR ITEMS; CIT~ 21.44 0.80 21.4~ 1~618i ~9/2~/91 1~719 08/27/91 ACCOUNT;REPAIR ITEMS; CITY 22.5> 0.00 22.53- 107542 ~9/27/91 !8719 BS127!9i ACCOUNI:REPAIR ITEMS; CIT~ 4.26 0.00 4.26 107517 ~9/26/91 18719 08i27/91 ACCOUNT:REPAIR ITEMS: CITY 71.3! 0.~0 71.51 520.4~ 0.~8 52~.4~ Check Totals: 00~08085 18i04/91 [CMA iCNA 2DFCM.5~ 89/12/9i 09/12/91 Normal Pavroi!.9/12 550.95 0.0~ 350.93 2DFCM.52 09/20/~! 09/26191 Normal Payroii.9/26 582.72 0.00 582.72 0~2791 ~9/27i91 09/27/91 CONTRIBUTIONS/SEPT 199! 9.00~.56 ~.0~ 9.00~.56 00008086 18/041~I ICMARETi iCMA RETIF:EMEN7 0927~! 09/27/91 Check. Totals: 09/27/9! CONTRIBUTIONS/AUS !99! 9,914.2! 0.80 9~91~.21 9,438.26 0.0~ 9.458.26 Check Totals: 00088087 10f04/9i INLANDD2 INLAND DISPOSAL. INC 5164S 00/25/91 09/25/9! WASTE SERV./OCT 91 51662 ~9/25/9! 09/25/91 WASTE SERV./!O/!-IO/5~ 5167~ ~9/25/91 ~9/25/91 WASTE SERV./OCT 9! ~,~o.,~ 0.00 9.43~.26 i:4F: [7/15/~i SR. MANA~ENENT ANAL',ET i.~52.14 ~.00 :.052.14 Check Totals: APF'RA~SAL FEE KIDSPART KiDS PARTIES,ETC. i~i91 1~/01/91 Check Totals: 10i01/9i CLWNS/MOM&ME PROG/SEF'i:,2C.27 40C.08 ~.Oe 10~.06 45.08 0.0~ 45.0~ 00008091 10i04/91L&MFERTI L & M FERTILIZER Check Totals: 87/e!/9! GREENZiT TURF-DYE 45.08 0.B~ 45.0¢ 87.54 B.BC 87.54 Cheo Totals: ~'a~80S2 !8i04/$! LAID:A~T ~AiDLAW TRANSIT~ INC. 89279! 0~/27i9! 89/27/91 DAY CAMP TRANS/P~T/~8/21/91 312,85 ~.00 ~*~ 8S 8524-71 ~9"2~/q! Check fota!s: ~!2.8.'. ~.0~ "!~' 83 ~9',,'24,;9'! HUf~AN RESOURCE ,~iEETItG"'--'E~'T 4':.83 Che,:~ Totals: 00088094 I~/'04/s: LEAGUE-i LEAGUE 0: CALiFORN!A CiTiES ..... ~ , ~ ........ !YR.SUB 43.8~ 0.08 4l.Sl !i~.57 e.g~ !15.5,7 Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date PIO Date Description Gross Discount Net Check Totais: 116.37 B.08 116.57 '888895 18/84/91LEAaUE-~ LEAGUE OF CA CITIES-INLAND OI 18/~7/91 18/~7/91 ~7/17/91 COUNCIL MEMBER/CONFERENCE 15.80 8.~8 1S.88 le8~gl le/e~/9! 101~/91 CONFERENCE 1e/19/91 15.8~ 8.i8 t5.0~ 88888896 18/84/91M.C.R.LA M.C.R. LANDSCAPE 2522-D 87f81/91 18868 Check Totals: 87/~1i9! OVERAGE ON P.O. 18377 3~.~0 8.6~ 38.82 29.94 8.08 29.94 Check Totals: 18/~4/91MARILYNS MARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE 1727 89/38191 18828 09/16/9! PAPER PRODUCTS:COFFEE SUPPLY 29.94 0.08 29.94 68.86 8.~ 68.86 Check Totals: 088~8098 18184191MAZZETTI EDWARD & SUZANNA MAZZETTI 092391 89/23/91 09/23/91 REFUND/CANCELLED PERMIT 12884 68.86 8.00 68.86 !65.68 8.00 165.60 08808099 18t84/91MONTOYAN NANCI MONTOYA 892691 09/26i91 Check Totals: 89/26/91 REFUND/SWIM LESSON i65.68 0,88 165,68 25.00 0.88 25.0~ 80888180 16104/91 NEWPORT 60653 Check Totals: NEWPORT WAVE SOFTWARE 88/26191 18881 88126/91Q&A DOCUMENTATION;COMPUTER 25.80 0.08 25.00 48.00 0.~8 48.88 '~008181 18/04/91 OAK RID 892491 Check Totals: OAK RIDGE INTERNAT!ONAL 89/24/9t 89/24/91 TO REPLACE MISSING TOOL BITS 48.08 8.0~ 48.02 89.57 8.B8 89.57 28088182 10104/910XNARD CITY OF OXNARD !~/10/~i i~/04/91 Check Totals: 19/84/9i FEES FOR CLASS ROOM TRAINiN~ 89.57 8.00 89.57 75.8~ 0.08 75,.~ 88008183 10/84/9! PAPER DT PAPER DIRECT 2a12482%17 89/18/SI 12844 Check Totals: 09/16/91 DISKETTE LABELS 75.28 8.08 75.08 45.95 8.80 45.95 Check Totals: 00888184 18/84/91PARKERMI PARKER, MILLiKEN, CLARK, 18/i/91 10/~1/91 le/01/91 REGISTRATION/SYMPOSIUM 45.95 0.08 45.95 75.88 8.08 75.00 808881~5 10/04/91PERS 2MEDC.50 2MEDC.52 892791 1~/81/9i Check Totals: PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREMIUM) 09/12/91 89/1219t Normal Payroll,9/12 89/26/9! 89/26/91 Normal Payroll,9/26 i0/81/91 18/81/9i INSURANCE PREMIUM/SEPT 1991 ~..'~i/91 18/8i/91PERS RETIREMENT/SEPT. 1991 75.88 8.82 75.08 89.69 8.88 89.69 212.54 0.00 2!2.34 15.545.35 8.08 15,345.35 ~,~.~, 0.88 80808126 i0/04/91 PHONEMAN THE PHONE MAN 22452 87/23/91 10861 I~/84/?! PHOTOWKS PHOTO WORKS 01185 08/21/91 Check Totals: 07f8i/91 COUPLINGS;LINES:LABOR;POLICE Check Totals: 88/2!/91 FILM DEVELOPMENT 37,973.65 0.80 37,973.65 836.88 0.80 836.08 856.08 ~.00 836.00 18.87 8.8~ !0.87 Check Totals: 10.87 8.00 18.87 Check Date Ven~cr 4ame Invoice Date F'/O Date Description 8ross Discoun~ Net 00008108 10104/91PRESSENT PRESS ENTERPRISE 078191 07/~1191 10479 06128/?I 5 COLUMN AD RE: TAX ASSESMT 32!.68 ~.88 S21.6~ ~7B191AD 07/81/9I 87/01/91 CLASSIFIED ADS !59.40 8.00 !5'?.~ ~78191-A 87/~1/~! 87/81/9! CLASSIFIED ADS 3%.98 ~75191 07i51191 07/51/fi CLASSIFIED ADS17/7-7/31 1.053.08 10/84/91 10646 88/21/91 DISPLAY AD|RDA COMMITTEE 156.00 B.B8 156.0~ 883191 08/51/91 18586 07/38/91AD;GEN. PLAN ~TG.RUN 8/1/9! 122.85 0.00 I22.85 8701914 07/01/9! 87/01/91PLANNINB/SECRTY/OFFICE 5/~1 !I.48- 8.00 ll.4F 08808189 10104191DUALITYC GUALITY CHEVROLET - GEO 871 87/03/9t 1BB6~ 87182/9! Chec~ Totals: 2,!98.27 0,80 2,198.27 SERVICE OF VEHICLE: CORSICA 186.85 0.80 186.83 08~88110 18/04/91RANCHOIN RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 109668 09/24/91 10802 0~/12/9! Check Totals: I86.83 8.BB IBa. B5 SAND BASS;EMERG.USE:PUB.WRKS 646.50 e.00 646.5~ Check Totals: 00808111 18i84/71RANCHSOF RANCHO CALiF SOFTBALL TEAM 092491 09/24/9! 89/24/91 REFUND OF SECURITY DEPOSIT 646.50 e.80 646,5~ 88808113 10/04/91RANCHWTR RANCHO WATEF. 8124819181 8911B/91 09/18/91 0124465001 89/18/91 09/18/91 81150301~)I 09/18191 09/18/91 ~I2446880! 89/18/9! ~9/18/91 0i240B7522 ~9/18/91 89/18191 ~124025801 09/18/9! 89!18/91 0131501111 09/18/9t 89/18/9i 8!:!170852 89/'!8/9! 09!18/9! 0!248~8~.2 8~/18/~ ~12408G152 09/18/9! 0~/18/9i e116856451 09/18/91 ~9/18/9I ~11~5~511 ~/18/9! 09/18/9! ~'1c~4C ~!24800~22 ~!/!8/~l Q124080~2 0~/18/~! B~/18/9t '~115081012 09/IB/~I ~?/18/?! 082!918 ~8/21/91 08/21/91 882!91-B 88/21/91 08/21/~1 082191B 88/21/9! 08/21/91 08/2!/918 08/21/9! 88/21/9! ~717~IA 07/!7/9! ~7/!7/9! 0807918 88/87/9! 88/07/91 OBBT~t-S ~S/07/91 88/97/91 B80791/B ~B/~7/91 08/87/9! 88/07/91~ 08/~7/~1 08/~7/91 Check Totals: 0124019181/0712548f26 012~465801/07/25-08i26 8115858101/07123-08/22 8124460801/7/25-8/26 8124007322/~/25-8/2~ 012~82500I/7/25-8/26 0131581111/7/29-8/27 013!170052/7/29-8/27 ~!24086802/7/25-8/2~ 0124080152/07/25-88/26 0116836431/7/23-8122 0116053311/7/25-8/22 ~115~15802/7/23-8/2! 8124008022/7/25-8/26 812408i)982/7/25-8/26 0!150~1~12/7/23-8/22 Q1-24-00910-i/6/27-7/25 81-24-46580-!/6/27-7/25 81-2~-468F1/6/27-7/25 81-24-~1918-!/6/27-7/25 0!-24-00098-2/5/51-6/27 8!-84-M015-!/6/17-7/15 '~1-04-145!!-0/6/5-7/15 8!-02-4500-2/6/15-7/11 0147-68077-1/6/19-7/19 111.67 B.00 !1!.67 101.70 0.80 181.70 61.6! ~.88 61 273.2~ B.BB ~".20" 228.B9 8.i)8 742,~8 ~.00 742.08 65S.~ 8,80 557.15 8.08 7.67 ~ ~ 7.67 401.67 8,00 48!.67 204.!7 0.88 204.17 46!.42 8.00 461.42 i,838,.36 0.80 I,~38.36 22.22 ~.00 22.22 98.46 0.88 98.46 548.25 B.~B 348.25 184.47 B,00 184.47 !.294.~7 0.80 !~294.S7 .,.,.: vj,O~ 47.83 i.74 i7,.08 3.71 791,~5 0,00 791,53 &30.24 8.00 7740 L~/'Si. 19L REEDC,3RF REEDCORP ENGiNEERiNG 8114 VOID e~0881!5 i01~4!91RIVERSi: RIVERSIDE CFFiCE S!JPPL'( Check Totals: ~ ENBiNEERING/SPTS C~eck Totals: SHELVINB;COMP,PAPER~ROLO~EX ~ATA ~ACK:LABELS:CALSNDARS 453.02 0.80 9,453. 1,721.0~ ~,80 ~ 72i.85 eS-.:~ ~,ge aBe. Be 357.79 ~. ~ ~,. 59 City c~ ~emecuia Checi Register S~a~ion: Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 99943-I 09125191 18799 89189191 DATA RACK:LABELS:CALENDARS 519.68 8,88 519.68 Check Totals: 1,565.87 8.~8 1,563.87 00808116 10/~4/91 SISARTS S & S ARTS AND CRAFTS 82255~ ~9/23/91 18807 09/!2/91 CREPE PAPERIPAINT~TCSD 557.67 ~.88 357.67 Check Totals: 00008117 10/04/91 SINGLESO SINGLE SOURCE SUPPLY 4773 10/02191 !0828 09/17/91 24X36 RUBBERMAID CART 357.67 0,00 357.67 !26.07 0.88 126.87 Check Totals: 08808118 10/04/91 SO CAL-2'SO.CALiFDRNIA TELEPHONE CO. 3457421 09/09/91 89/89/91 7143457421/6/29-8/28 126.87 8,80 126.07 77.14 0.80 77.14 08008119 10104/91SOUTHCED SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON Y717017614 08/23/91 08/23/91 Y717858838 08123/9! 88/23/91 7170399178 08/23/91 88/2319! 367810011 07/01/91 07/8!/9! 5670188iIA 87/25/9! 87/25/91 3a78100ilb 08t23/91 08i23i91 Y717844950 07/01/91 07/01/91 7170449508 88/23/91 08/23/91 717050833A 88/87/91 08/87/91 7178588338 88/25/9! 08/23191 080191 88/81/91 08/01/91 88819!-A 88/0!191 08/81/9! 717858733 87/01/91 87/8i/91 7i705U~SA 07/25/~! 87/25/9! 7170507338 ~8/23/~! 88/23/9! Check Totals: 66775855856818883/7/1-8/19 66778588063818~08/711-8/19 66775858068020882/7/22-B/19 66775858867818884/5/29-6/28 66775858867010084/6/2F7/22 66775858067810004/7/22-8/19 667758588558!8008/5/29-6/28 66775858855810008/6/20-8/19 66775858060810801/6/3-6/20 66775858860818081/6/28-8/19 4377877528081/6/25-7/31 4377877568001/7/1-7/~1 667758588~4818007/ 66775858864010087/6/2F7/22 66775858864818007/7/22-~/1~ 77.14 0.08 77,14 2,!42.51 8.00 2,142.51 119.63 0.08 119.63 97.11 0.08 97.1! 335.54 ~.88 335.54 659.26 8,00 659.26 637,54 8.00 637.54 U2,77 0.80 372.77 2,837.19 0.08 2~837.19 178.02 0.80 178.02 958.88 8.80 958.80 13,722.86 0.08 13,722.86 5,422.60 0.00 3,422.68 278.58 0.08 278.58 496.38 8,88 496.38 ~98.67 ~.0~ 498.6? 000~812~ !0/~4/91STADiUMP STADIUM P!ZZA 08229i 08/22/9i 88/2219t Check Totals: LUNCH/BID MEETING 25,94i.46 0.00 25,94i.46 68.7! 8.80 68.71 Check Totals: 00008121 10/04/9! STATECOM STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND 3WKCL.46 08.1~II91 08/01/91 Normal Payro]l,8/1 ~WKMA.46 08/01/91 88/81/91 Normal Payroli,8/1 3WKOT.46 88/81/91 88/81/9! Normal Payroll,8/! 3WKCL.47 88/15/91 88/15/91 Normal Payroll,B/IS 5WKMA.47 ~8/15/91 88/15/91 Normal Payroll,8/15 ~NKOT.47 08/15/91 08/15/91 Normal Payroll,8/15 3WKCL.4S 88/29/91 08/29/91 Normal Payroll,8/2~ 3~KMA.4? ~8/29/91 08/29/9i Normal Payroii~8/29 3WK07.4~ 0~/2W91 08/29/91 Normal Payrol!,8/29 3WK~A.49 08/15/9i 88/i5/91 Void/Manual Check 891691 89/16/91 09/16/91 PREMIUM FOR SEPT 68.71 8.80 68.71 206.17 0.00 200.17 2,283.57 0.00 2,285.57 1.024.9! 0.88 !,024.91 232.84 0,00 232.84 1,918.22 0.00 1,918.22 1,863.15 0.8~ 1,863.!5 256.28 0.80 256.28 2.058.17 0.00 2,058.17 905 Qs 8.0~ 905 Q~ 120.79 0.08 12~.79 176.3~ ~.00 17~.3~ 10/04/91STEFFEN8 SUE STEPFEN 1~8191 18/Bi/?! 10!01/91 Check Totals: FURNISHINS 10.245.55 ~.0~ I~,245.55 5~.48 0,0~ 50.49 10/84/91 TEMECREN TEMECULA RENTS ."7,''~/q' ~ r-'~. 07101/91 Check Totals: 5~.49 0.00 50.49 2 PUMPS AND I RENOVATOR 27.80 ~.OB 27.0~ Fiscel Year: i9% Sr. ec! Re~s~ ~tat~on: ~ Check Date Vendor Name invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 29515 87/~I/91 18859 87/~I/9! 2 PUMPS AND I RENOVATOR 56.88 ~.88 36.~9 " Check Totals: 88088124 10/04/91TEMECULA TEMECULA CREEK INN ~8259! 88/25/9t 88/25/91 MEETING IN TOWN/JUN-AUG 65.80 8.88 65.88 165.57 8.08 165.57 Check Totals: 88888125 I9184/91TEMFLOWE TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL 892691 89/26/91 89/26/91FLOWERS/FNRL ARRANG 165.57 0.88 165.57 185.52 0.88 185.52 88888126 18/84/91 TOWNCTR 5689-g 5729-1 9151-~ Check Totals: TOWN CENTER STATIONERS ~7/88/91 18868 87/88/91LTR TRAYS;LABELS;CALENDAR ~7II1/91 87/11/91 STAPLER ~9/19/9! 188~9 89/86/9! ROLODEXS;SHARPENERS 185.52 8.08 185.52 19.75 8.88 19.75 55.78 8.88 55.79 119.47 8.88 119.47 00088127 18184/91TUMBLEJU TUMBLE JUNGLE 188191 18/81/91 Check Totals: 18/81/9i PMT/88% OF CONTRACT CLASSES 174.90 8.88 174.98 281,6~ 8.H 281.68 Check Totals: 88888128 18/~4/91 WINDSOR1 WINDSOR PARTNERS-RANCHO IND ~90191-D 09/01/91 09/81/91 DEBIT MEMO/BALANCE RENT OCT. 201.60 8.H 281.60 i,435.85 0.08 1,455.85 88808129 10/04/91 XEROX-2 550667821 XEROX CORPORATION-BILLING 18/81191 025! 87101/91 Check Totals: 1YR.LEASE/OCT. PMT 91 1,435.85 8.88 1,435.85 1,182.76 0.00 1,182.76 88088150 10/0!/91 ICMA ICMA A 4~15 89/i2/9i 10745 08/27/9! Check Totals: 1,182.76 0.00 i,182.76 PUBL.'BALANCED 8ROWTH'PLNG 24.45 0.0~ 24.45 80808152 10122!9! ALLIED ALLIED BARRICADE t!5049-08 88/21/9! 10849 87f0i!91 114307-09 07/81/91 10859 87/01/91 i17442-00 99!16/91 10788 09i09/91 11744>0 89/1~/91 10788 09/89/91 t17478-g 09/18/91 18788 09109/91 117678-00 09/26/91 10788 09/89/9! i17444-~8 09/16/91 1~788 89/89/91 116587 g8/14/91 10412 07/82/91 116587-0~ 88/14/9! 08/14/91 Check Totals: RENTAL:BARRICADES;FLAG TAFE RENTAL BARRICADES; 1~ DAYS SIGNS & MATERIALS;PUB.WORKS SIGNS & MATERIALS;PUB.WORKS SIGNS & MATERIALS;PUB.WORKS SIGNS & MATERIALS;PUB.WORKS SIGNS & MATERIALS;PUB.WORKS MATERIALS FOR SIGN MAINT. BARRICADES 24.45 0.00 24.45 145.61 0.00 145.63 144.49 9.80 144.46 111.11 8.09 11!.i! 46.64 0.80 46.64 265.87 ~,00 265.87 417.77 0.~0 417.77 !16.85 0.80 116.85 95.87 0.~8 95.87 39.95 8.80 39.95 90~08!53 10/22/91BURKE,WM 86432 06628 08/14/91 08114!91 6650~ 88/14/91 08/14/9! 6~269 ~7/01,'9i 97/~I/91 54~8~ ~7101/91 87/8i/91 ~6426 ~7/0i/'~1 ~7/01/9! Check Totals: BURKE, WILLIAMS &: SORENSEN U/~I/91 07f81/91 DISBURSEMENTS THROUGH 6/38/9! RETAINER SERVICES/7ti-7/23 PROFESSIONAL SERVi6/25-7/51 RETAINER SERVICES/6/!-6/2~ DISBURSEMENTS/~/3!/51 PROF. SERV. 6/5-6/~0/$I LEGAL SERVICES/7/!-7/~I 1,383.29 0.80 i.~G5.29 517.55 8.88 5!7.55 3,150.80 8.08 3,!50.00 4,577.09 8.80 4.377.89 3,!50.0~ ~.09 Z,150.~9 468.00 8.80 468.0~ 27,011.98 0.09 27,011.99 25,286.24 ~.8~ 25.2G6.2~ Check Totals: LABOF: & SUPPLIES 61,960.78 0.08 61,96C.78 65.7~ 0.08 63.7~ Fiscal Year: 1992 Cnec~ Reoleter £taii,lr:= T3:: Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Bate F'/O Date Description Gross DiscDun: Net 388518823 88/23/91 18838 88/22/91R&R SPRINKLERS @ VILLAGE II 262.89 8.00 282.89 .... 388518925 89/23/91 18738 89/83/91MTRLS&LBR:RCHO.CALIF.MED!AN 158.00 0.88 158.88 588518725 87/23/91 18857 87/22/91 INSTALL BRICK BUST@SPORTSPARK 412.50 8.88 412.50 3887181 87/01/91 10139 84/89/91 MONTHLY MAINT./JAN 91 1,858.80 6.88 1,850.88 Check Totals: 2,745.09 8.00 2,745.89 88888135 18122191 COAST COAST IRRIGATION 823515 87112191 87112191 HUNTER 1-25IIRRI-TROL/RAINBRD 656.55 B.88 65a.55 824128 87/15!91 87115/91ADJ PL RISER/ARC ROTOR 877.04 8.88 877.04 024129 87/15/91 87/15/91 98 ELL, COUPLINGS 85.87 8.80 83.87 824138 87/15/91 87/15/91 DIGGING BAR/PVC PIPE 81.43 8.88 81.43 823953 87115191 87i15191 48 TEE/711SRY PVC CEMENT 62.38 8.88 62.38 822184 87/81/91 87/81/91RNBRD BODY/FLAT NOZZLE 3!.24 8.88 31.24 822185 87181191 07181191 GLOBE VALVE/~8 ELL ETC. 97.95 8.88 97.95 822102 07/81191 87/81/91RNBRD BODY/FLAT NOZZLE 15.76 8.88 13.76 022099 87181191 07/81/91 BRASS RCV/FIRE HS/UNION GALV 177.83 8.88 177.85 822898 07/81/91 87/81/91PERF STYRENE DRN/ELL 34.48 8.88 34.48 823497 87/12/91 87/12/91 48 COUPLNG/SLP FXiBUSHNG ETC. 98.18 8.88 98.10 823498 87/12/91 87112/91 FLAT NOZZLE/ARC HI POP 29.26 8.88 29.26 825685 88/85/91 18520 87/23/91 REPAIR EQUIPMENT; TCSD 262.46 8.88 262.46 023586 67/12/91 87/12/91 PIPE CUTTER/MALE ADAPTER 656.55 8.88 656.55 822856 87/85191 18852 87/81/91 IRRIGATION EQUIP.TCSD 185.45 8.88 185.45 Check Totals: 3,268.55 8.88 3,268.35 88888139 18/22/91COUNTYTR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 68283-1 87t81/91 8245 87/01/91CONSTR.RD.IMPRVMNTS;NICOLAS 584.89 8.88 584.89 ..... 68-5285-2 87/81/91 8243 87/01/91CONSTR.RO.IMPRVMNTS;NICOLAS 4,645.57 8.80 4,645.37 68-32~3-3 87/81/9! 8243 87181191CONSTR.RD.IMPRVMNTS:NICOLAS 24,948.19 8.80 24,948.19 68-3283-4 0718!/9i 0243 07/0t/91CONSTR.RD.IMPRVMNTS;NICOLAS 562.0? 0.60 562.82 68-52~5-5 07/81/91 8245 87181/91CONSTR.RD.IMPRVMNTS:NICOLAS 53,727.45 8.80 55,727.45 68-3203-6 87/0!/91 ~243 87/81/91CONSTR.RD.IMPRVMNTS;NICOLAS 78.82 8.80 78.82 68-5587 ~7/01/91 ~7/81/9i LABOR-TRAFFIC SIGNS 4/18-5/I 152.59 0.80 152.5~ 68-355i 09/'~/'q 89/!0/9i WASTE MNG. FEES 8/26/91 26C.25 ~.0~ 26~,25 6~-~558 87/~U9! 07/81/9z MAINT. TRFC SGNS/4/1~-5/! 1M.2! ~.88 151.2! 68-35~8A ~7/EI/9! ~7/8~/91MAINT. TRFC SGN8/5/2-5/~ 1Z?.7~ ~.88 119,74 68-51~4 07/81/91 87/8i/91EOUIR. MAINT/4/18-5/1 1,480.86 ~.0~ 1,400.8~ &8-5185 07/~1/9i 07/01/9i PAINTD STP BARS/MESS ~/18-5./I i,401.66 ~.00 68-5579 ~7126/91 87/26191 LITTER CLEANUP/6/1>6i26 154.90 8.88 !54.90 68-3712 07/81/9! 07/81/9! MAINT. TRFC SGNS/5/>5/15 110.73 8.88 1!~.73 ~8-5786 07/01/9! 87/~1!91TRFC CONTRL/BARCDNG/3/2!-4/5 !79.1& e.ee 179.!6 68-378! 07/81/91 87/01/91 LITTER CLEANUP/4118-5/I 104.56 8.00 !04.56 6G-5684 87t81i91 87181191 METAL F'ST! R! SGN/4111/9i 64.88 8.88 64.88 68-5662 07/8!/91 87/81/91 STOP BARS/MESS. 5/21-4/5/91 121.85 ~.80 !21.85 68-3644 07/01/9! 87/81/91 ST. MA!NT./PATCHING 4/!8-5/i 181,69 8.88 181.69 ~8-3644A 07181/9! 07/01i9! MAINT./CLN DITCH 4/4-4/i7 2,619.02 8.88 2,619.02 65-5614 ~7/01/91 ~7/81/9! MA!NT./CLN DITCH 4/4-4/17 5,947.14 8.88 5,947.!4 68-36~0 ,. ~,f: 07/01/91 ST. MAINT. 5/2-5/29 297.68 ~.80 297.68 87i~~, 68-3590 07/B1/91 ~7/01i91MAINT./ST. PATCHING 5/>5/20 135.77 6.~0 155.77 ~8-3589A 07181/91 87101/91MAINT.IPATCHISGNINGIS/7-5/20 737.56 8.88 757.56 68-35895 07181/91 07/01/91MA!NT,/GRD SHLDRS/5/2-5/15 182.82 0.80 182.02 68-~588 07/81/~1 07/0i/91MAiNT./GRVLNS/CLNUP/5/2-5/29 2,055.09 0.80 2.055.89 6cn-3.579A 07i~1/9! 07/GI/~i ~AINT./GRADE SHLDRS/4/~-4/IT 952,0! 0.00 952.ei .... 68-3568 ~7/01/91 ~ .... /91MAINT./TRFC '~'~' ~, '.Qi 68-357.i 0710i/91 07i81i91 GRAVEL-290 YDS/2128i91 638.90 0.0~ 658.0~ 88-5567 07/0!/91 07/0!/91EQUiPG64C/5/7-5/20 10.45 8.80 10.45 68-55~7A 07/0!/9i ~7/0t/9! MA!NT./RIP RAP/2/2i-5/~ 3,524.62 0.00 3,524.62 ~S-5559 07/el/91 ~7/~I/91 INSTAL/GUARD RAIL/5/!~-5/29 872.2! 0.08 872.21 Date Vendor Namm invoice Date F'/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 68-5551A 87/81/9! 87/81/91 LITTER CLEANUP/4/18-5/! 1~2.88 8.88 ~ '"~" 978.9? 6o-~_~ 87/81/91 87181191 STREET MAINT./4/4-4i17 8.88 .... 92 68-~558 87/81/91 87181/91MAINT./F'ATCHN6/4/18-5/! 582.82 8.88 ~82.82 68-~549 ~7/81/~1 87/81/91MAINT/PATCHNG/4/18-5/1 654.59 8.88 654.5~ 68-5518 87/81/91 ~7/81191 MAINT/TRFC SGNSI 5/!6-5129 196.58 8.88 196.5~ 68-5284 87/8!/91 87/81/91MAINT/TRFC SGNS/5/2-5/15 !,551.59 8.8~ 68-5185A 87/81/9! 87/81/91 PAINT STP BARS/~ESS/5/2-5/29 784.67 8.~8 784.67 68-5551C 88t15/91 88115/9! LITTER CLEANUP/6/27%/58 28.6~ ~.88 68-5181 87/8!/91 87/81/91 LABOR SUPERVISION/5/16-5/29 186.54 8.88 186.54 68-3181A ~7/81/91 87/81/91 LABOR SUPERVISION/4/!8-5/81 567.6~ 8.8~ 367.6~ 68-51818 ~7101/91 87/81/91 LABOR SUPERVISION/4/4-4/17 521.18 8.88 521.18 68-5181D 8718!/91 87/81/91 LABOR SUPERVISIONISI2!-415 648.22 8.88 648.22 68-5i81E 87/81/91 87/81/91 LABOR SUPERVISION/5/7-~/28 782.58 ~.B8 782.50 68-3181C 87181/91 87/81/91 LABOR SUPERVISION/2!2!-3/6 396.5~ 8.88 ~96.58 68-51~IF 87/81/9! ~7/81/91 LABOR SUPERVISION/2/7-2/28 95.98 8.8~ 95.98 ~93071 89t5819i 89/$~t91ACC MNG/TRFC ANALY/18!29-~I 98.88 8.88 o8-~..~. ~7126/9! 87i26i9! MAINT.ITRFC SGNS/6/13-6/26 I98.18 o.me 190.18 '~ '~ ^ 255.% ~-~8~ ~7/81/9! 87/~1/9! CLAIMS/CL PHARRIS/6/13-6i26 255.76 88888148 !8!22191 DEPHEALT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ~98191 89/18/91 8199 87/81/91 Chec~ Totals: I15,861.26 ANIMAL CONTROL 7,817.2~ 8.~8 7.817.2~ Check Totals: 18/22/9! JFOAVIDS J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES,iNC. 52578 88/21/91 88/21/91PROF SERV RENORD/7/1-7/28/9~ 52575 88/21/9! 88/21191PROF SERV RENORDIT/1-7/28 52576 ~8121191 08/21/9i PROF SERV RENDRD/7!l-7/28i91 32577 ~8/2!i91 8812!/9! PROF SERV RENORD/71!-7/2~!9! 7,817.28 8.88 7,817.2~ 2,558.88 8.88 58,517.28 8.80 38,517.28 5~368.~8 ~.8~ 5,368.8~ 88088142 10/22/91 SYSTEM 58642 Check Totals: SYSTEh SOURCE. iNC. 87/b/9! i~18~ 87/15/91 FURNITURE 7,854.97 8.88 7.854.97 Chec~ Totals: t0/22/91TO-MACEN TO-MAC ENGINEERING i2~3~ ~9~5/91 89i~5/9! LEGAL ~ESC/CALC/PLOTTNG 7,854.97 e "' ~ o ~ -~ Totals: ~,e~.. ~8888144 18/22/91 TOMARKSP TOMARK SPORTS, iNC. 7541 ~9/2lI91 18566 87/82i91 ALUMINUM BLEACHERS 3,595.59 8.88 3,595.39 Check Totals: 0.88 ~.593.39 Report Totals: 422.542.5~ ~.88 ...... ~ Invoice Da:e F'/O Date [,escriotion Gross Discount Net 'Sii: it:e;/?i BENEFIT BENEFIT A~ERiC~ ,P~io, '_C,"e4,"~: it'C4/S: KE~./XF' CARE ,,-~ ....... 2 ~%.94 ....... Check Totals: , 'iD','ERTISING/ .... '% Cha'k Tc~ais: ~"" .t;!LE"GE REIKB./SEPT 91 2,e06.94 e.08 2.086.~4 447.6i 8.88 447.61 ~47.61 0.08 447.~I 2S.!6 8.~ 2S,10 "' ...... a~"'~'~' 18459 Check ToZals: AUDIO TAPING/SEF'TI~/~LN ...-,, ;~.lo 8,80 2~.16 ~ H OF CALIFORNIA i8~491 i8/~:/~2 i8/84/91 INSURANCE PREMIUM/OCT 9: 7;5.00 a,Og 755.~8 Chic~ To~sls: 75~ U':i'~i ~7.,'26/91 TE,~F'./WEEK ENDING 7/2!":: 488.8~ g,Og 408.08 e?/16/7! HARB~A~E:TO%S:PULiC WC~;~E ~'15,'91 HArDWARE:TOOLS:PUBLIC ~OR):'i >/iS.!9: HA~D~AF:E:TG~LS:~BLi~ ~CF:iZE 8:'16/t HA~D~ARE:TOC;S:PUBLiC ~:;z~ .... c.~ ~.~ -:.~..~: :E.Bi g,gg 25.S4 ":- C,e~ 17.B: 7:,5: C.~Z .:::.5: 7.27 C.8¢ 7,27 8~,:'92 TO:'S5iL~G%% f{'~fj?li7 !~'CC,'~i MAUF,!C/;",~:_!;:CE c'R!XTERS ~iCi: FRii{7 N/!S;;'i leSEr.. '-27/81/91 iNSEPVS rn; BUDSE~ ;r!..-=, :- 7:21,!f C ~ 7L,.ff 92/4~2E OE'2::1 Check Totals: Cr:s:! ;i:,'i:'iE;;;.: CjX-' :2 227.25 . 5. E ,:5 C.CC 5[ .l'_ --- '~- ,' 22 227.!5 55,21 ,ll3,~ ]-,s:~ 7:u!E: :,33T.ZE ,1~ : bat=_ F '_ Z:-'.'te ,~:'r:pzIc:z r~rc!~-' DIs:oufit Net ~9P,~9~B a~/28.'gL ;]E.'2E."?Z C?'::~IS?~ 7."-.C'-:-~, 175.-.'.: O.l~e 175.:,;' ~:~.o:~' ~..~..,-~.~,~, 128 ~= ~.8~ ~: ~' ~.:~.-:~,,. ~: .....:; 6e :25~: ~:.~,~;.n~,. ;E.'7-:'~ 17~'~: ~,~ 196,56 ~?i62 10/~9/91RiVERHA:: RiV, CC. HA::T~T CONSER:~AT:O~ ,~,~,,?: l~/~,/?:, ::: ....... if-RAT.' SEPT 7e5.63 ~,0~ 7~5,65 S2,~24,5~ ~,~ 52,~' 9 u ii/i~m~ P~OUi7 ~=. PUB.HEA~ 32,824 542157783B ~s/~i,'?i ~' ........SECURF'AY.'EP:C. .,o 91 09/19/71 i~771 .......... BASKETBALLS: ~.:r Che,:k Ta>ils: UZT.,'g/CA~..;ET CLEANING :5-:::;'i9f e:,i7.,'~i i~872 21-::;17: :::2:: 1~72 C::e:, To::is; ~?'::"~l COM~'UCi]L07 LAB/LS:CZT: CLER!E 1E/ll/S1 City ct lemecula Page: l Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 5569 Check Bate Vendor Name Invoice Bate P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 187548 88189191 ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVIC 1818129 H/~7/91 8114 ~6138191 STOP SI6NS & STOP LE6ENDS 679.55 !.li 679.55 H18129-I fi/87IG1 8995 96/39/91 REMOVAL & CLEAN-UP,RNCNO ROAD 1,495.H 8.H 1,495.ei HIG&84 88/87/91 1181 16/58/91STRIPING~ ECT. 1,546.H 8.18 1,546.99 9elei2G 86/89/91 8114 86/58/91 STOP SIGNS & STOP LEGENDS 1,526.45 e.H 1,526.45 eee991 80/e9/91 88/e9/91 STOP SIGNS & STOP LEGENDS 2,&19.55 9.81 2,619.55 Check Totals: 88118147 I!/87/91COUNTYTR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 193891-I 89/38/tl 18197191SENINAR/TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 7,669.55 8.H 7,669.55 HH8169 18/11R1 DIXON DAVID F. DIXON 893891 iB/11/91 Check Totals: 9915~191 TRAVEL EXPENSE/ICMA CONFER. 98,18 e.H 99.i8 1,262.75 8.18 1,262.73 fiHBi71 18/I1R1 APPLEONE APPLE ONE 1556794D 1i11~191 1378179 19/92/91 18787 Check Totals: 18/leR1 DEBIT NEMO EXC. P.O. 99/12/91TEHP.SERV.9/16-9/27;FINANCE 1,262.75 i.li 1,262.73 49,58 9,89 49.59 461.58 e.ee 481.58 HGH172 16111/91 GELAIR57 GELAIR 57 161191 18/11/91 Check Totals: 1~/11/91 SENIOR CITIZEN HALLDMEEN PRTY 459,86 8.66 456,88 259.89 e,H 259,H Check Totals: "~908173 10/11/91C&CGRAVE C & C GRADING AND PAVING 15 ~9/25/91 9254 89/85/91 ROUTINE ST. NAINI. 14 89/25/91 8254 89/95/91 ROUTINE ST. HAINT. 259.69 8.68 259,99 347,77 8,H 347.77 227.26 9,18 227.26 89888174 10/11/91CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN 192-9882 89158191 1~626 Check Totals: 87181191NOTICESIGI27191 575.83 e.le 575.83 177.97 8.68 177.97 Check Totals: 88968175 10/11/91CORBETTD DONALD W. CORBETT' 188191 18/81R1 18/81/91 REFUND/TRIP CANCELLED 177.97 9.99 177.97 4H.H 8,99 488.88 Check Totals: 98808176 19111/91COUNTCLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER ~92891 89/28/91 ~9/28/91ENV. FILING FEE/MARCH 91 Check Totals: 99998177 i8111t91COUNTYTR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 895991C 18/22/91 18/22/91CN-INCORRECT INV.PB,/CH. 8139 178191 87/~I/91 87/91/91MAINT,/95/16-t5/29/91 99,98- 9,99 98.89- 179,97 9.89 179,97 99998178 19111191CRICHTON JANIS CRICHTON 181191 10111191 Check Totals: 10/11/91 REFUND/WATER COLOR 89.97 8.98 88.97 18179 18/11/91DAVLIN 'DAVLIN 89-23:122 09/38/91 19468 89-23:12~ ~9/38/91 18458 Check Totals: 97/81/91 TAPING PUB. SAFETY MTB/9/26 97/91/91 TAPING TRAF COHH MTG/t9/25/9 150.68 139.8~ ~,H 130.98 Check Totals: 08888180 10/!1/?I DIVERSIF DIVERSIFIED TEMPORARY SERVICE 26g. Be 8.99 26~.98 19111191 Cit',~ cf lemecale Page: 2 Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 5369 Check Date Vendor Name invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 618 97191191 97/B1/91TEMP./MEEK ENDING 9~/1~/91 Check Totals: H8e8181 19/11/91E66HEAD E66HEAD DISCOUNT SOFTWARE 92939282-D ~7/25/91 1~597 97/25/91DB- EXCEEDED PO i18~9 4%.80 6.18 49&.19 56.98 9.99 59.88 88H8182 19/11/91FASTSI6N FAST SIGNS 181191 19/11/91 Check Totals: 19/11/91 BANNER FOR HALLONEEN 58.88 8.88 58.88 84.85 8.90 84.85 896e8183 19/11/91FEDERALE FEDERAL EXPRESS 438241&l& 68195/91 Check Totals: H/iS/91 13~9-I167-5 84.95 8.H 84.85 22.58 e.H 22.50 Check Totals: 96988184 19111191 FRANKLIN FRANKLIN SEMINARS ~264453 1BI94/91 19889 99/26/91 DAYTIMER; TCSD 22,58 e.ee 22.59 I~8.27 I.H 159.27 96998185 19/11/91G-NEILCO G-NEIL CO 81%974,81 98/69/91 Check Totals: e8199191 POSTERS 1~e.27 e.H 138,27 Check Totals: 89898186 19/11/91GLENNIES GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCTS 1~8937-8 89/~8/91 li47& 87/11/91 OPEN PO FOR MISCIEMERG SUPPLY 68988187 19/11/91GRAINGER GRAINGER 58-849858 98/15/91 19499 Check Totals: 87/15/91 WORKBENCH 44,47 8.99 44.47 44.47 e.ee 44.47 47.89 8,98 47.e0 99888188 1~/11/91 HANKSHAP HANKS HARDWARE 186966 89/25/91 18719 Check Totals: 98/27/91 ACCOUNT;REPAIR ITEMS; CITY 47.98 8.BB 47.99 68.92 9.98 68.92 99988189 18111191HEPPERLE ED HEPPERLE 191191 19!11/91 Check Totals: 18/97/91 BAND FOR SENIOR DANCE 68,92 8,98 68,92 289.69 9.98 299.99 Check Totals: 99908199 16/11/91 INTERNAT INTERltATL CONF, OF BLDG, OFFL C78419 89/18/91 19895 89/16/91AMAJ. YSIS REVISION;PUBLICATION C79551 99/26/91 19736 88/38/91 PLAN REVIEW MANUAL;FIRE CODE 299,88 e.e8 2Be. Be 33.45 9.ee 33.45 59.56 e,ee 53.58 88898191 19/II/91KAWASAK 2 Check Totals: KANASAKI OF TENECULA 99/23191 1839~ 97/98/91 OPEN FOR NOTORCYCLE NAINT, 87.93 9,89 87,83 347,89 9,88 347,89 Check Totals: 99998192 16/11/91 KIDSPART KIDS PARTIES,ETC. 691291 89/12i91 18795 09111191 GAMES AND RECREATION SUPPLIES 89/12/91 89/12/91 18795 89/11/91 GAMES AND RECREATION SUPPLIES 347.89 9,89 347,89 l&l,&6 9.8~ 161,66 129,39 8.98 128,3~ 898981V3 10/11t91KNAPP CYNTHIA KNAPP 198491 19/94/91 Check Totals: 19/84/91REF)D/WATER COLORS 281,96 9.98 281,% 60.90 8.98 60,9~ Check Totals: 6~,8C C,88 Be,Be 19111191 City of Temecula Pan: Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station; Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description 6ross Discount Net '~81~4 11/11191NARILYNS ~ARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE 1748 11117R1 11828 19/1~/~1 PAPER PRODUCTS;COFFEE SUPPLY 192.96 9.~8 192.~9 Check Totals: 192,98 LIe 162,99 999681q5 lg/ll/tl PETTYC PETTY CASH 18B791 1~/67/91 19/B7R1 9125-1BI41 REINS. ~2&.72 B,B~ 32&.72 Check Totals: ~2&.72 1,18 ~2~,72 9BiBEl9& 19/111ti POLL ANDRE' VAN DER POLL 1894tl 1B/~4/91 19/14/91 tl9-9139 49.54 9,98 49.54 Check Totals: 49.54 9,99 49.54 i8998197 19/llR1QUIROZA ANNA M. QUIROZ I!9491 19194191 19/94/~1 REFUND/LAUGHLIN 169.89 9.i9 169.99 Check Totals: 161.99 D.~9 16~.98 19/Ii/91RAN-CAL RAN-CAL JANITORIAL SUPPLY 4676 19/84/91 1~B~9 19/25/91 BATHROOM SUPPLIES 211.12 B.Bi 211.12 Check Totals: 211.12 9.~9 211,12 9~08199 IB/11/91RAN-TEC RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MFB ~96913 18/97/91 l!9~ 99125191 ADDRESS STAMPS;PUB.NKS;FINAN 34.48 B.~9 34.48 Check Totals: S4,48 B.e9 34.48 ~8998298 IB/11/91RANCHWTR RANCHO WATER -~- 8124~92 87/91/91 87/91/91. 9124899~2-215114-5131 93.15 9.99 93.13 91315BII1 18/91/91 98111191 ~1~159111/7/15-7/29 76.69 9,99 76.69 81241~115 87/91/91 97/e1/91 112481915615114-5131 63.88 9,9~ 63.88 Check Totals: 233.78 8.98 233.79 98988201 19/11/71 REMEDY REMEDY TEHP 343425 99122/91 1~739 99/101911EHP.SEC.9/II-12;9/18 &19 125.94 ~.8~ 125.8~ ~43424 99/22/91 1N826 99/15/91TEMP.9/16-1B/4 APPROX.;TCSD 297,48 0.9~ 297.49 ~46954 99/29/91 19826 99/15191TEMP.9tl6-19/4 APPROX,;TCSD 294.81 9.89 2{4.81 Check Totals: 555.25 8.99 535.25 18/11/91 SIRSPEED SIR SPEEDY 3993 87/19/91 97/li/91 BUSINESS CARDS 56.BB 9.89 56.BB 4184 98139/91 19492 97/23/91 COLOR LETTER HEAD 62.89 B.B~ 62.98 Check Iotais: 999982e3 1~/11/91 SO CAt-2 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. ~99991 99199191 99199/91 7143457422 llB.BB 9.99 ilB.BB 56.54 9.i9 56.54 1~i11/91SOUTHCE~ SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON ~924918 89/24/~1 99/24/91 Y71791761C 99/24/91 99/24/9! 71>858835 D9/24f91 99/24/91 717~5U8~C ~9/24/91 99/24/91 7179397i7C ~9/24/91 89/24/9~ ~67010811C 09/24/91 091241q! 717858735C ~9i24/91 99/24i91 717~42898C e9/24t91 09/24/91 Check Totals: 66775858955919198/B/19-9/18 66775855956918~9~18119-9/18 66775858969~19991/B/19-9/IB 6677585896381~888/8/19-9/18 66775858~68929t92/B/19-9/IB 66775858967019884/8/19-~/18 66775858964919897/B/19-9/18 66775858866829904/8/19-9/18 56.54 9.88 56.54 1,178.45 9,99 1,178.45 565.66 9.99 563.66 69.7~ 9.B~ 69.7e 111.69 ~.98 111.6~ 595,91 e,90 595,91 564.41 8.~ 564.41 561.95 9.99 561.9~ Check Totals: ~oees2o5 lettl/9! STATEDE STATE DEPART, OF TRANSPORTATI 4,875.71 9.99 4,875.71 18/11/91 City of lemecula Page: 4 Fiscal Year: 1972 Check Register Station: 3369 Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 118811 1G/21/91 98/21/91TRFC SIGNAL MINI JULY 91 659.22 9.99 659,22' 81H8296 19111191 TEN TROP TGECULA TROPHY 191~9 1i/91/91 19714 Check Totals: 659.22 18/27/91CERENONIAL FLAGS FOR CONFEREN 161.93 9.69 659.22 LH 161.13 Check Totals: 96998267 19/11/91TONNCTR TONN CENTER STATIONERS 919>9 99/29/91 168~9 89/96/91ROLODEXS;SHARPENERS 161.g3 9.19 161.93 229.24 9.H 229.24 Check Totals: 99998298 19111/91 URGENTCA URGENT CARE MEDICAL CENTER 3864e 97/91/91 1ee16 66/3tl91PRE-EHPL.EXAM~X-RAYS 39641 97191/91 19916 96/39191PRE-EMPL.EXAN;X-RAYS 229.24 9,68 228,24 49.09 e. Be 49.18 49,69 9,99 49,69 Check Totals: HH8289 19/11/91VALENTIN VALENTINE RESEARCH 491832191 89/24/91 19293 86/38/91 PC INTERFACE/ANALYST 88.89 9.09 89.99 474.88 9.H 474.99 HH8219 19/11/91 NESTPUB 59683255 59957545 Check Totals: WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY 98/16/91 98116191 5 BOOKS FOR LIBRARY 89/17/91 89/17/91 PUBLICATIONS 474.89 6.H 474.99 114.25 9.89 114.25 44.87 9.H 44.87 98898211 19t11/91 WINDMILL THE WINDMILL 181191 19/11191 Check Totals: 19/11191 SUPPLIES NALLONEEN HAUNTED HS 159,12 8.99 159.12 ~5.9~ 9.88 225.99 89888212 19/22/91ALFAX ALFAX TO1351-MI5 88/13/91 10622 Check Totals: 98/13/91 PORTABLE PLATFORMS;TCSD 225,99 9.H 225.99 1,694.63 9.89 1,694.65 88998215 19/22/91 ALLIED 117790-8~ 117217-H ALLIED BARRICADE 89/30/91 18788 09/64191 18728 Check Totals: 89/09/91 SIGNS & MATERIALS;PUB.WORKS 88/28/91 SIGNS & BARRICADES;ST.CLOSURE 1,694.63 Lee 1,694.65 16.16 LiB 16.16 2,770.17 0.99 2,779.17 86H8214 18/22/91BkM BKM 2918 97139191 Check Totals: FURNITURE/CITY 2,786.33 Lee 2,786.55 1,927.89 LOB 1,827.H Check Totals: 69688215 19/22/91CALIFLAN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE 3985188 88/15/91 9229 97/91/91 maintence/august 588519924 99/25/91 0252 ~8/28/91MAINTENCE/SEPTEMBER 1,827.H 9.H 1,827.99 2L628.H 0.0S 2L626.88 29,~26.48 9.89 29,926.4~ Check Totals: 88888216 18/22/91COUNTYPU COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE/SUPPLIES 154976 09/10/91 10725 99/85/91 BINDERS;FOLDERS;LABEL HOLDERS 132161 87/g1/91 18354 06/38/91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 155985 09t12191 18732 e9/e3/9! PENCILS;SCISSORS;NOTEPADS 154778C 99/84/91 10558 87126/91CM-NO LONGER NEEDED ITEMS 1555e6 08/92/91 1055B e7/26/91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 135638 08/86/91 18550 ~7/26/91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 153779 08/gB/91 10550 e7/26/9! OFFICE SUPPLIES 133853 g8/12/91 1~550 e7/26/91 OFFICE SUPPLIES 134315 08/23/91 10558 97/26/9! OFFICE SUPPLIES 49,646.48 0.89 49,646.40 792.91 e.H 792.91 638.79 e.8g 638.79 451.i6 9.99 451.06 1,213.~8- e.80 !~215.08- 6,777.75 9.88 6,777.75 286.32 8.90 286.32 137.70 9.Be 137.78 168.25 Leg 168.25 42,78 g.8~ 42.78 18/11/9! City of Teeecu!a Page: Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: Check Date Vendor Name InYoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 135368 89128/91 18723 89/83/~1 BINDERS;FOLDERS;LABEL HOLDERS 121.~8 8.~ 121.88 88688217 18/22/91 KLEINEL KLEINFELDER 781722 881581~1 Check Totals: 8,195.56 !.18 8,195.56 88/38191 SERVICES 7/27-8/~8 7,8i8.88 8.18 7,188.88 Check Totals: 7,181.i0 8.88 7,888,11 88888218 18/22/91NAURICE NAURICE PRINTERS QUICK PRINT 22282-1 87181191 87/il/91 PRINTING BOOKLETS 726.~3 8.81 726.33 22959 8WI5/91 18688 88/16/91 PRINTED COVERS FOR CIP DOCS, iJ&e.68 8.11 1,268.68 Check Totals: 88888219 1G/22/91MUNIFINA NUNI FINANCIAL SERVlCES~ INC, 91511 87181/91 816& 861~8191 DEVELOPE AN ADHIN SOFTMARE 1,987.81 1.88 1,987.81 9,248.25 8.88 9,248.25 88888228 le/22/91 ONESTEP 893891 Check Totals: ONE STEP NAINT. & CLEANING CO 891~8191 8214 87/81/91JANITORIAL SERVICE/SEPT 91 9,248.25 Lee 9,248.25 1,875.88 i.88 1,87~.88 88888221 18/22/91 ORANGE 8818957 Check Totals: ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVIC 89113/91 8261 88/28/91 PAINT RD.LINING,BLACKENING 89/38/91 18797 89/12/91 PAINT STOP & BAR LINING; 1,873.88 8.88 1,862.88 8.88 1,862.88 378,88 8,88 "'q888222 18/22/91 ORANGES ORANGE SPORTING GOODS 823126 18/38/91 98296 16138191 823125 88138/91 98296 86138191 823128 88n8/91 18585 88/82/91 825127 88/38/91 18585 88/82/91 Check Totals: 48 DOZEN SOFTBALLS 48 DOZEN SOFTBALLS SOFTBALLS AS NEEDED;1991;TCSD SOFTBALLS AS NEEDED;1991;TCSD 2,252.88 8.80 2,232,~ 81.78 8.88 81.78 572.48 8.68 572.48 122.67 8.88 122.67 245.55 8,88 245,~5 80888225 i8122191 RADIO RADIO SHACK 64873 B9/25/91 18411 86/58/91 Check Totals: TRANSCEIVER AND ANTENNA 1,822.28 e.88 1,822.28 2,445.36 8,80 2,443.36 88888224 18122/91RAMTEK RAMTEK 3798 09138191 8255 89185191 3785 89/38/9! 8253 89185191 3788 B9/38/91 8253 89/85191 Check Totals: ROUTINE ST, NAINT. DRAINAGE FACILITATION MAINT, DRAINAGE FACILITATION NAINI. 2,443.36 8.88 2,443.36 1L34L98 8.88 18,348.98 1,582.12 8.88 1,582.12 5,469.53 8.88 5,469.53 88888225 10122191RIVERSID RIVERSIDE OFFICE C98663-0 88/38/91 185~9 SUPPLY 87/89/91 9866>8 88/13191 18589 87/89/9! 98595-1 88115191 18562 87/38191 98595-G 88/13/91 10562 87/38/91 99469-8 89t84/91 18562 87/38/91 99230-0 89/27/91 18689 88/23/91 99943-2 18/83/91 18799 89/87/91 94816-8CR 87/81/91 98341 87/81/91 94816-~ 87/~1/91 9~341 87/81/91 C98818-1 09/89/91 89/89/91 C98992-2 89/38/91 89/3~/91 99193-0 89/27/91 89/27/91 Check Totals: 17,312.63 0,88 17,312.63 ASST DESK PADS, HANGING FOLDE 29.4> 8.88 29.47- ASST DESK PADS, HANGINS FOLDE 58.94 8.80 58,94 OFFICE SUPPLIES 67~.44 1.88 675.44 OFFICE SUPPLIES 44.83 8.88 44.8s OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.74 8,88 13,74 FOLDERS;PRESSBOARD 855.32 Leg 855,32 DATA RACK;LABELS;CALENDARS 74.24 LiB 74.24 CREDIT NEMO 44.65- 0,88 44,63- BINDERS 76.24 {.8~ 76.24 CREDIT MEMO 96.92- 0.88 96.92- CREDII MEMO 74.19- ~.88 74'19- OFFICE SUPPLIES 92.74 8.80 92.74 Check Totals: 1,643.48 1.8C 1,643.48 Ziscal Tear: 1972 Cnec!; Register Station: Check Oate Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net ~8~26 18/22/91 SHERIFF CO~TY OF RIVERSIDE --- 81/3~/91 89/38/~1 CONTRACT LAW ENF./AUS.?I 26~,781.86 8.BB 26~,781.86 Chec~ Totals: 2a~,781.86 8.88 269,781.86 88888227 18/22191SYSTE~ SYSTEH SOURCE, INC. 58817 8c)/27/71 18669 ~B/88/~1 CEILING SIBNSi~OUNTS;INSTALL 2,848.<~I I).88 2~848.91 Check Totals: 2,848.91 8.88 2,848.91 ~8888228 18/22/91 THONAS THO~S TE~PORARIES 582888 89/88/91 1878 i8/221~1 TE~.8/26-8/28;ENBINEERING 278.4~ 8,88 278.48 582888-1 89188/91 10754 88/29/91TE~P.SEC;8138,~I3,~IS&6 ENG. 145,88 8,~e 145,88 585368 e9/22/91 18528 ~7/87/~1TE~P.SERV,7/8-9/27; TCS~ 583.85 8.88 58,I.85 584184 89/15/91 18528 87/87/9! TENP.SERV.7/B-9/27; TCSD 728.81 8.88 728.81 Check Totals: 1,735.26 8.88 tJ35.26 80008229 18/22/91 WILLDAN WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 4~89 87/81/~1 8156 861381~1PLANSISPECS;SIBNAL TARGET CTR 2,47L88 8,88 2~478.88 488822 87184191 ~156 t6/38/91PLANS;SPECS;SIBNAL TARGET CTR 795.86 8.88 795.88 488823 87184191 8224 87/81t91 STUDY OF AVENIDA DE LA REINA 2,664.88 8.88 2.6~4.88 Check Totals: 5,929.88 8.~8 5,929.88 Report Totals: 418.564.76 8,88 418,364.76 10/i4/91 City of Temecula Page: Fiscal Tear: 19~2 Check Register Station: Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Wet --~H8231 19/14/91BLAIR,B BILLIE BLAIR 181291 18/12/91 18/12/91 REFUND CANCELLED GOLF LESSION 125.89 8.H 125.18 Check Totals: H818232 19/14/91CITICORP CITICORP NORTH ~J~ERICA 812869>91 18/15191 18113191 PAYMENT/SEPT & OCT, 125.99 9.69 125.19 2,855.14 9.89 2,855.14 Check Totals: 19114191 COLONIAL COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 1H491 1~/84/91 18/84/91 OCTOBER INSURANCE PREMIUM 2,855.14 9.99 2,855.14 967.75 9.19 967.75 Check Totals: 88998234 18/14/91CO~UNIT COMMUNITY NEWS NETWORK 181191 18/11/91 18/11/91SUBSCRIPTION/TEMECULA WEEK 967.75 9.99 967.75 49.69 9.99 49.88 88688235 18/14/91GTEBILL GTE IH791C 18197/91 7141975854 18/~1/91 Check Totals: 1~/97191 714-&76-9952 19/81/91 714-197-S854/OCTOBER 49.69 8.19 49.H 27.41 8.99 27.41 S,418.49 e.ee S,418.49 Check Totals: 18/14191 HAULAWAY HAULAWAY CONIAINER 167294 89/2~/91 1~542 H/91/91 STORAGE RENlAL/SEPT 5,445.99 8.96 3~445.98 77.59 9.68 77.59 ]9H8237 18/14t91 KINKO'S KINKO'S COPIES 99123/91 l1833 Check Totals: 99/22/91 OVER-SIZED COPIES (24X368 77.58 9.96 77.59 33.62 8,H 33,62 Check Totals: 89898238 18/14/91 LEAGUE-2 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 181191 18/11/91 18/11/91 NEW LAW AND ELECTION SEMINAR 53.62 8.89 35.62 Check Totals: 88898239 18/14/91MARBARIT MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSOC. 89826 89/15191 9233 87191191 UMPIRES/SEPT 176.H 8.99 179,08 2,419.28 9.98 2,419.28 99698248 18/14/91 MOOREPEG PEG MOORE 191991 19/12/91 Check Totals: 18/12/91 REFUND/CANCELLED GOLF LESSONS 2,419.29 O.H 2,419.28 125.98 8.98 125.98 99998241 19/14/91 POSTMAST POSTMASTER 924462SEPT 89/31/91 Check Totals: EXPRESS MAIL/SEPT 125.90 8.88 125.99 71.78 8.H 71.79 89898242 19/14/91 PROLOCK 2317 PRO LOCK & KEY 18199191 19862 Check Totals: 89/13/91 LETTER SET-KEY STAMP:I STAMP 71.78 8.H 71.79 131.99 9,88 131.99 88888243 18/14191RANCHWTR RANCHO WATER 186279H20 1~/82/91 1976887710 18/02/91 1876887810 18/82/91 182450820 18182/91 1312158120 18/85/91 1846288920 1ei82191 1076888920 le/82/91 Check Totals: 18182191 81-96-27989-2/8/14-9/12 18182191 91-87-61877-1/8/14-9/13 18/82/91 81-87-68878-1/B/14-9/1~ !8/~2/91 81-82-4588~-2/8/B-9/? 18/83/91 8131215012/B/14-8/27 18/92/91 8184628H2/8/12-9/11 18/82/91 9187688892/B/14-9/13 131.99 9,99 131,99 65.38 8.89 65.58 616,80 8,80 616,00 611.18 8.88 611.18 1,85~.12 8.88 1,050.12 24.52 8.88 24.52 112.21 0.88 112.21 ~18.82 8.9~ 31B.82 18/14/91 City ef Temecula Page: Fiscal Year: 1992 Check ~egister Station: Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 184631852D 18182191 18182191 8184638852/8/12-9/11 486,84 8,11 486.84 18481~D 18/12/91 18/82/91 8184818692/8112-9tll 27.98 8.88 27.98 IHIllSI2D 18182/91 18182191 811481888DI8112-9111 36.54 8.88 36.M 1~7781~2D 11/12/91 1~/82/91 81877887~218114-9113 25.88 i.18 23.88 888~8244 18/14/91RIVERSID RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 98~83-8 87131/91 18589 87189191 Check Totals: 3,289,59 ASST DESK PADS, HANGING FOLDE 39,68 8,i8 ~,289,59 8.li 39.68 Check Totals: ~9.68 8,81 39.68 88888246 18/14/91SOUTHCED SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON $18343275D 19138191 89/38/91 57775669911i288B4/ 52,18 8,88 52,18 88268629~C 88131191 88131191 5377813112188988418/2-8/31 1,251.51 8,68 1,251.58 1858184&&C 89/24/91 89/24/91 6677795888884888818119-9/18 9.86 8,i8 9.88 8-814825C 89127191 19/27/91 6977678165112888218124-9/23 251.99 8.U 251.99 288446989C 89/13191 89/13191 597741623878288861819-t118 211.9~ 8,81 211.93 85674588C 89/25/91 89/25/91 67778639414828882/8/28-9/19 248,16 8,11 248,i6 N17812812C 89/24/91 89/24/91 6677415867712181/8/19-9/18 218,97 1,18 218,97 288343818C 69/24/91 89124R1 6677585681982888118119-9118 216.28 8.88 286.28 283685624C 89124191 89/24/91 66777959913826883/8/19-g/18 248,48 1,9l 248,48 288432181C ~9/24/91 89/24/91 6677485184882869818119-9118 226.89 6,68 226,69 857~711&C 89/27/91 89/27/91 6977&78818782888418124-9123 9,88 8.88 9,88 288366848C 89/38/91 89/38/91 5~778i1&2~3828683/8/38-9/I8 9,38 8.61 2888~957C 19/38/91 99/36/91 5877896665983996718138-913~ 9.54 9,66 9.54 318517&78C 89/$8191 89/38/91 547782865i5i2881818131-1811 9,38 3B8517677C e~/S8/g~ eg/31/~l 5477828658382888218131-1811 ~,38 e,Be 3117722c 88/31/ql e81]IRI 4~77677146581/7/31-8/$1 25J5 i,ee 25,35 5587~57c 68131/91 68/51/~1 4377~7714676117131-8131 16.52 e.ee 55~1381C 88/51R1 88/51R1 437767714688117131-8151 15.47 e.8e 15.47 55188~17C 89/15/~1 e~llSR15~7779~488585888~1819-~/18 18.4~ 8.88 18.45 88888247 18114/91 TEN PIPE TENECULA VALLEY PIPE Check Totals: 15641 89118191 18574 88/28/91 IRRIGATION PARTS;TCSD REPAIRS 89,24 8.88 89.24 15745 89/11/91 18574 88/28t91 IRRIGATION PARTS;TCSO REPAIRS ~.73 8.88 3.75 15723 89111191 18574 88/28191 IRRIGATION PARTS;TCSD REPAIRS 29.35 8,88 29.55 15724 89/11R1 18574 88/28/91 IRRIGATION PARTSITCSD REPAIRS 47.25 8,88 47,25 16587 89/25/91 18574 88/28/91 IRRIGATION PARTS;TCSD REPAIRS 16,48 8.88 16.48 16645 89/26/91 18574 88/28/91 IRRIGATION PARTS;TCSD REPAIRS 15,61 8,88 15.61 88888248 Ie/14/91TENCULAT TENECULA TOWNE ASSOC 181891 18118191 18118191 Check Totals: 281.58 8,88 281.58 TENECULA RODEO 18,888.88 8,88 18~U8,88 Check Totals: 18,888.88 e.e8 le,888.88 88888249 18/14/91 WALLST WALL STREET JOURNAL 181191 18t11191 18111/91 l18598788414/YEARS SUB. 149.77 8.88 14%77 88888259 18/14/91WOLVERIN WOLVERINE SPORTS 531587 18/82/91 18773 ~ZlS~& 18/82/91 18772 Check Totals: 149,77 8.08 149.77 89118191 6AMES;CLOCK;TAPE;BAGS~TCSD 19~.76 8.80 198.76 89/18/91 800KS;PITCHER'S BOX;NET:TCSD 221.25 8,88 221.23 88088251 18/14/91 WOOD,BET GETTY WOOD 181291 18/12/91 18/12191 Check Totals: 411.99 REFUND CANCELLED GOLF/DOG OB. 198.8~ 8.88 411.99 8.88 !98,88 18114191 City of Te=ecula ~a~; . Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station~ 536~ Check Date Vendor Name InYoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net Check Totals: 198.Be i.i8 19~.19 'l~8252 1el22191BURKE,WN BURKE, NILLIArS & SORENSEN 7e~91 ~8/51/91 eG/se/~l e2551-1181/AUBUST SERVICES &,275.29 e.~e 6J75.29 87e~9 e8/31/91 ~8/~1/~I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/AUGUST 22,2et1~ e.8e 22,289,1& Check Totals: 28,484.45 i.~l 28,484,45 888~8253 11/22191 NECHAN BILL NECHAN li~1~1 18/51/~1 e24S i7/81/~1 CONSULTING SERVICES/OCTObER 5,5ii.ii i.ll 5,518.11 Check Totals: 5,Sii.le 8.ie 5,518.89 Hei8254 19/22/~ SINROWS BECKY ~CLEAN SIRHONS 1~1491-1 8913il91 liT&! i9/85/91GTRO PRO TRNING;9/16,17,25J4 1,7il.ll !.le 1,718.i9 Check Totals: 1,7il.le e.ie 1,7il.le 19/22/tl WILLDAN WILLDAN ASSOCIATES 46i4688 ~7/19191 17119191 SERVICES JUNE I THRU JUNE 3~ 145,561.45 i.99 145,561.45 4694671 97161/~I 97191/91 SERVICES flAY 1THRU NAY 31 168,843.82 e.88 168,845.82 41i4119 97/51/91 ~7151191 SERVICES JULY I THRU JULY 51 164,68B.52 i.ll l&4,&BI.52 4ie4i78 e7181191 17/i1/91 NAY SERVICES 75,254.49 I.ll 75,254.49 4684889 i71B1191 ~7/11/~1 JUNE SERVICES/PLANNING 65,554.54 i.18 65,554.54 4e14118 e7/51/~1 6715~191 JULY SERVICES/PLANNING 78,75i.59 e.ie 78,759.5~ 41164 e7161/91 87111/91 CITY WIDE SURVEYIS/31/91 4ex.me 8.~1 481.88 4~4123 ~8/51/91 88/31/91AUBUST SERVICES 64,529.~6 ~.~ 64,529.i6 Check Totals: 86~8256 1~122/91NINDSORI WINDSOR PARTNERS-RANCHO IND 11~191 19/22/91 ~255 ~7/~1/91STORABE/NOVEMBER 11/~1/91-1 19/22/91 1~/22/91 RENT/NOVEMBER 765,555.56 e.ll 7&5,555.36 2B,527.11 {.Be 28,527.11 Check Totals: 28,727.I1 I.e~ 28,727.11 Report Totals: 855,729.86 e.88 855.729.86 ITEM NO. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL ATTORNEY CITY ~ O I FINANCE FF CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer October 22, 1991 City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of September 30, 1991. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the Code Sections as of September 30, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: City Treasurer's Report as of September 30, 1991 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report As of September 30, 1991 Cash Activity for the Month of September: Cash and Investments as of September 1, 1991 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as of September 30, 1991 Cash and Investments Portfolio as of September 30, 1991: Type of Investment Institution Yield Demand Deposits Treasury Service Shares Petty Cash Certificate of Deposit Local Agency Investment Fund Security Pacific Pacific Horizons N/A Overland Bank State Treasurer N/A 4.070% N/A 5.250% 6.859% Cash and Investments as of September 30, 1991 (1)-This amount includes outstanding checks. Per Government Code Requirements, this Treasurer's Report is in compliance with the City of Temecula's Investment Policy and there are adequate funds available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures for the next thirty days of the City of Temecula. Prepared by Alicia Almanza Maturity Date N/A N/A N/A 02/22/92 N/A $ 13,986,673 1,844,387 (1,593,458) $ 14,237,602 Balance as of August 31, 1991 (1,059,160) (1) 1,570,962 800 100,000 13,625,000 ' 14,237,602 ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Clerk November 22, 1991 Award of Contract for Study of User Fees and Charges and Development Impact Fees City Clerk June S. Greek BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize the staff report on this item and forward it to you under separate cover. JSG ITEM NO. 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY ACER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Ordinance Establishing the City Clerk as Custodian of the City Seal and Insignia PREPARED BY: June Greek, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: Read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE CITY CLERK AS CUSTODIAN OF THE CITY SEAL AND INSIGNIA BACKGROUND: On December 12, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-8 which adopted the form of the City Seal. The seal was adopted as a standard corporate seal containing the words "City of Temecula, California" at the top and "Incorporated 1989" at the bottom. This seal, is currently used in embossed format on all official documents requiring the official seal. Since the Council has subsequently adopted a logo with design elements representative of the community and since this logo is commonly referred to as the City Seal, it is staff's recommendation that the attached ordinance be adopted changing the design of the official seal to that of the logo. This is a housekeeping action which will prevent confusion between the logo and the seal. Chapter 2.10 of the City's adopted municipal code designates that the City Clerk is the custodian of the seal of the City. The proposed ordinance adds language which protects the seal from unauthorized use and provides that it can only be used upon receiving special warrant from the City Clerk. ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE CITY CLERK AS CUSTODIAN OF THE CITY SEAL AND INSIGNIA , WHEREAS, the City of Temecula is a duly incorporated City under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula designates official documents through the fixation of the adopted Seal and/or other authorized insignia on the document; and WHEREAS, unauthorized use of the adopted City Seal and other adopted insignia may cause confusion among persons residing and/or doing business with and within the City of Temecula. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Municipal Code of the City of Temecula shall be amended as follows: "Section: 1.04.010 ADOPTION The corporate seal of the City shall be as follows: Section: 1.04.020 SEAL; INSIGNIA; CUSTODY AND USE OF The City Clerk shall have custody and charge of the City Seal and such other insignia that may from time to time be adopted pursuant to this Code. Except as provided by this Code, any seal, insignia or other symbol officially a~topted for use by the City of Temecula shall not be affixed to any instrument without the special warrant of the City Clerk therefor." 2/Ords/30 1 Section 2. 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 3. Resolution No. 89-8, adopted December 12, 1989, is hereby repealed. Section 4 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, a summary shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 2/Orda/30 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-__ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1991, and thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the__ day of , 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: C OUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: June S. Greek, City Clerk Scott F. Field, City Attorney 2lOrds/30 3 ITEM NO. 6 INANCE OFFI~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works October 22, 1991 Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-1 PREPARED BY: Kris Winchak R ECOMMEN DATION: That City Council APPROVE Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-1, subject to the Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267 was originally approved by the Riverside County Planning Commission on October 19, 1988, and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. Change of Zone No. 5150 was also approved by the County Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. However, the zone change was not given a second reading and therefore was not officially adopted, at that time. Following incorporation of the City, Presley Homes of San Diego submitted a revised map for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, along with Change of Zone No. 5, which is identical to the original Change of Zone No. 5150. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267 and Change of Zone No. 5, with an Addendure to Environmental Impact Report No. 281, was approved by the City Planning Commission on April 1, 1991, and the City Council on May 14, 1991. A second reading of Zone Change No. 5 was approved on May 28, 1991. Revised Vesting Final Tract No. 23267-1 contains 56 residential lots within 15.9~ gross acres. The tract is located on the south side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. ENG\TR23267-1.STF The following fees have been paid (or deferred) for Revised Vesting Final Tract No. 23267-1: * Area Drainage Fees (Deferred to Buildin9 Permits) * Fire Mitigation Fees (Deferred to Building Permits) * Traffic Signal Mitigation (Deferred to Building Permits) * Stephen's K-Rat Fees (at Grading Permits) $ 31,401.80 22,400.00 8,400.00 31,083.00 The following bonds have been posted for Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-1: Faithful Labor and Performance Materials Streets and Drainage Water Sewer Survey Monuments $ 906,000.00 102,500.00 111,000.00 $ 19,470.00 $ 453,000.00 51,500.00 55,500.00 SUMMARY: Staff Recommends that the City Council APPROVE Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-1, subject to the Conditions of Approval· TN:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Development Checklist Location Map Copy of Map Planning Department Staff Report dated April 1, 1991 Conditions of Approval TCSD Agreement Fees and Securities Report ENG\TR23267-1. STF 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-1 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility Traffic Signal Mitigation Fire Mitigation Flood Control (ADP) RSA Fees Condition of Approval Condition No. 24 Condition No. 25 Condition No. 54 Condition No. 42 See Fire Department Letter Dated 1-29-91 Condition No. 49 N/A STAFFRPT\23267-1 A. FTM CITY OF TEMFCULA 0 SP 219 ~. - // THE MEADOWS VA / HAWI. SP *~7 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSZDE, STATE OF CALZFORNZA TRACT NO. 232'67-'l BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 4 & LETTERED LOT E, AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP NO. 18993 ON FILE IN BOOK 134, PAGES 13 THROUGH 18 OF PARCEL NAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIAj ALSO LOCATED IN THE LITTLE TEMECULA RANCHO. CROSBY, MEAD, BENTON & ASSOCIATES APRIL, 1989 PM 34/34-~o~ a:~T P. ~. 134/13-~' ~' D ~TA I L /3 PM. NO, 'ABULATED OATA TABLE MEASURED DATA RECORD NO. BEARING DISTANCE BEARING DISTANCI T5 N00*30'll'M 568.12' (N00'30'33'~) T6 N86'58'49'H 141.46' (N86*59'50'W) T7 NT0'00'lG'H 199.61' (N70'01'17'~ 199.56') T8 N88'22'03'E 19299' (N88*21'44'E 192,98') T9 NB0*53'IG'H 250.08' (N80'53*58°H) T12 N56*42*44'E 654.77' (N56"42'21'E) T16 N&7"56'39'H 532.16' (N67'56'54'W 532.09') T19 N48°37'35'~ 247 92' (N48'37'40"~ 247.90') T20 N84e38'51"H 208.85' (N84*3?*55"H} T22 N61e46'30'E- 215.98' (N61e44'20'E 216.03') T24 N40*04'09'~ 439.26' (N40*03'40'M 439.2?') T25 N37"25'57°E 30007' (N3?'2?'00"E 300.09') T26 N86"Z4'33'E 121.39' T27 N36°14'37°W 824,55' T30 NtG°36'43"W 92,40' T35 NB0'53'46"E 2886~' T36 N20'23'31"E 286,39' (N20'22'30'E286.32') TRACT NO. 23063-I M.B. 212/.4~-.58 PARCEL 4 M. NO. 24332 L~e/g8-~03 SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS ZORITA 7'RAC 7' NO 2,.T~7- I TRACT NO Z30§3 - 6 M.B. 222/B4- 98 SEE 1200 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 1, 1991 Case No.: Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: Forward the following recommendations to the City Council: RECOMMEND adoption of the addendure to EIR No. 281 for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267; and APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLI CANT: REPRESENTATIVE: )~ROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. Presley of San Diego Crosby Mead Benton ~ Associates Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 is a proposal to subdivide 189.0 acres of land ir. to 601 residential lots with approximately 57.8 acres of open space. This project is being processed concurrently with Change of Zone No. 5. South side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road. R-R (Rural Residential) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: R-A-5 South: A - 1 - 10 East: SP West: R-R ( ResidentialAgricultural, 5 Acre Minimum) ( Light Agricultural, 10 Acre Minimum) (Specific Plan 217, Red Hawk ) ( Rural Residential ) A: \VTM23267 1 PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: R-3 R-L~ R-5 ( General Residential) (Planned Residential) (Open Area Combining Zone, Residential Developments ) 1 LI, 68 ac- '~C2. ~! ~_ 57.8 acres Vacant/Graded Land North: South: East: West: Low Density Single Family Existing Sod Farm Vacant/Single Family Tract Under Construction Vacant Single Family Total Lots: 601 Total Acres: 189 Min. Lot Size: ~,500 sq.ft. Density: 3.19 DU/AC On March 18, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow Staff the opportunity to provide additional information regarding open space maintenance. The subject property was originally a portion of the Old Vail Ranch. It is located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads. The original application, Change of Zone No. 5150 was a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land from R-R {Rural Residential), and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone). This zone change was approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 20, 1988. However, due to an oversight by the County, the zone change was never given a second reading and, therefore, was never officially adopted. The applicant submitted a new application, Change of Zone No. 5, to the City of Temecula Planning Department on September 2~, 1990. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 was submitted to the City of Temecula on December 21, 1990. On January 17, 1991, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project and address any concerns, as well as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre-DRC included the following: A: \VTM23267 2 PROJECT DESCR I PT ION: ANALYSIS: A: \VTM23267 Open Space Maintenance Traffic Impacts Access/Circulation Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss possible design modifications in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns, On March 7, 1991, Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 was reviewed at a Formal Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting; and, it was determined that Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267 met the DRC's concerns. This tract includes 189 acres of land with proposed R-4 and R-5 zoning. This subdivision contains 601 single family lots with 57.8 acres of open space. The minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet. The open space acreage contains 33.9 acres consisting of the Temecula Creek Flood Channel, which may have as joint use as a park in the future, two (2) neighborhood parks totaling 10.2 acres, and an 11.8 acre preserve for native vegetation and the original adobe ranch house. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 is situated along Highway 79 and will incorporate a 20 foot buffer between Highway 79 and the subject tract. The subject site along Highway 79 consists of approximately 148 single family lots with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. The applicant is also proposing a one acre neighborhood park ( Lot 605) for this section of the project. This area is proposed to be zoned R-4 and R-5. The entire tract is bisected by the Temecula Creek ( Lot 604 ) which consists of approximately 33.9 acres and is zoned R-5. Subsequently, the possibility exists for the creek to be used by future residents as a regional park, but the joint use as a flood control system and park must be discussed and developed by and between the City and the Riverside County Flood Control District. The area south of the Temecula Creek is also zoned R-q and R-5 and consists of 453 single family lots well over 4,500 square feet, This portion of the project is also incorporating a 10.7 acre regional park and a 1,1 acre lot for the old historic adobe house ( Lot 603 and 609). In addition, the applicant is also providing a 9.1 acre neighborhood park ( Lot 602) and may incorporate the existing secondary treated water reservoir for the adjacent sod farm into the park design. The secondary treated water is to be upgraded to tertiary treated in the near future. The revised map was submitted in order to change the grade of the development and to change the cul- de-sacs designed off of "S" Street in order to create a more efficient design. The revised map is not proposing any major circulation or lot changes. Instead, the revised map will aid to eliminate the need for a Home Owners Association {HOA). Currently the applicant is working with the CSD in order to determine the maintenance of the proposed open space lots and down slopes at property lines. Open Space The Temecula Community Service District has been in direct contact with the applicant in regards to the proposed open space maintenance issue, and has determined that the following dedicated lots are acceptable for City maintenance by means of an irrevocable easement deed: Lot No. 606 Lot No. 607 Lot No. 608 Lot No. 610 Lot No. 611 Lot No. 612 As for the well sites {Lots 185 and 574), the Community Service District recommends that these well sites be dedicated to the serving water district by means of a grant deed. A: \VTM23267 4 A: \VTM23267 ' Traffic Impacts The Transportation Engineerin9 Staff has reviewed and accepted the findings and mitigation measures as specified in the traffic impact analysis prepared for revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 and has determined that the proposed project will have an impact to the existin9 road system. However, given the proposed mitigation measures, there will be no adverse unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project. Access and Circulation The portion of the project that abuts Highway 79 will have vehicular access via "A" Street {a 100' street) which in term has access to Highway 79. Additional access to the northern portion of the project will be provided by "B" Street {an 82' street with a 15' bike lane) which runs parallel to the Temecula Creek. Internal, 66' and 60~ wide streets will provide access through this portion of the project. Access to the portion of the project south of the Temecula Creek will be provided by Loma Lynda Road {a 66' street) which has access to Pala Road {a 110' street ). I n addition, Via Cordoba I a 66' street ) will provide access to the southeast portion of the project which will integrate with the existing Red Hawk Development. Internal 66' and 60~ wide streets will provide access through this portion of the project. Both the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Staff, as well as the Planning Department Staff, have determined that the applicant~s proposed access and circulation are acceptable. Gradinq The majority of the area south of Temecula Creek has been mass graded with some major infrastructure already being completed within the proposed street sections. The 10.7 acre open space is mostly sloping hillside and very little grading will occur within this area. The area north of Temecula Creek is rather flat and will require minimal grading for the project development. 5 GENERAL PLAN/SWAP CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 has an acreage density of 3.2 units per acre. However. SWAP designates the entire flood control channel as recreational open space and therefore, this area is not included in the 2 to 5 unit per acre area. The portion of the map north of the flood channel maintains an average density of 4.8 units per gross acre. The area south of the channel maintains an average density of 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre. These densities conform to SWAP. This project does conform to the surrounding land uses in the area. The two approved specific plans to the east and south contain similar residential densities and minimum lot sizes as the subject property. These projects were approved under the plan previous to SWAP which allowed a slightly higher density. In addition, they contain over 6,000 housing units with similar characteristics to the proposed subject property. These plans have average densities between 5 and 6 DU/AC. The applicant is proposing to have an average density of only 4 units/acre. The properties to the west are currently designated for commercial in SWAP, along with the land along the south side of Highway 79 between the subject site and Margarita Road. Staff feels that by breaking the commercial strip along the highway with residential, the commercial will be concentrated at the corner of Margarita and Highway 79 where it is more desirable. Another specific plan, Murdy Ranch, is directly west of the subject site and it contains similar residential densities. The properties to the north are designated commercial in SWAP along Highway 79 and existing low density rural residential beyond I Santiago Estates). Staff feels that there will be no significant impact from the higher density residential along the south side of Highway 79 due to the physical break of the roadway and the commercial barrier along the north side of Highway 79. To provide a barrier to noise for the proposed development along the highway, Staff will require a significant landscaped buffer of 20 feet minimum. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed development is logical and is consistent with the type of residential development that is found in the area. A: \VTM23267 6 In conclusion. the proposed Revised Vestina Tentative Tract Map No. 232C2 wi~i like,> bL consistent with the future adopted General Plan for the City of Temecula. This proposal is a logical extension of residential development in the area and with the implementation of traffic mitigation measures for the development, there will be no significant impact on the surrounding area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was completed on the subject property for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. The report indicated a number of mitigation measures that must be implemented in order to reduce the impact of the project below a level of significance. These mitigation measures included a new t-lane bridge on Pala Road over Temecula Creek, the channelization of Temecula Creek, and several other significant measures that have not currently been implemented. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends that an addendure to Environmental Impact Report No. 281 be adopted. A copy of which is attached. The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.19 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-5 units per acre. The proposed revised vesting tentative tract map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed R-LI and R- 3 portions of the project adjacent to Highway 79 consist of higher densities and abuts future office commercial SWAP designation land uses. The lots situated south of the Temecula Creek are substantially larger than 4,500 square feet and abut specific plan areas such as Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Murdy Ranch, which in term are similar in density and design. A: \VTM23267 7 A: \VTM23267 The lot design and internal street acceptabl~ to the City F ;~; ;~ Engineering Departments. All lots cor~form to the standards of their respective zones, and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. Staff finds that site access will be adequate· Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79, and four (4) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment· The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and Change of Zone No. 5150. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RA:ks Attachments: e !0. 11. 12. 13. The project meets the requirement.~ of Ordinance 3L~8 and 460 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The proposed project includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 10.7 acre preserve for native vegetation. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND adoption of the addendure to El R No. 281 for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, Resolution [ Revised VTM No. 23267) Conditions of Approval I Revised VTM No. 23267) Addendure to EIR No. 281 Exhibits A. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 ( Site Plan ) A :\VTM23267 9 ATTACH'~T N1 I RESOLUTION ~10.91- A RESOLUTION Of THE PLANH!NG COMMISSION Of THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECO~,',;JENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23267 TO SUBDIVIDE A 189 ACRE ~'.,\RCEL INTO 601 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 5 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARGAR ITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-016-002, 003. 012, 017. AND 025. WHEREAS. Presley of San Diego filed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use. Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map on April 1, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition: WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 130) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. A :\VTM23267 ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of buildinq permits, each of the following: 10 There i~ a reasonable probahillty that Im-~d use or action proposed will be consiste~t with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. -|2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: |a) There is reasonable probability that Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will b~ consistent with the general plan propose, being considered or studied or which will bc studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantia: detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. A: \VTM23267 11 · (c) '[he propnsed use or action compile,. ~,~t~ all otter.' ~'i i''~< aisle requiremEr~ts of star, ~ .... ' ar,d local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordina,.. No'. q60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findl,~!ls are made: a) That the proposed land division is ch,,,,t~tent with applicable general and specific i~l.ns. b) That the design or improvement ,~1 the proposed land division is consiste,. with applicable general and specific plan~. c). That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the typ~ of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed dbnsity of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not Ilkel to gY or cause substantial environmental dam~ e substantially and unavoidably injurb llsh or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problem.. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not c~nflict with easements. acquired by the Pul~lic at large. for access through. or tJ~e property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it I= found that alternate easements for access or for us~ will be provided and that they will b~ substantially equivalent to ones Pr=viously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of rec~rd or t~ easements established by judgment ot =cour of competent jurisdiction. ~ 2 ) The Planning Commission in recommending epprov.I of the proposed Tentative Tract Map. makes the following findh~ s ~ wit: A :\VTM23267 17 A: \VTM2326/ b) c) d) e) f) The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use desig~atic,~. The proposed density of 3.19 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-5 units per acre. The proposed revised vesting tentative tract map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed R-q and R- 3 portions of the project adjacent to Highway 79 consist of higher densities and abuts future office commercial SWAP designation land uses. The lots situated south of the Temecula Creek are substantially larger than ~I, 500 square feet and abut specific plan areas such as Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Murdy Ranch, which in term are similar in density and design. The lot design and internal street layout are acceptable to the City Planning and Engineering Departments. All lots conform to the standards of their respective zones, and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Adequate public street access will b,~ provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pala Road and Highway 79, and four I~) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. 13 It !_ L,~li!<ply that the proposed revised ten;ative map will constitute a substant,at detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. h) The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and Change of Zone No. 5150. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. k) The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 348 and 460 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The proposed project includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 10.7 acre preserve for native vegetation. I) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. m) These findings are supported by minutes. maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and heroin incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. A :\VTM23267 SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendure to EIR No. 281 is hereby recommended for adoption. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 for the subdivision of a 189 acre parcel into 601 single family residential lots and 5 open space lots located along the south side of Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-016-002,003, 012, 017 and 025 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment III, attached hereto. SECT I ON 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, he;~; on the 1st day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A :\VTM23267' 15 ATTACHMENT II CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 Project Description: Revision to VTM 23267 to allow for 2 additional lots and 7 open space lots to be maintained by TCSD Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-160-2, 3, 12 and 17 and a portion of 926-160-011 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~60, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. ' Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road· All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities. etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the lap" division boundary, All offers of dedication and conveyances shall b: submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer, Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space are~ improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular acce.~.~ to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent purpose of the subdivision approval· A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance of Lots __ Open Space, the .developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district. A:\VTM23267 16 8. Delete Riverside County Condition No. 181d). 9. Prior to the recordat(on of the final m~p, Change of Zone No. 5 shall be approved by the City Council and shall be effective. Lots created by this land divlslon shall be h~ cotdormance with the development standards ol tile zone ultimately applied to the property. 10. v? Prior to recordat(on of the final map, the project site shall be annexed into the Temecula Community Service Distict { TCSD ). 11. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. 12. 13. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated January 29, 1991, a copy of 'which is attached. 14. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. 15. 16. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated March 8, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-4 (Planned Residential ) zone. be Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. A :\VTM23267 17 17. 18. 19. 20. The developer shall be r~sponsihle for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes. landscaped areas and irrigation s~'sterhs until such time as those ope, a',,, ,,l_ are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: tiThis property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory outdoor lighting policy. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ('1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity, A :\VTM23267 All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or - transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscap, elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs an~ specimen trees, Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Highway 79 and Lime Street. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading dowr, from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. 18 Landscaping plans st, 3~' ;;~cnrporate the use of specimen accenl trees at key visual foc:al ,>,,;,~ls within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate· All trees shall be minimum double staked· Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjuste to the angle of the natural terrain. : Angular forms shall be discouraged· The graded forn shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curv-~ with radii designed in proportion to the total height of slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizonf~' length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. A :\VTM23267 19 21. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to th~ Director of Building arid Safety. tt~a'. all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ~$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to ~5 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision~s approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within th, subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy savin9 devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. A :\VTM23267 20 23. 26. g. All street side yard setbacks sha~l br a minimum of ten (10) fr,rt h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the Community Services District which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has satisfied Quimby Act requirements in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach. set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, which action is brought within time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. TI~, City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action. or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in th~ defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not. thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. A:\VTM23267 21 27. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required o~f-~i,, property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer st~ai~ at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66~62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer~s cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 28. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV. and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 29. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 30. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions I CCF, R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CCF, R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, all buildings in common open areas, and all interior slopes. 31. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owneris group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty tn maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC~,R~s which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CCSR's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions requireu by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidenc~ of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prio~ to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated the City for public purposes. 32. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas anti facilities. or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. A :\VTM23267 22 33. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall provided for in the CC&R's. Within forty-eight J~8) hours of the approval of this project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Eight Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars {$875.00) which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.~(d)(3) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar l$25.00) County administrative fee. to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 1~4 Cal. Code of Regulations 1509~. If within such forty-eight (q8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Came Code Section 711 .~lc). Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 35. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, · and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. q60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 37. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; RiverSide County Health Department; CATV ~=ranchise; US Army Corps of Engineers; ~ ..... US Fish and Wildlife; and California State Department of Fish and Game. A :\VTM23267 23 38. 39. Street "T" shall be improved with f4LI feet of asphalt concrete pavement. bonds for the street improvemerits may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A t44'/66' ). Street "DD" and "FF" shall be improved with 44 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A 144'/60') with 3 foot wide utility easements. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping. d. Sewer and domestic water systems. \ Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot', as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan t~ the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Buildin-.) Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A: \VTM23267 2q A drainage study shall be submit~¢r, ", ~-~d approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be ins: "~, 'j as required by th~ City Engines, . Portions of the site are in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undeterrnined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining~'l~tte~'o=~r''' map revision from FEMA for the affected areas. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATy Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV'~'~idards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainege Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 50. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way: "' State Hiqhway 79 51. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. / PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 52. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Ci,:"" Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Fin:~t Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 53. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees an,4 street lights on all interior public streets. A: \VTM23267 25 Developer shall pay any capital fee f, ,~ t '~'! !mprovements and public facilities imposed upon the property o; proj, ~'~, ir~cluding that for traffic at,el facility mitigation as required under the FIR/Negative Declaration for the project. in the amount in effect at t}~ time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its buildin9 permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assumin9 benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq Department PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 55. 56. 57. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Loma Linda Road, "DD" Street, and "5" Street, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with q0 feet or less of curb separation and can, be shown on the street improvement plans. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans for State Route 79 5outh, "A" Street, and "B" Street, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. Condition I~32 of the County Road letter dated October 7, 1988 shall be deleted. 58. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering and CalTrans for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 59. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detou: or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 60. All on-site signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plans. A:\VTM23267 ' 26 61. In the event that the required imf~'ov. ':, 'nt~. on-St~at~R~u~e?9-~uth'afrd~r~ R~ for the Pala Road reali.cjhm~ ' !~ ,d the bridqe over lemecula C r ~c', are not completed blt-A~sess~nent~)i~t~'ie~ 15g prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the developer shall be required to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City of Temecula for the construction of the necessary improvements based-an-the. The developer's percent of contribution toward the facilities within the reimbursement aqreement shall be as per the approved Traffic Study· Construction of necessary improvements shall be based upon the following dwelling unit occupancy levels JAmended per Planning Commission March 18. 1991 ): A. For unit one hundred and one 1101 ) or more: A 750 foot minimum right turn lane with an adequ~ite transition for east bound travel on State Route 79 South for Pala Road shall be designed and constructed to CalTrans specifications and requirements and shall be approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Multi-way stop controls shall be designed and installed, when warranted and approved by CalTrans, at the north bound and south bound on and off ramps of Interstate-IS and 5tare Route 79 South· For unit two hundred and forty J2~10) or more: A minimum ~50 foot north bound left turn lane with transition and a minimum 125 foot north bound right turn lane with transition on Pala Road at State Route 79 South shall be designed and constructed to CalTrans and City requirements and specifications, and shall be approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. ~ = ....~e ~teloper ~ -enter ~rrte- am 6~,'cc,,,~, ~t -wFt~ -the C-FtT for reimbtn-sement -tcr ~he- C-it~-~-om- other-de~atopment~ ~vFthi n- th - impact- trea- -Far - cost s - be3ron d- ~+e - ex~errt- ~F- -this- -projectu ~ co ndi riofred - -. c rce nt- - ~mpact- - ~ - ~ - -sp ec~ ed- - fecj~m m imprrvemenJt~rt-withi~-AD-~59:. C. For unit five hundred and eleven 1511) or more: The signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South and Pala Road shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer. The signal shall be installed and operational, as warranted, per th~ special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. A:\VTM23267 27 lhc signal at the intersection of State Rout{ 79 Su,~ti, and Interstate 15 north bound and south bound on and off ramps shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer· The si9nal shall be installed and operational, as warranted, per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. The signal at the intersection of Rainbow Canyon Road and Pala Road shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer· The signal shall be installed and operational. as warranted. per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by the City Engineer. BesecF~m-the-addenduwrtetter eFerte d- -F e~ - il; - -1~J9 ~ - ~rorrr - e~ Rourk e - {-rig if~ee ring ~ - 4:hi s devdopment- - -shaH- - c~,Ttribtrte- - ~ - ~oward - -these- - roadway imprevenent~osts. (Amended per Planning Commission March 18. 1991. ) Full road improvements. including all required signing and striping. on State Route 79 South from Interstate 15 to Pala Road shall be in place in accordance with CalTrans requirements as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Full road improvements. including all required signing and striping. on State Route 79 South from Pala Road to Margarita Road shall be in place in accordance with CalTrans requirements as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Realignment of Pala Road with State Route 79 South in conjunction with the construction of a multi-lane bridge across the Temecula Creek. The Pala Road Bridge over the Temecula Creek shall be designed. constructed and operational as approved by the City Engineer· T4~ir~relopmertt-sh~F-contribtrt~r-toward-~l~ construction -costs ~ -th~s- t:n-i dge-.- 4:rased -u porr ~ -add e ndt.- I~tter-from C'RottrkeEngim,ccrii.~;~iwte~gecember-6;-l~. Design and construction of dual left turn capabilities at the south bound Interstate 15 off ramp at State Route 79 South in accordance with CalTrans requirements and specifications and a~ approved by CalTrans. The signal at the intersection of Loma Linda and Pala Road shall be installed and operational. as warranted. per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by the City Engineer. A: \VTM23267 28 10. The signal at the irtP:'~pctlnn nr State Route 79 South and "A" Street shall be desiqr~ed by a registered Civil Engineer. l t~t~ signal shall be installed nnd operational, as warranted, per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. 11. Design and construction of a dual right turn lane for east bound travel on State Route 79 South at Pala Road and a dual left turn lane for north bound travel on Pala Road at State Route 79 South in accordance with CalTrans and City requirements and specifications as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. Department of Buildinq and Safety 62. Submit approved Tentative Tract Map to the Department of Building and Safety for addressing and street name review. 63. School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District Prior to permit issuance. Lighting on site pool area and recreation area shall comply with Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance #655. 65. Submit pool plans to Riverside County Health Department for review prior to structural plan review by the Department of Building and Safety. 66. Pool excavation area shall be fenced immediately the same day as excavation is complete. All plumbing trenches shall be fenced. ~7. Obtain clearances from land Use and from Building and Safety Departments. 68. Provide a geological report at time of submittal for plan review. A: \VTM23267 29 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO. CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 RI\'~R~;II~t ' ' ~' "- I ~' FIRE [~l,l'.Xt~ I MI >, ! IN COC,Pc~t,T'r' · '- C~...rC~:'. .'. :i: ' C" ' _:-E5 AND FtR~: ~:~ ~:C'IC'. EN J \1 FIRE CHIEI PLANNING & ENGINEERING ~6o 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE. CA (714) 787-6606 DATE: TO: ATTN: RE: January 29, 1991 City of Temeeula Planning Department Tract No. 23267 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule A fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2~") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet · apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant· Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review, Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacin8 and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented ~o the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer shall provide alternate or secondary access as approved by the City of Temecuala- EngineerinZ Department. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $~00.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. RE: TR 23267 Page 2 All questions regarding the meaning cf co:~iticns st~all be refe~ t~ the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist as. tern Municipal Water 6~n,ral ~fana~,r J. Androy* Schlln~e Counsel ~ed~ ine and Shehill D~reaor of The .~fetropolitan ~ter D~tnrt of ~outhe~ Cahfo~e Doyle E Boon RoSen M. Co~ District March 8, 1991 Richard Ayala City of Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23267 Dear Mr. Ayala: As requested, we have reviewed the subject project and offer the following comments: Sanitary Sewer The subject project is tributary to the District's Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility, via a sewer' system to be constructed by Assessment District No. 159. The developer is expected to submit a proposed conceptual plan of sanitary sewer service to the District's Customer Service and Planning Departments for review and approval. This plan shall provide for a system of gravity-flow sewerlines located within road right-of-way according to EMWD standards. It must be understood that the available capacity of the District's sewer syste.'. are continually changing due to development within the District.' As such. service will be provided based on the timing of the subject project, the servic, agreement with the District, and the status of the Dtstrict's permit ~o operatP. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Rut.-. Newsham or nm at (714) 766-1850. Sincerely, H. A1 Spencer ' irector of Planning ,~~HAS:RN:lp cc: John Fricker, EMWD Presley of .San Diego, 15010 Avenue of Science, Ste. 200, San Diego, CA 921: 91-240 7/M ATTACHMENT II ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report {EIR) No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 which supersedes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 has 87 fewer residential units than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will involve minimal grading and therefore, is unlikely that any additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts regarding drainage and non- renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and New Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Revised Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant ~mpacts. By reducing the number of residential units, the new project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. A:\5.CZ 14 ~: ~I NKS ' SUBMFITAL TO THE IIOARD OF SUPEhvlbuRS .~:" ~ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STAI'E OF CALIFORNIA ~ FR6M: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL DATE: October 2.0, 1988 SUBJECT: CF!/~IGE OF ZONE 5150, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 23299, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23267 - THOTEM AMERICA CORP. - First}Supervisorial District - Rancho California'Area - 221 Acres ,596 Lots,232 Condominium Units - RECOMMENDED MOTION: Schedule A - CHANGE OF ZONE from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5. The Planning Conmission and Staff Recommend: CERTIFICATION of Environmental Impact Report No. 281 based on the finding that the Environmental Impact Report is an accurate, objective and complete document which complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA; and APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5150 from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5 in accordance with Exhibit 2, based upon the findings and con- clusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated OCTOBER 19, 1988; and APPROVAL of V.ESTING TENTATIVE TRACT-NO. 23267, AHENDED NO. 2 subject to the attached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated OCTOBER 19, 1988; and APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23299 subject to the attached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Conmission minutes dated OCTOBER 19, 1988. RM:rs 10-16-S8 ) ~treeter, Plan.ning Director i ', tel ,: ;-.: ;,:~ .-. Depls. Comments Dist. AGENDA r: Zontng Area: Rancho California (~!ARGE OF ZONE I10, 5150 First. Supervlsorta] Dtstrtct VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 23267 E,I,R:' No, 281' VESTING 'ITJITATXVE TRACT MO, 23299 Regtonal Team No, I Planning Commission: 10-19-88 ~ Agenda Item No, 1-6 RIVERSIDE C0U!IR PLANNING DEPARTI~NT STAFF REPORT 1, Appltcant: ?, Engineer/Rep,: Type of Request: o Location: Existing Zontng: Surrounding Zoning: .Existing Land Use: L" ~,.,.~ ~',.'.r. *~:.l. 'Surrounding Land Use: Comprehensive-General Plan Designation: 10, Land Dtvtston Data: 11. Agency Recmmendattons: 12. Letters: 13. ~phere of Influence: AHAL~IS: Thotem American Corporation RanPac Engineering " Change of zone from R,R to R-3, R-4 and R-5, 232 unit condomJntum project and a schedule "A" subdivision. South of. Highway 79, West of Nargarita Road. R-R R-R, A-1-10, R-A-2~, R-A-5 Generally vacant, a couple of residences and structures, horse and cattle grazing. Scattered single family residences, a horse ranch, a turf fam and vacant land. Land Use: Category I - II Density: 2-20 d~elling units per acre Total Acreage: 221.2 VTR 23267 VTR 23299 Total Lots: 601Sgle Fam. 232 Units DU Per Acre: 3.01 du/ac 16.02 du/ac Proposed Win. Lot Size: 4500 sq. ft. See Letters dated: VTR 23267 Road 10-07-88 Health: Og-12-BB Flood: 10-18-88 Fire: Og-Og-8B Opposing/Supporting:None received Not within a City Sphere VTR 23299 CZ 5150 10-11-88 3-22-89 8-29-88 no comment 10-18-88 4-18-88 (Add,', ,' 8-24-88 no conment P.' - ProJect Description Change of Zone No. 5150 is a request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land in the Rancho California area from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 seeks to establish a 232 unit condomintum project on 14.3 acres of the overall site. Vesting Tentative Tract 23267 seeks to CHANGE OF ZONE RO. 5150 YESTilIG TEitTAllYE TRACT I10, 23267 ¥ESTZlIG TERrTAllVE 1RACT I10. Z3Z99 Staff Report Page 2 subdivide the remaining acreage into 601 single family residential lots with a mtnlmum size of 4500 square feet, two well site lots, and 4 open .space lots totaltng 57.9-acres. Two of the open space lots are '~etghborhood arks totaltng 10.2 acres. One open space lot includes Temecula Creek and be made tnto a regtonal park totaling 35.9 acres. IThe remaining open space lot of 11.8 acres will preserve an extsttng adobe house and some native vegetative areas. ;' The project site is located south of Highway 79 and west of Margarita Road. This site used to be a part of the 01d Vail Ranch. Currently the site is used for horse and cattle grazing, and contains a couple of single family residences and assorted related structures. Surrounding land uses include vacant land to the east, but which has had two specific plans approved on it (S.P. 217-Red Hawk and S.P. 223-Vail Ranch). The area to the north of Highway 79 shows single family residential dwellings on relatively large lots. A horse ranch and turf ram are located to the west along Pala Road. The turf farm is currently under Agricultural Preserve contract (Temecula No. 2). However, this Agricultural Preserve Contract had a notice of non-renewal filed on it on September 20, 1979, so the Agriculture Preserve Contract is due to expire on January' 1, 1989. /' Zoning found in the surrounding area currently includes R-R to the north, east, south and west,. A-I-lO to the east and south, and R-A-2~ and R-A-5 to the north. General Plan Consistency/Compatibility The project site is located within the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area, Just to the south of the Rancho Caltfornia/Temecula subarea. Policies within the Rancho Caltfornta/Temecula subarea call for Cate ory I and II land Uses within the 1-15 corridor, transitioning to Category ~II land uses on the eastern end. l~ese policies can be extrapolated down to apply to the proposed project's location. Category I and II land uses now exist to the south of Highway 79 and west of Pala Road Road. This trend towards urban development has been established in the area south of Highway 79, and is continuing to be extended through the approval of several specific plans in the area. Two specific plans adjoin the project site to the east. lhe Redhawk Specific Plan (S.P. 217) was a proved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988. This specific plan calVs for a mixed use development with residential densities ranging from 2 to 14 dwelling Vail ~an (S.~. 223) ad3oins the pro3ect on the northeast and was also a proved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988. This specific pVan has approved 2,431 dwelling units with a density range of 2 to 20 du/acre. The turf ram to the southwest also has a specific plan currently being processed on it (S.P, 228, r~rphy Ranch) but is in the initial stages. J \ _., . ,. :l CFLRNGE OF ZORE IK1. 5150 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT RO. 23267 VESTING TENTAT/VE TRACT II0. 23Z99 S~aff Report ~ Page 3 Category I and II levels of services and facilities are currently at the site ~r will be extended to the site through the Rancho village Assessment District, of which this project will participate. Vesting Tentative Tract 23267 has an everall density of 3.01 dwelling units per acre and so falls within Category I! densities. Yesring Tentative Tract 23299 has a proposed density of 16.02 dwelling units per acre and so ts within Category I densities. The proposed tracts are considered compatible with existing area development and with projects approved in the area. The prqposals are therefore found to be c~nststent with the Comprehensive General 'Plan. T~e proposed zone change application proposes zoning which is consistent with the land uses proposed under the two Vesting Tentative Tracts. The zone change req~.est is therefore considered consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan. Design Considerations lhe proposed tentative tracts have been designed in accordance with their respective residential development standards, and all other pertinent standards of Ordinances 348 and 460. The applicant is requesting the waiver of lot length to width ratio requirements on a number of lot~ within Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267. This request is necessary due to design and or physical constraints associated with the site. Staff feels this requested waiver is acceptable. Due to the tract's vesting status, additional materials were submitted for review in accordance with Ordinance 460. All submitted materials were found to be adequate. These plans will be implemented through the conditions of approval. Architectural elevations and materials were submitted in conjunction wit, Vesting Tract 23299. These items were reviewed and approved and will be implemented through the conditions of approval. As is the applicant's option, a design manual addressing architecture. landscaping, irrigation, and fencing was submitted with Vesting Tract 23267. These development guidelines will be implemented through an Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.30 plan plan which will need to be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits, CHAJIGE OF ZOtIE R0o 515(3 VESTING TERTATIVE ITACT R0, 23267 VESTING TERTATIYE lRACT RO, 23299 :Staff Report Page 4 EnvlroranentJ1 Revtew In accordance with the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Environmental Impact Report No. '281 was prepared in connection with the proposed project. All significant effects of the project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such ~ffects have been evaluated in accordance with the Riverside County Rules to implement CEQA. The following Findings and Statements of Overriding Consideration are based upon that Environmental Impact Report. I. Avoided Impacts and Impacts mitigated to 'an Insignificant level Seismic Safety a. Potential Impact: The site could be subjected to seismic event hazards such as groundshaking, ground rupture, and liquefaction. The Wildomar fault is located on-site along the western most edge. This fault could have a highest magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale during a seismic event. A moderate to high liquefaction potential exists near Temecula Creek. Required Mitigation: A fifty (50) foot setback area will be placed on either side of the Wildomar Fault, with no structure for human occupancy allowed within the setback. Design of the structures on the roject site shall be in accordance with the latest (1985) Uniform uilding Code and County Grading Ordinance and shall be designed to withstand earthshaking from the maximum credible earthquake that can be expected, Liquefaction hazard can be mitigated by over-excavation and .replacement of recompacted fill. c. Finding: All potential seismic impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Slopes and Erosions Potential Impact: Erosion hazard and slope instability will increase during grading. Stltatlon of the reservoir and drainages may occur. Mitigation: All grading activities will be in conformance with all County grading standards. All county erosion control practices shall be adhered to including slope planting and sandbagging. A desiltation basin will be provided in the open space area to reduce siltation of the creek during times of peak run-off, c. Findin: Potential impacts can be mitigated tnstgnVftcance. to a level of CHARGE OF Z(3RE II0. S150' *VESTING TERTATIVE TRACT !1t3. 23267 VESI~NG TERTATZVE TRACT R0. Z3Zgg Starf Report Page 5 F'iood~nq Potential Impacts: Increased runoff potential through construction of impervious surfaces, potential impacts to downstream · properties through the concentration and diversion of storm flows. Potential impacts to areas of development within the 100 year floodplain. Mitigation: Temecula Creek will be improved through the Rancho Villages Assessment District o~ which this project is a part. Improvements to Temecula Creek include*a 400 foot wide, soft bottomed channel with concrete sides. All areas within the 100 year floodplain will be removed from said floodplain through improvement of Temecula Creek. A drainage channel and box culvert will convey storm flows under State Highway 79. In addition, all requirements found in the County Flood Control District shall be adhered to. c. Finding: All potential flooding impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Not se ,/ Potential Impacts: Noise from Htthway 7g will impact the site, with noise projected to be 74.8 dB A) at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of Highway 79. The entire area of residential development north of Temecula could experience noise levels in excess of 65 dB(A). Mitigation: Landscaping and block walls will be used in areas adjacent to roadwa s. A six foot high or higher decorative block wall and earthen ~erm , will be required along Highway 79 to adjacent the project site. Interior noise levels can be reduced to under 45 dB{A) through use of double glazed windows, mechanical ventilation and mandatory air conditioning units. In addition Title 24 standards will be complied with. Mater Quality Potential Impacts: A potential stltatton of natural drainages and Temecula Creek may occur during rainy periods. Pollutants from street d runoff could enter waterways. Intro uctton of impervious surfaces could slow any recharge of groundwater in the area. .131AIIGE OF-ZI3RE II0. 5150 IrESTING TENTATIVE TRACT It0, 23267 IESTiit; TERTATIVE TRACT RO, 23299 Staff Report .Page 6 b. Mitigation: Compliance with County Grading standards, including the use of sand bagging and desiltation basins during rainy weather will be utilized. lhe project is retaining many draina e areas and slopes to act as natural filtering systems for street.runo~f. c. Finding: Potential impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Veqetatton/Wtldltfe ,. a. Potential Impacts: Sensitive species occurring on site include Blackshoulder kite, Coopers Hawk, Northern Harrier, and Nevin's Barberry. In addition, the San Diego Horned Lizard has a high probability of occurring on site. Potential impacts to these sensitive species may occur with development of this project. riporion area within Temecula Creek will be disturbed upon improvement of the Temecula Creek Channel, with the loss of four (4) acres of unconsolidated riparian scrub. b. Mitigation: The riporion area will be disturbed through the improvement of the Temecula Creek Channel~ by the Rancho Villages Assessment District. Approximately 24.5 acres of rlparian habitat will be removed along the length of the Creek. The biological enhancement program associated with the creek improvement will establish 70 acres of revitalized habitat, which will off-set any initial loss of rtparian habitat. The subject property is part of the ~ancho Villages Assessment District and will participate in the program. The riporion area near the existing reservoir will be retained in an open space lot. The project has designated approximately 58 acres of open space, which will he)p mitigate impacts to the existing sensitive bird species and which will preserve most of the inland sage scrub plant community found on site. Of the two existing specimens of Nevin's ~arberry found on site, one will be preserved within the open space area. A professional horticulturist will also take. cuttings of the Nevin's Barberry found adjacent to the existing residence and replant these in the Open Space area near the other Nevin's Barberry. ~rgin areas of designated open space will be planted with native and drought tolerant vegetation, including large trees to provide perching opportunities for raptors. After channelizatton of the Temecula Creek, this area will be retained as Open Space, with suitable habitat for the San Diego Horned lizard thereby existing. DLAJaIGE OF ZORE RO. 5150 VESTliar, ..~ATIVE TRACI' RO, 23267 VESTI!IG TE)II'ATIVE TRACT RO, 23299 Staff Report Page 7 , c, Findings: Potential impacts to sensitive biological species can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Enerqy Resources Potential Impacts: Short term energy use wi'11 occur during construction with the use of fuels by construction equipment. Long-term energy use will occur through home heating and lighting and automobile fuel use. Energy consumption after buildout will be the following: .. 1. Gasoline - 522 vehicle gallons per day. 2. Natural Gas - 30,392 cubic feet per day. 3. Electrtdty - 13,811 kilowatt - hours per day. Mitigation: A Class I bicycle trail will be provided adjacent to the proposed channel. Title 24 energy conservation practices will be incorporated into the design and development of the houses. c. Findings: Potential energy impacts will be 'mitigated to a level of insignificance. ,. Scenic Highways Potential Impacts: Highway 79 is an eligible scenic highway. Development of the proposed project could impact the scenic quality of the area. Mitigation: Landscaped entry nodes will be provided throughout the i~ro ect and a landscaped buffer strip will be built adjacent to igtway 79. Landscape plans will be reviewed by the Planning Oepartment to ensure adequacy. c. Findings: The potential impacts to the eligible scenic highway are mitigated to a level of insignificance. Archaeological Resources Potential Impacts: A site of prehistoric Indian Habitation is found on the north side of Temecula Creek on the first stream terrace. The existing historic two story adobe 'winter residence" of Walter Vail is also located on site. Disturbance of these sites could impact these resources. b. Prior to any disturbance on site, a qualified Archaeologist shall review the registered Indian site and collect any data as necessary. DtARGE OF ZI)RE NO. 5150 tESTING TEXTATIVE TRACT RO. 22267 VESTING TENTATIVE IRACT IK). 23299 Staff Report Page 8 Data collection methods shall include test bortngs and excavations as found necessary by the archaeologist and as approved by the Planning Department. The existing adobe house on site will be preserved on so no impacts will occur. Findings: All archaeological impacts can be avoided or mitigated to an insignificant level. Paleontoloqy a. Potential Impact: Project site is located near Pauba formation land which ts known to produce significant paleontologtcal resources. Potential impacts may occur during grading and trenching. Mitigation Measures: A qualified paleontologist shall be consulted ~rior to any grading and shall monitor the grading activity. 'Significant finds shall be identified, itemized and conclusions presented by the qualified paleontologist. c. Findings: Any Paleontologtcal impacts can be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. ,' Circulation a. Potential Impacts: the proposed project combined will generate 7,392. trip ends per day. be Mitigation: All internal street systems will be put in place by the developer of this project. Major circulation roads in the area will be improved by the Rancho Villages Assessment District, by which this project will participate. Roads to be improved include Highway 79 to a 142 foot R.O.W. six lane road, Margartta Road south of Highway 79 to a 134/100 foot R.O.W. arterial, and Pale Road south of Highway 7g to a 110 foot R.O.W. arterial. A bike land is also being provided adjacent to Temecula Creek. c. Traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Water and Sewer a. Potential Impacts: The proposed project will have an estimated daily water consumption of 547,800 gallons per day, with the creation of 273,900 gallons of wastewater. b. MItigation: Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal .Water District have expressed a positive ability to serve the proposed C!!A!IGE OF ZONE I10, 5150 VESTlit, TEIITATIVE TRACT RO. 23267 VESTIll% TENTATIVE 1RACT I10. 23299 Staff Report Page 9 , project. Pipeline facilities will be installed through the Rancho Villages Assessment District, by which this project will participate. Water conserving methods will be included in the development of the roJect in accordance with Title 24. In addition, drought tolerant andscaptng and automatic irrigation systems will be provided in the project. , c. Finding: Impacts to Mater and sewer servtce~ are not considered significant. Fire a. Potentta3 Impact: Development of this project will incrementally increase demand for fire services. b. Mitigation: The project shall comply with all applicable fire prevention and energency response provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinances. In addition, the developer will pay $400.00 per unit to go toward fire protection impacts. c. Finding: Impacts to fire services can be m(tigated to a level of insignificance. , Sheriff Service a. Potential Impacts: Development of this project will add an estimated 1743 people to the area, which will have an incremental impact on the need for police services, b. Nitigatton: Crime prevention methods will .be designed into the development of this project. Hartpower increases are at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors, however, this project pay county wide mitigation fee of which a portion can go toward adding additional police protect)on. c. Finding: Potential impacts to police services can be mitigated to d level of insignificance, School s a. Potential Impacts: Development of this project will generate an estimated total of 450 new students. b. Mitigation: The project developer will be required to pay school mitigation fees in accordance with State Law. C]!R~E OF ZIRIE RO, 5150 ¥ESTIIIG TE!fl'ATIVE TRACT RO, 23267 ¥F..STING TE!fl'ATIVE lRACT I10, 23299 Staff Report Page 10 c. 'Finding: Impacts to schools can be mitigated to a level of tns i gnt ft cance. Parks and Recreat¶on a. Potential Impacts: The state Quimby Act requires 3 acres of park site one thousand people. Development of thts project would require acres of park site. Mitigation: The proposed project ~ill provide'two parks totalling 10.2 acres of land. An approximately 1.0 acre park site is located in the northern portion of the project site and a 9.2 acre park site is located in the southern tip. In addition, a 35.9 acre regional park is being proposed by the Ranch, Villages Assessment District for the Temecula Creek area. This regional park will include equestrian trails and bike paths. Another 11.8 acres of Open Space area which includes the "old adobe structure" is proposed.. Finding: Provision of the two park sites totalling 10.2 acres and with the proposed regional parks, impacts to park and recreation services are mitigated to a level of insignificance. ' Utt 1 ttt es Potential Impacts: Incremental increase in demand for utility services. Temporary creation of dust and noise from construction of utility lines. ~!tigatton: The developer wi)l be required to extend all. utilities as necessary. Oust shall be .controlled during construction activity through the use of watering trucks. Vegetation losses will be replaced with appropriate planttngs in areas damaged by trenching· Sandbagging shall be used to prevent runoff. c. Findin s: Impacts to utilities can be mitigated to a level of tnstgnVficance. Sol td Waste Potential impacts: This project will create 19,626 pounds of solid waste per day. Adequate capacity is currently available to handle this need. b. Mitigation: No mitigation required. alARGE OF ZORE R0. 5150 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT II0, 23267 lfESTING TENTAtiVE TRACI I10, 23299 Staff Report ~ Page 11 c. Finding: facilities. LIbraries There wtll be no significant impact to solid waste a. Potential Impacts: Development of this project incremental impact on library services. wi 11 have an b. Mitigation: The developer will be required to pay $100.00 per unit mitigation fee. be mitigated to a level of c. Findtng: Ltbrary impacts can insignificance. Health Services a. Potential Impacts: Development of this project will have an incremental increase in demand for health service. Current and planned facilities in the area .appear capable of meeting any additional demand. , b. Mitigation: No mitigation required c. Finding: There is no significant impact to health services. Airports a. Potential Impacts: Minimal impact to area airports is anticipated. b. M~ttgatton: No mitigation required. c. Finding: There is no significant impact to area airports. Disaster Preparedness a. Potential Impacts: Minimal impacts Preparedness Is anticipated. b. Htttgatton: No mitigation required. c. Finding:' There Preparedness. to the County' s Dtsaster are no significant impacts toward Disaster 13ARr~ OF ZI3R*E RO, 5150 VESTIll; TENTATIVE TRACT I10. 23267 VESfiI~ 1ERI'ATXVE 1RACT RO. 23299 Staff Report Page 12 Fiscal Impacts a. Potential Impacts: The fiscal study found within the EIR states'that the entire project will have a net positive impact to the County of a~proximately $56,D08 annually. , b. Httigation: No mitigation proposed. c. Finding: No significant fiscal negative'fiscal impact will occur. II. ?RO,1ECTALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines require the consideration of alternatives to the proposed project. Three alternatives were considered within this EIR. These are the "No Project Alternative", the 'Decreased Scope Alternative", and the 'Increased Scope Alternative." No Pr~;ject Alternative a. Analysis: The No Project Alternative "would alloW the land to remain in existing limited residential uses of er d ~rkers. ~iven this. scenario, none of the impacts of the proposed project ~ould occur, The No Project Alternative is considered the environmentally superior a)ternattve due to the least environmental impacts. Impacts associated with seismic safety, grading, noise, air quality, water quality, loss of Agricultural land, vegetation and wildlife, energy resources, public services and utilities, and traffic would not occur or would be substantially less. b. Reasons for Rejection of No Project Alternative: This alternative would negate the benefits associated with development of the 600 detached dwelling units and 230 condomtnium units. These units are proposed to reflect anticipated market needs and public demand by providing detached dwelling units that will be marketable within the region. Long-term use of the site is not considered economically feasible and is not mandated by the General Plan. In light of the approved urban land uses in the neat. vicinity, continued intensive agricultural uses could lead to incompatibility of land uses. CHARGE OF ZONE RO. 5150 ¥ESTIRGTERTATXVETRACTRO. 23267 ¥ESTZRGTERTATZVETRACI'RO, 23299 Staff Report Page 13 , Decreased Scope Alternative a. Analysis: This alternative will assume the roperty is developed'out in accordance with the existing R-R zone (Rura~ Residential). With the property developed at one dwelling unit per ~ acre., this alternative addresses development of 550 dwelling units. Development of this site under the Decreased Scope Alternative would have i acts on seismic safety, Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Pum~lic Services and Utilities, and Traffic that would be less than the proposed project. Potential impacts upon Slopes and Erosion, Flooding, Noise, Agricultural Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife, Archaeological Resources, and Paleontological Resources would be about the same. Increased impact to Water Quality might be expected due to use of septic systems. b. Reasons for Rejection of the'Decreased Scope Alternative: Although the Decreased Scope Alternative contains incrementally reduced impacts in certain above mentioned areas, it is not considered to be significantly 'environmentally superior" to the current development proposal. The elimination of the smaller lot product inhibits the provision of homes within a more affordable range. The costs of roadway improvements as well as costs associated with water, sewer and flood control facilities are not proportionately decreased under this alternative, making the' project economically difficult. For these reasons, the Reduced Scope Alternative was rejected. Increased Scope Alternative a. Analysis: The increased Scope Alternative would assume building out the project site with multi-family dwelling units at a density of 12-14 dwelling units per acre. With this sort of density, more than 3,000 dwelling units could be built. The Increased Scope Alternative would have greater impacts upon Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion, Flooding, Noise, Air quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Land Use, Public Services and Utilities, and Traffic. Impacts on Agricultural Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife, Archaeological Resources, and Paleontologtcal Resources would be about the same. lmpacts are e the increased traffic, noise, air qual~2~ seismic safety, and public services and facilities. Land use confl ~ between such an intense project and surrounding approveJ land uses could be significant. Because all impacts under this alternative are either equal to, or greater than, the proposed project, this alternative is OIARGE OF ZORE RO. 5150 YESTIMG TE]T[MIYE 'IRAL'T RO. 23267 ¥ESTIRG TENTATIVE TRAET RO. 23299 Staff Report Page 14 environmentally inferior than the proposed project. For these reasons, this alternative was rejected. III. Rejected Conditions of Approval The conditions of approval or the proJect's design include' all recommended mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report No. 281, except that measure which requires a regional application and is beyond the scope of the individual developer. This measure is the requirement of park and ride facilities in the area to mitigate energy impacts. IV. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts and Project Benefits Project Benefits: Development of the project as proposed will provide the following benefits to the region: Improved Traffic Circulation: Traffic circulation will be improved in the project area by the project's inclusion within the Rancho Villages Assessment District. Improvements include widening of Rancho California Road to a 142 foot R.O.W., making it a six lane expressway, improving Margarita Road to a 134 foot arterial, and improvement of Pala Road to 110 foot R.O.W. 2) Improved Flood Control: Participation of this project site in the Rancho Villages Assessment District will go towards improvement of Temecula Creek into a 400 foot wide, soft bottomed, concrete sided channel. 3) Provision of Active Recreational Open Space: The roject is proposing two neighborhood park sites totailing 10.2 acres aVong with providing an 11.8 acre Open Space/Regional Park. Participation of this project in the Rancho Villages Assessment District also will see the Temecula Creek Channel area developed into a 35.9 acre open space area and regional park, with equestrian trails and bicycle paths included. While the neighborhood park sites are being developed primarily for the residents of the project, the amount of park acreage far exceeds that amount which would be required under the Qutmby Act, and, along with the regional parks, can be utilized by residents already in the conmnuntty. Stqntficant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: Environmental Impact Report No. 281 identified the following significant unavoidable adverse i~acts. CHARGE OF ZOIIE R0, 5150 .VESTlira TERi"ATIVE 1RACT RO. 23267 ¥ESi1RG TER[ATIVE TRACT II0, 23299 Staff Report Page 15 , Atr qualtty: Potential impacts: Vehtcle exhaust emtssion and dust during construction will contribute to air quality reductions in the area on a short-term basis. The long-term impacts will be increased motor vehicle emissions by more people being drawn into the area and from increased power plant emissions due to the demand for electricity and natural..gas. b. Required Mitigation: Water trucks rill be.used to reduce dust. On-site parks will create on-site trip destinations. A Class I bike trail ts included in the Regional Park. Title 24 'standards will be adhered to during construction. Transit facilities such as benches, shelters, and turnouts will be designed into development of the parks to facilitate any · future mass transtt system. Unavoidable Adverse Impact: A temporary degradation of air quality will result in the project vicinity during construction activity with an overall significant incremental regional degradation due to project implementation. Overriding Finding: The public benefits of the proposed project in terms of public improvements to road and flood facilities and by the development of neighborhood and regional parks outweigh the proJect's adverse impact upon air quality. Agrtcultur~ Potential Impacts: Development of the proposed project will result in loss of current agricultural uses and the loss of 27 acres of prime agricultural land (Class I and II soils). b. Nittgatton: No mitigation measure available to mitigate these impacts. c. Unavoidable Adverse Impact: Loss of 27 acres of prime farm land is considered cumulatively significant. Overriding Ftndtnq: Agricultural production in this area is becoming, or has beceee, economically tnfeasible. Continued use of the land for agricultural practices could lead to land use incompatibtlities in light of approved and existing projects in the area. lhe project benefits substantially outweigh the unavoidable adverse impact caused by the loss of these prime soils. ,OUUIGE OF ZIIE R0. 5150 YESTIE TERTATIVE 1RAC'I* R0. 23267 VESTING TERTATIVE 1RACT N0. 23299 Staff Report Page 16 TINOINGS: 1. Change of Zone rio. 5150 seeks to change the zoning on 221.2 acres from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5. 2. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 seeks to create 232 condomtnium units on 14.3 acres of the site. ~. 3. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267 seeks to create 601 single family lots and 4 open space lots on the rematnden..of the site. 4. The site is located south of Highway 79 and West of Murgarita Road. 5. The project site is currently used for horse and cattle grazing. A couple of residences and assorted related structures are found on site. Surrounding Land Uses include single family residences, a horse ranch, a turf farm and vacant land. 7. Surrounding zoning includes R-R, A-I-IO,'R-A-2~ and*R-A-5. 1' B. The project site lies adjacent to two approved specific plans (S.P. 217 - Redhawk and S.P. 223 - Vail Ranch). These specific plans are located to the east and south of the project site. The turf farm located to the southwest currently has a specific plan being processed on it (S.P. 228 - Murphy Ranch). The agricultural preserve contract on the adjoining turf farm {Temecula No. 2}, will expire on January 1, lgBg. 11. The project site is located within the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area. ~ Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was prepared for the proposed project. Findings, Mitt atton ~asures and Statements of Overriding Consideration are found in ~hts staff report on pages 4 through 15 and are incorporated here by reference. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed zone change and vesting tentative tracts are consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive General Plan. 2. The proposals are compatible with area de,velopment and zoning. 4f CHA!IGE OF Z]OIIE RO, 5150 VES11.11G TENTATIVE TRACT R0, 23267 VES'T/~G TERTAT/VE TRACT R0, 23299 Page 17 3. The project conforms to all applicable county ordinances. 4. Overriding findings necessary to approve this project are found within the staff report. RECIIg4ENDATIONS: ' =. CERTIFICATION of Environmental impact Report No, 281 based on the finding that the Environmental impact Report ts an accurate, objective and complete document 1 n d ' APPROVAL of CHARGE OF ZONE RO, 5150 from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5 in accordance with Exhibit 2; and APPilOVAL of VESllMGTE!ITATXVETRACT NO. 23267, MENDED NO. 2, subject to the conditions of approval; and, APPROVAL of VESTIMG TENTATIVE TRACT MO. 2329g, sub3ect to the conditions of approval and in accordance with Exhibit A, Amended No. 2~ and based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated in this staff report. GN:sc 10/12/BB · j'CZ :5150/VTR HORSE RANCH 23299/VTR 2326~ LOMA LAND USE II ,MAP 11134g VAC. LINDA RD.' TURF FARM AQ. PtKS. TEN MAP d~143 VAC. App. MR. BRIAN HAYWOOD · LOC&TtONAL MAP ' Use R-R TO R-4, R-2, AND R-5 · Area TEMECULA RANCHO Sup. Dist. 1 Sac. T. 8 S.,R. 2W Assessor's Bk. 926 Pg. 16 ....~ ' Rd. Bk:-Rg. 56'ADafe 3/17188 Drawn By SS ;' I"=. !20o' tTIVEt~IDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT LE """" :~' '_ ' el-I~-l_jtW . "~ CZ 51501V'IH :J32991VTR 23~_. ,'~='~'\ ~ -- 'R,A-2 1/2 -~.'.~""'R "~..."""'~'- :.. .~__-- ~/"' ~ ~~ R-R ~ ~,E~o~'' R A-5 =. ' .. A- 1-10 ~eee \., R-R RIIIIB A-1-10 <:> R='" LOMA LINDA /I~.,,~ ,,~ ~.. R-R 'L., / App. MR. BRIAN HAYWOOD LOC.~,~TsO.,L -;"' ' Use R-R TO R-4, R-,,/, AND R-5 . ' , sor's Bk. 92 . ,..;.,:,,L~.>' I I . , , ; | · '1200' ID '.,! E .1 t ,t' tl :::IiVE::IMDE COUrl ,u PLArlrlirle DEPA:IDTIErI DA~: rebru~z729t 1988 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duds ~s~ Department ~ealth -Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game LAFCO, S Paisley U.S, Postal Service - Ruth E, Davidson Conm~issioner Bresson Rancho Calif, Water Eatern Municipal Water 5outhern Calif, Edison Southern Caltf, Gas General Telephone Dept. of Transportation ~8 lemecula Union High School Temecula Chanter of Commerce Rt. Palomar Sierra Club Valleywide Parks County Parks County Aviation CHANCE OF ZONE 5150 - (Tm-l) - E.A. 32546 -ll~otem American Corp. - Rancho Pacific - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - South of Highray 79 and West.ofHargarita Road - R-R Zone - 207,6 acres - REQUES Change of Zone to R-2, R-4 and R-5 - Concurrent Cases VTP 23267, Vll 23299 - Hod 120 - A.P. 926-160-010 to 013; 926-160-002-003 Please revieg the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for April 28, 1988, If it clears, it gill then Eo to public hearinE, Tour comments and recommendations are requested prior to April 14, 1988 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should )on have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Greg Neal a.t 787-1363 Planner COH~3f£S: , DATE: :SICNATURE I.EASE print name and title ~nRnl FMON STREE[ 9TM FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM n" ' KENNLrTI.! I EDWARDS IIIII MARKET ITIILFZ'T P. O. BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (7141 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IIIVIRIIDI, CALIPORNIA Attention: Regional Area:~A/~Hz> We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause'some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order. to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood.damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All ne, buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports.' This project is in the Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rGles regu].ations. L/The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to implied density. The Distrtct's report dated is still current for this project The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached con. nents apply. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS April 5, 1988 R;VER.-.'!D_--' .-:.,:: ,.j.. TY PLA:tN~NG Board of DL-~tors: Bkl~ard D. Sk4ky P~sident Jam. A. St. Vice hideat Balph Dally Doug Kulberg Jon A. Lundln Jeffrey L. Minkler T. C. Howe Officers: Stan T. Mills General Manager Philllp L. Forbes Direcwr of Finance - T~asurer Norman L. Tl~omas Dist~tor of Engineerin~ Thomas R. MeAJiester Dirr~r of Operations f* Maintenance Barbara J. Heed Dir~cwr of Administntion - Distr~ Secretary Rutan and Tucker Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Change of Zone 5150 Vesting Tract 23267 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability vould.'be contingent upon the property owner signing an .Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Sites for additional water production facilities may be required within the proposed development depending upon the level of increased demand created by the proposal. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doherty Engineering Services Representative F011/dpm113 RANCHO CALIFORNIA W.-ATER DISTR 28061 DIAZ ROAD - POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714| 676-4101 - FAX (714} RXYERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23267 DATE: ANEXDED NO. 2 EXPIRES: STANDARD CONDITIONS RIverside, 1Is agents, o y from any clatm, Ictton, or proceeding agatnst the County of RIverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, votd, or annul an approval of the County of RIverside, 1Is advisory agencies, appeal boards or legt:lattve body about wtthtn the ttme period provtded for tn CAlifornia Government Code concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267, which actton is brought Sectton 66499.37. The County of RIverside wtll promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, actton, or proceeding against t e County of RIverside and will coo erate fully tn the defense. If the County fails to promptly nottry the sug~dtvtder of any such cletm, actton, or proceeding or fatls to coop,rate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, Indemnify, or hold hamless the County of RIverside. 2. The tentative subdlvtslon shall compl with the State of California Subdivision Pap Act end to all the requ{renents of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless mdtfled by the conditions Itsted below. 3. Thts condttlonally approved tentative map wtll expire two years after the County of RIverside Board of Supervisors approve1 date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. 4. The final mp shall be prepared by · 11cansad lend surveyor subject to ell the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Pap Act and Ordt ance460. n The subdhtder shall sutatt one copy of e sotls report to the RIverside County SurveJ~r's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and so Is Safety. The report shall address the t stability and geological conditions of the silo. 6. If any grading ts proposed, the subdivider shall su~tt one prtnt of comprehensive gradtrig plan to the Department of Buildtrig and Safety. The plan shall cmply vtth the Untfom Butldtng Code, Chapter 70, Is amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for tn these conditions of approval. VESTIN TBITATTT[ TRACT NO. 23267 Awl. CoMItlem of ~Fplw·l Page Z 7. A gradtn! permit shall be obtatned from the Department of Butlding and Safety prtor to caanencement of any gradtng outstde of county maintained road rtght of kay. 8. My delinquent property taxes shall be patd prtor to recordatlon of the ftnal rap. The subdivider shall comply with the street Improvement recommendations outlined tn the RIverside County Road [)epurt~ent's letter dated 10-07-88, · copy of vhtch Is attached. 10. Legal access as requtred by Ordinance 460 shall be provtded from the tract map boundary to a County mintdined road. A11 road easements shall be offered for dedication to the Publlc and shall conttnue tn force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. A11 dedications shall be free from a11 encumbrances as approved b the Road Comtsstoner. Street names shall be subject to approval of ~e Road rmmlsstoner. Easements, Sen requfred for roadray slopes, dratnage factllttes, utllftfes, etc., shall be shown on the ftnal map tf they are located vithtn the land divfsfon boundary. A11 offers of dedication and conveyonces sha11 be submitted and recorded as titratted by the County Surveyor. eater and sever·g· dtsposal factlfttes shall be Installed tn accordance kith the provtsfons set forth fn the Rfverstde County Health i)epartment's letter dated 9-12-88, · copy of ~hfch ts attached. 14. The subdivider shall conply vlth the flood control recommendations eutltned by the RIverside Count flood Control Otstrtct's letter dated ]0-]8-88 · copy of vhTch ts attached. if the land dtvfston 1tea within an edopZ.~l flood control drltnage ·re· pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of Ordfnance 460 apFro rtate fee for the construction of area dratnige facilities shall be col~lected by the Road Coantssloner. (Amended ·t P.C. on 1S. The subdivider she. c ly vtth the ftre Improvement recomendattons outltned tl the County°FnTre 's Parshi1 letter dated 9-9-88, I copy of whtch Is attached. Sutxltvtsfoe phasfng, tncludfng any proposed con·non open space area Improvement phutng, tf applicable, shall be subject to Planntng Department approval. My proposed phastng shell provtde for ede_quate vehicular access to ·11 lot· tn each phase. and shall substsntt·lly confore to the tntent and purpose of the ~'~bdtvtston approval. Lots cream by thts subdivision shell compTy vith the following: YESTIlIG TENTATIVE IRAC'[ I. 23267 Aml. Conditions ef AppaRel Page 3 a. AI1 lots shall have a mtnfmum stze of 4500 square feet net. b. Graded but undevelo ed land shall be mtntatned tn a weed-free condition and shal~ be either planted with tntertm landsca tng or rovtded with other eroston control measures as approved Cy the ~lrector of Building end Safety. Prior to RECORDATXOel. of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prtor to the recordaaron of the ftnal nap the applicant shall submtt wFItten clearances to the RtYerstde County Road and Survey Department that 811 pertinent requirements outltned tn the attached approval letters free the following agenctes have been met: County Ftre Department County Flood Control County Parks Department County b. Prtor to the recordalton of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5150 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be tn conformance wtth the development standards of the zone ultimately applted to the property. c. Prtor to recordatlon of the ftnal map, the project stte shall be aqnexed tnto C.$.A. 143. Prior to recordatton of the final mp, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee step1, tttle, to all consnon or con, on open space areas, free and clear of all 1tense taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and unrecorded) and easements, except those easements whtch In the sole discretion of the County Ire acceptable. As a condition precedent'la- the County accepting tttle to such areas, the suixitvtder shall submit- the foliOring documents to the Planntng De at,merit for revtev, documents shall be subject to the approval o~ that department and the Office of the County Counsel: 3) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) A s.a~p. le docmnent cony, fag title to the- purchaser of an du r Jndtvt al lot or untt whf~ p ovtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ts Incorporated theretn by reference. 11~ed~laratton of covenants, conditions and restrictions subnltted for ~evtew shalto~a.~ provtde for · tam of 60 are, (b) p, ovtde far -tlm_~.stablttb-~-t i~el~ty ~r4' s' .fig, tet~on c~,pdsed of ~h.l ~ C TEStiNG TEXTAT/IT TRACT nO. Z3~7/wt. 12 Co,dirt.as ef Approval ~ Page 4 -ownb..f each Individual let o'r unlL and (c) conhi,, tt,. f~luwlng ,-provlsfenS var~-tfm: · :hstandtng any provision tn thts Declaration to contral the following provision 1 shall app )': The pro] owners' association established hereIn tf dormant, be :tlvated, b~f Incorporation or othervise. at 'the request of ,e Count), of RIverside, and the pro aveera' association unconditional1), accept tram RIverside. u ;he Count)"s demand, tttle to all the 'camon more particularly described attached her. to. decfston to require propert owners' as~ fatfan and the dectston assoctal{fan uncondf' accept tttle shall be at the sole d of an), rt of Exh~bt t ' A' .1vatIon of the re that the *common area' :rettonof the ,f RIverside. In the event that the conveyed to the proper1 thereafter shall own continuously mtntatn such transfer such com~n area, or written consent of the Pll! Riverside or the County's succ omers' assocSatton shall have each tndtfidual lot or of an), such mtntenance assessment. be prior to all other assessment or other area, or part thereof, ts assc ,tton, the association, 'c~-,~n ke, shlT1 Benage and and shall not sell or thereof, absent the prtor ;lrector of the Count), of creating st. The propert fight to assess the ovmers of the reasonable cost of have the rtght to 1ten tn the pa~ent of a ten, once created, shall equent to the nottce of assessment 1ten. Thts l)eclaratton she1 t be or absent of of the Count)"s successo A proposed coastdare ~ttal' tf tt affects maintenance of stallion areae. ;ubstantta11)" amended 'tar written consent of RIverside or the shall be extent, usage or the event any co~fltct between this Dec' Articles , the Bylaws, or the assocta~ R 1 egu Ittons. tf any. this lion and the oMlerSe shall Once approved. the decTar*lion of covenants. C~ndttlons and restrictions shall be recorded at the sam tim that the final map Is recorded. VESTING TEliTATIlfE ~ I10. 23267 Conditties of Apprmal Page S The developer shill be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and trrt alton s~rstem unit1 such ttfll Is those operations are the responstgt1111es of other parttes as approved by the Pllnntng Director. Prior to recordatton of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet ([CS) shall be prepared in conjunction vlth the ftnal map to delineate identified environmental concerns Ind shall be permanent1 ftled vtth the off¶ca of the County Surveyor. A copy of the £CS sha1{ be transmitted to the Planning Department for revtev and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Buildtrig and Safety. me mttce appearing tn Sectton 6.i. of Ordinance No. 625, the RIverside County Rlght-to-Fam Ordinance, shill be pieced on the Environmental Constraints Sheet, v4th this tract identified therein, tn the manner provtded In satd Sectton 6.a., as betng located partly or wholly v4thtn, or vlthtn 300 feet of, lind zoned for primarily agricultural purposes by the County of RIverside. h. me folioring note shill be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "County [nvtronmental Impact Report No. 281 yes prepared for thts property and ts on ftll st the RIverside County Planntng Department." t. The E.C.S. notes found tn the letter from the County Geologist dated October 12, 1988, I cop~ of which ts litached, shill be placed on the Envl.ronmentll Constraints Sheet. Prtor to the.Issuance of GRADING PER!4XTS the folioring conditions shill be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of gradtrig pemtts detatled coneon open spice ire llmlscaptng end trrtgltlo~ plans shill be subedited for Plinntng Departneat lpprovd fort he phase of development to process. The lens shall be certified by · landscape architect, aM shill provide For therollmdng. Peanet autamt¶c trHgitton s~stems shall be ¶nstilled on all landsaped Ireas requiring Irrigation. Parbays end landscaped Iwtldtng setbacks shill be landscaped to provtde vtsual scroen.tng or a transition tnto the prim use area of the stte,' LandScape elements shill tnclude ear~ bemtng, ground cover, shrubs' end spectmen trees tn conjunction with meandering sfdevalks, benches and other destrtln Imentttesvhere appropriate as ipproved by the Plinntng ~partmnt. VESTZIG TE)ITATTVE 11UiCT I10. 23267 Conditions of Appnwal Page 6 3. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of spectmen accent trees at key vfsual focal points wtthln the project. 4. I~ere street trees cannot be planted vtthtn rt ht-of-vay of tntertor streets and project parkways due to tnsufYtctent road right-of-ray, they shall be planted outstde of the road rtght-of-wy. 5. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate nattve and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. 6. A11 exfstfng spectmen trees and stgntffcant rock outcroppings on sub ect property shall be shorn on the proJect's gradtrig plans the sha{l note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. ad n 7. All trees shall be minimum double staked. kMaker and/or slo~ grovtng trees shall be steel staked. Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. c. Prfor to the tssuance of gradtrig pemfts, a btolo 1ca1 resource protection 1an shall be prepared b a qualified btologTst detailing methods o~ protecting the significant biological resources and fmplmentatton of biological mitigation measures Is found tn County Environmental impact Report No. 281. Important resources include the Nevfns Barberr/found on otto. Thts plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for revtev and approval. d. Ourl.ng radln acttvfttes, a qualified biologist shall be retatned by the deve~oper~ monitor the grading activities and to see that the ap roved bfol 1ca1 resource protection plan ta Implemented. Proof of re~tnersldps°Re11 be satmilled to the Department of Butldlng and Safety prior to the 1seesrice of butldfng parEtie. The biologist shall have the fight to belt or divert gradtrig procedures, If necessary, tn order to implment the biological resource protection plan. e. Prfor to tssuance of gradfng mtts, in tn depth surveXof the extsttn 'Archaeologtcd sttes she'll be undertaken by a qualified ArchieoTogtst. Thts survey shall tnclude dab collection, test bortngs ud excavation as deemed necessary by the Archaeolo 1st and as approvnd by the Planning Department. At the conclusion of the t a report prepared by he Archaeologist shall be tnvestlgaUon, subetttod to the PTanntng Department and the Archaeological Research Unit at tlmUnlversttarof California of RIverside, for' revtew and a ' VESTIN TDITATTYE TRACT 1O. Z3~67 Md. 12 Conditions of Approval Page 7 · determination of completeness. Following approval of the report, the Planntng Department v111 tssue clearance for the release of gradtng pemtts. f. if any archaeological resources' ere uncovered during gradtng act vtttes or trenching, all activities shell cease end an archaeologist shall be consulted. My recommendations of the archaeologl. st shall be adhered to. g. The old adobe structure found vtthtn Open Space lot 603 shall be preserved. All existtrig nattve spectmen trees on the subject property shall be preserved .herever feasible. I~ere they cannot be preserved the7 shall be relocated or replaced vtth spectmen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. Gradtng plans shall confom to Board adopted Htllstde Development Standards: All cut end/or ftll slopes, or Individual can, tnations thereof, .htch exceed ten feet tn verttcal hetght shill be modtf~ed by an appropriate coebtnation of I spectal terracing (benchtng) plan, Increased slope retto (I.e., 3:1~ retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined vtth Irrigation. ~1 driveways shall not e ceed a x ftftee percent grade. n All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded exceeding ten (SO) feet tn verttcal hetght shall incorporating the following grading techniques: nature1 terratn end be contour-graded Z) The an le of the reded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle o~ the aturlT terrain. 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded tom shall reflect the natural ro.aded terrain. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with ~ere drainage andPstablllty Iramat such ro 4) ahere cut or f111 slos exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the horizontal contours o~ethe slope shall be curved tn a continuous, undulating fishfoe. Prior to the tssuance of grading pemtts, the developer shall provide evtdence to the Director of Building end S~fety that all adjacent off-site manufactured s]o s have recorded slope easements end that slope maintenance resixms¶b~tttes have been assigned as approved by the DIrector of Building end Safety. VEStiNG TENTAtiVE 11UICT 10. 23267 Conditions ef AI;ronl Pap 8 1. Prior to the tssuance of gradtng pemtts. a qualified paleontologist shall be ratatried by the developer for consultation and c~mment on the proposed grading wtth respect to potential paleontologtcal Impacts. Should the paleontologist ftnd the potential ts htgh for trapact to he significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between t paleontologist aM the excavation and gradln contractor shall be arranged. Men necessary, the paleontologTst or representative shall have the authority to temporarily dtvert, redlrect or halt gradtrig acttvtty to I a11~v recovery of loss1 s. Prtor to the tssuance of BUiLDiNG PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. No buildtrig permtts shall be tssued by the county of RIverside for any residential lot/untt vtthtn the project boundary until the developer's successor's-In-Interest provtdes evtdence of com 11ance vlth publtc factlily ftnanctn measures. A cash sum of one-~u~ndred dollars ($100) per lot/untt sha~l be deposited vtth the RIverside County I)epertment of Butldtng and Safety as mitigation for publlc 1 tbrary develolaent. Ce Prtor to the submittal of butldtng plans to the Department of Butldtn and Safety an acoustical stu~ shall be performed by an ecousttca~ engtneer to establish appro rlate mitigation tonsures that shall be ap 1led to Individual dwelFtn untts Vtthtn the subdivision to reduce aPmglent tnterlor notse levels ~j) 45 Ldn and extertor notse levels to 65 Ldn. MI street 11ghte and other outdoor 11ghtln shall be shown on electrical plane subedited to the De artmerit of lutldtng and Safety for plan Check approval and sha~l comply vtth the requirements of RIverside County Ordinance No. 655 aM the RIverside County CemprehensheGeneral Plan. Prior to tsseance of building tamIts, detatled park stte end rlpartan area develo_pgent 1ins shall be submitted to the Plenntn9 Department for approval. T~ese pTans shall contom vith guidelines found tn the approved des! mnual (Exhtbtt el). The parks shall tnclude active recreational ~atures such as ptcntc tables, ba becue areas, tot lots, etc. Recomendattons found tn the letter fom orge Ballarts of th County Parts Department, a of whtch ts attached, shall be tncluded ta the destgn of the p:r°Csy a and Open Sp ce Areas. Development of thts project sha11 contom to the recommendations found tn County Geologic Report No. 488. VESTlIE TEN;inlet TRACT NO. 23267 And. CoedJ tJ ens dr Alproyal Page g f. For the security and safety of future residents, the following crime Feventton measures shall be considered during stta and butldtng layout fiesign. a. Proper ltghttng Jn open areas; b. VIsibility of doors and vtndovs from the street and between buildings; c. Fencing hetghts and mtertals; d, deq. ate off-street parking; and e. A clearly understood method of street numbering to facilitate emergency response. The plans shall address all areas and aspects of the tract requirtn lamlscaping and Irrigation to be Installed tncludtn, but not to, parkway planting, street trees, slope plantTrig, led tndtvl~al front yard Tandscaping, and shalT contom to the standards set forth tn the tract's approved Oestgn IMnual ([xhtbft h. Roof-mounted mechanical equtixeent shall not be pemitted vtthtn the Mver solar equt nt or any other energy saytrig subd vfston, h r devtcas shall be pemitted vtth Painting Department app o,1. 1. Ali front yards shell be provtded vtth landscaping and automatic Irrigation. A plot plan shall be sutattted to the Planntng De artmerit rsuant to f Section 18.30 o Ordinance No. 348 accon;anC:d by al~uappltcable filing fees, as a plot pTan that is not subject to the California Envlrometal Qualtty Act' ts not tranmttted to e~y governrental agency other than the RIverside County Planntn9 Oeperbnent. The plot 1am shall ensure the conformnee of the final stta develolxnent vTth [he tract's approved Design Itnual (Exhtblt H), and shell contatn the 1 lollMug · merits: 1. A ftnal stte plan shovtn the lots, butldtng footprints, all setbacks, fences and/or vaFls, and floor plan and elevation asstgrinenta to Individual lo13. One (l) color and metrills sample board (mxtmum size of 8 X 13 1aches by 3/8 1rich thick) containing p. reclse color, texture and mtertal switches or phot raphs (whtch my be from suppliers' brochures). Indicate on thec~srd the name, address and phone VESTIN TERTATIVE 11UICT I). 23267 Conditions of Ai;roval Page ~.0 1. numbers of both the sample boa~l prepafar and the project ( ) coo of the a~httectural elevations colored to ~present 3. ~e se~ec~color c~tnattons, ~th sFbols keyed to ~e color h a~ intertale ~ard. ~e ~ttten color and atertal descr pitone aM11 k l~ted ~ ~e elevation. 4. Stx (6) co tes of each of glossy photographic color prtnts (stze 8 X lO tnc~s) of both color and mtertals board and colored architectural elevations for permanent ftltng, heartrig body revtev and agency distribution- All ~rtttng must be legtble. Satd plot plan shall requtre the approval of the Planning D~rector prior to the tssuance of any bolldtng permits for lots tncluded w4thtn the lot plan. The sutxnfttal of plot plans prtor to the tssuance of butld~ng pemtts my be phased provided: 1. A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planntng Departmnt for each phase, whtch shall be accompanied by appropriate flllng fees. 2. Each Individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planntng Otrector rtor to the tssuance of butldlng permtts for lots tncluded v~thtn plot plan. that k. A fenctng plan shill be submitted for Planntng Department approval. Thts plan shall be tn substantial conformeric, vtth the Destgn Nanus ([xhibtt H) and tab tnto account any recoanendattons of the requlre~ nots, study. Prtor to the tssuance of I)(;CUP&NCY PERHZTS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. A11 landscaping aM Irrigation shall'be Installed tn accordance vtth appreved plans prior to the tssuance of occupancy paratts. If seasonal cond¶ttons do not peratt plantin , ¶nterta landscaping and eroston control measures shall be uttltze~ as approvnd by the Planning Director and the Director of Butldlng and Safety. b. Prior to occupancT, yells and fences shall be 1natalled tn accordance with epprovdFlans- c. ts requtred for 9otse attenuation purposes, the Notvlthstandtng tim preceding conditions, Vherever an acoustical stud requtred veils shall be detoratned by the acousttca~ study ~here applicable. V[b~lJl6 TDITATIVE TRACT I10. 23267 ~md. 12 Coalitions ef Apprevel ~ Page 11 Prior to occupancy, the he! hborhood ark stte associated wtth that phase of develoinent sha~l be deve~:ped tn accordance vtth approved pains. Prior to occupancy, the Nell stte open space lots associated wtth that h $pp~v~ Landscaping Plans. 6N:sc;bc 10112/88 I Ill ., e OFFICE OF ROAD CONMISSIONER 6 October 7, 1988 E EDVE" cou ui'lYi 1988 RIVEH~ur, COUNT~ PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 LeRoy D, Sin,on & 19e MIIQelNI dl, OOdlllll 1.9. HI ten IIItlllllOl, Cakl¥,llNtl Riverside County Planning ComJssJon 40SO Lemn Street RIverside, CA 92S01 lie: Tract Map 23267 - Amend Schedule A - Tam I Ladies and Gentlemen: Ifth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land drytalon map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications In accordance with Ordinance 460 and RIverside County Rold improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It ts understood that the tentative mp correctly shovi acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptabllfty 'my require the map I to be resale tied for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and I requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring tn a11. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the coMitlons for I complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shill be referred to the Road Commissloner's Office. 1. The landdhider shall protect do,stream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, I.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructIn; adequate drainage facilities Including enlarging exJstl facilities or by lecurln I drainage easement or by both. nX11 drainage easements sha~l be shom on the find map and hated as foil,is: 'Drainage Easement - no iratiding, · ebstrucUons, or encroachnents b land fills are all,veda. h protecttee shall be as approved [y the Road DeNant. 2. The landdlvlder shall acce t and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or ~rough the site. In the event the Road Cmnisstoner pemlts the use of streets for drainage pu ,sea, the provisions of Article X! of Or Innrice No. 460 ~ll~apply. huld the quantities exceed tJ~street capactty or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage parpose, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. 3. IbJor drainage is triveT wed on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as epproved b), the Road Departnent. 4. 'A" Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with Counts Standard No. SO1, (76'/200). Street (Jam Avenue) shall be improved within the dedicated right of wa~ in accordance with Hodlfted CounV Standard No. 202 *S' Street and "C' Street (south of Creek Lane) shall be Improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard Re. 103, Section A. (44'/66'). 7. l~e remaining Interior streets shall be Improved within the dedicated rl ht of way Section A. ~40'/60'). In accordance with Count~, Standard No. 104, l~e landdivider shall comply with the Callruns recommendations as outlined In their letter dated 14arch 30, 1988 (I copy of which fs attached), prior to the recordalien of the final rap. The landdivider shell provide utllft~ clearance from Roncho Calif- ornia iter District prior to the recordallen of the flnll map. A cop~, of the final amp shall be submitted to hltrins, Dlstrlcg 08, Post Office Box felt he Bernardlno, California gZ403; Attention: Pro3ect Oevelolaent for review and approval prior to recorderIon. ~e maxim centerline gradient shall not exceed lSS. The stains centerline radII sha~l be 300* or as approved b7 the Road Department. la, State HI. located fat with concrete curb and gutter match up asphalt concrete Tract Hap 23267 - Amend ~tober 7, isle paving; reconstructions or resurfacJng of exlstJng pavtng as datemined by Colttans within a 71 foot half itdth dedicated right of iiy In accordance with State Standard No. A2-8. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be sho~n on the street Improvement plans. A miniam of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed between driveways. debris retention vail shall be constructed at the street way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approve by the Road Comatssfoner. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face Of curb. 17. 'T' Street shall be Improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete 84l pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicate rt ht of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section ~. (22'/33'). Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with Count7 Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). M access rod (located north of Terncult Creek along the extension of el· Street, Jams Avenue to the east) to the nearest paved road mintsinN by the County shell be constructed within the public rf, Section ght of wfn accordance vtth County Standard No. 106, 8, (32'/60'~ at a grade and aTfgnment as approved by the Road Comtssfonor. This is necessary for circulation purposes. Primary and secondary access roads (at the locations of Lores Lfnda Street and the extension of Park Avenue, *S" Street) to the nearest paved rod mlntalned b), the County shall be constructed within the I'rac'~ Ikp 23~67 - Mmd ~lCt~r 7, 1988 21. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, the developer shall Se 7e 3De deposit ~lth the RIverside CounV Road Departminer a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal f acts. Should tim developer choose to defer the time of paFnent,m~e may enter into I witten agreement with the Country deferring said pa~qnent to the tim of issuance of a building pemlt. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerlln· profile extending · minimum of 300 feet belond the project boundaries It I grade and alignment ms Ipproved by the RIverside Court Road Coenlssfoner. hmpletfon of road improvements does not Impt~), acceptance for maintenance by' Count~. Electrical and cmmnfcatfons trenches shall be provided In accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Aspbaltic mulsion (fog seal) shall be applled not less than placement of the asphalt surfac ng and shall feetteen da~ following be applied at a rate of O. OS gallon per square yaM. Asphalt emulsion shall contom to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-sacs and Imuckles and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the 1·riddivision. Corner cutlacks tn conformrice with CountI Standard No. 805 shall be shmm on the ftn·l map ·ed offered for dedic·tion. Lot ·ccess shall be restricted on State HIghvU 79, "A" Street end · is Street (James Avenue) ·ed so noted on the final map. Landdivisions c~eatfng cut or fill slopes ·dJacent to the streets shall proved· erosion control, sight.distance control ·rid sloe· wisemints ·s Ipproved b~ the bad Department. All centerline intersections sh·11 be at 90* with · minimum SO' tangent masured from time line. street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coerdlnated with Rancho Vllhges Assessment District f15g and TR rac~ PaF 23267 - Amnd ~! ctoixr. , 1988 age S Street lighting shall be required tn accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The Counter Service Area (CSA) kimieistrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of I "Lt htlng Assessment District" In accordance with Governmental Code ~i~lon 56000. A striping plan Is _required ~or State H~r. 79, aA' Street, and 'B' Street (Ms Avenue). The removal of the existin striping shall he the res nstbJ1113, of the applicant. Traffic s~gntng and striping sCUll1 be done b~, County forces with all Incurred costs borne bjr the applicant. GH:lh Ver3r trull ~rours, Road D?vtston Engineer County of Riverside RIVERSII)E COU!fXT PLANI~IHG DEFt. September 12, 1988 DATEi ROM: TRICTNa~ 23267, Amended No. 2 F~ Enviromnentsl Health Services he revieved Tract )tap 23267, Amended No. 2 dated September 6, 1988. Our current co~enu vt11 remain as stated hour letter dated April 12, 1988. · COUNTY OF _' IVERSIDE DEPARTMENT · 1988 I _seMi o f HEALTH RIVtP,~ID~-COUNTT PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 L&ImSl Itstie APR 18 1..988 RIVERSIDE COLINTY PLANNING GEPARTM-'NT lie&all IStl IMEIIV IS'lilTS Attnz Grog Nail !t~I Tract Map 23267; That peralert of Parcel 1.2.3 and 4 of Parcel Map 18993 recorded in Book 134. Pages 13 through 10 of Parcel Maps xn Riverside County. Caltfornxa. (5S1 Lots) sills sit mOmvse Illll Gentlemen= The Department of Public Mealth has reviewed Tentative Map No. 23287 and recommends that: k water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prindts of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less them one inch equals 200 feet. along vlth the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and Joint specifications, and the size of the main at the Junotim of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part l, Chapter ~ of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code· Title 21. Chapter IS, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. - ~" ' " ' t faty t ....................... h fur, ha ......... - .~ - Lela~DLetrict msmsbXa7 ' trice - Ruth E, Davidsou ..... - ..... sT, Mater .......... a- ..............,lpal Mater Jr. Edison "~f. ...... JmiB!l~Jone J._portltlOn 18 .... ,men H~gh $chool m l,er of Cornarcs iVE 3iDE "PLAnRinG DEPARC EnC County Avistton Cam1 ss loner Iresson t;'tL f.,F'I 01' 't a8 "' RIVERSIDE C~'. pLANNING DE~',~.R~ :,'.ENT VESTING TRACT 23267 - (tu-t) - l.A. 32544 - TheSes Aretitan Corp, - 1Lanehe Paclflc - Sancho California Area - First SupervisorlaX District - South of !lghvay 79 and Volt of !briartin load - I-S Zone - Schedule i- 193,7 acres into 596 lots - Concurrent Cages CZ 5150, VTS 23299 Hod 120 -A,l, 926-160-010 to 013; 926-016-002-003 - case described above, along vttb the attached case Rap, A Laud :e matins has been teatslivery scheduled for April 28, 1988, If tt -~eu Is to public hearinS, · .A recouendattous are toquested prior to Aprf.t ¢O the staff report for thb particular usa, T,7 questioN ralardtnS thb items please do not hesitate to costact 1363 .... Yostbtl lYact 23267. should be required to anne to an appropriate ..... agency vhieh provides park and retreatton services, Annuities viII --' mitigate hapacts of increased population to be served and fees (perk development)s shall be used to acquire and develop 8 park site, , I 0TM FLOOR !tinnier, Valley-l~ide Recreation and ~. Dtst~ ~ 46-200,0..A_S.I_S S_TREET, ROOM Riverside County PlAnning Dept. Page Arts= 0rag Neal April The plkns shall be signed by m registered engineer and valet company with the following certification: certify that the design of the water system in Tract Hap 23267 is in accordance with the water ayetam expansion plans of the Rancho CalxfornZa Water Distract and that the valet service.storage and distribution system viII be adequate to prov3de valet service to such tract. This guarintee that it viII luppZy valet to such tract any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certificat:on shall be signed by company. Th~s Department has s statement from the Rancho Calxfornia Valet Dlstr]ct agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand prowldang sa%isfactory financiml arrangements are completed vzth the subd~vzder. It viii be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prxor to the recorderion ot the f~nal map. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Nun~clpal Water District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the severs of the District. The sever system shall be installed AccordLag to plans and specifications as approved by the Dzstrict. the County Surveyor and the Health Department. PermAnent prints of the' pJans of the sever system shall be submitted in triplicate. along with the original dravZng. to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location manholes. canplate profiles, pipe And ~o,nt specifications tad the size of the severs At the ~unction of the new sys~e: to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sever lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plane and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer And the sever district with the following certifications "! certify that the design of the sever system in TrAct HAp 23287 is in Accordance with the sever system expansion plans of the gastern Nun/ctpal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the Anticipated wastes from the proposed tract.' The R,verside dounty PlAnning Pmge Three A1'FN: Greg Nesl April 32, 1988 It vill be necessary for financial-arrangements to be made przor to the recordat~on of the final map. It rill be necees&ry for the annexation preceedzngs to be coapJetely finsieged pr~or to recordatIon ot the f~nal map. incere , ~.~ ~..dmW}' ~~z. %~r.H San3tartan Environmental Helith Services ~NNI'I"H I, ZDWANDt P. O. IOJf $4089 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IIIYIIIIIDIL C, ALIF"OIINIA IIIOI October 18, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attentionz Regional Team No. l Greg Meal Ladies and Gentlemens Re z Vesting Tract 23267 Amended No. 2 This is a proposal to divide approximately 194 acres for single family housing in the Temecula area. The site is located along both sides ot Temecula Creek about 1200 feet west ot Nargarita Road. This project is located on the floor or Temecula Valley and is subject to both riverins flows from Temecula Creek and.sheeting offsite storm flows from two other sources. The main course o~ Temecula Creek flows through the center o~ the tract. Storm water from a 800 acre watershed to the north traverses the north- ern half of this project. Due to poorly defined drainage pat- terns, it is probable that large amounts of storm water emanating from tributaries north ot Temecula Creek and ~rom far to the east may sheet west, generally parallel to Temecula Creek, and across the site. Unless these storm flows are dealt with by upstream development in the watershed, the developer will have to con- struct drainage facilities to protect this project. Oneits storm runof~ is proposed to be conveyed via both streets and storm drains to Temecula Creek Channel. Several acres o~ oneits area at the southeastern tract boundary is proposed to be diverted to the neighboring development. The applicant (Thetam America Corp.) bee submitted documentation that the developer to east (Great American Development Co.) plans to accept this run- of~. & document sho~ing evidence o~ this agreement should be submitted to the District ~or review prior to recordation o~ the final map. The improvements to Temecula Creek are proposed as a part o~ Assessment District 159. The Districtes interest in the con- figuration o~ the main channel is limited to its adequacy as a flood protecticm fzcility. It should be noted that the present design does not allow for habitat mitigation within the channel, nor does it specifically provide for Joint use o~ the ~cility (e.g., equestrian or bicycle trails). A change in channel con- figurationor right o~ way width may require redssign o~ this proposal, Riverside County Planning Department Res Vesting Tract 23267 Amended No. 2 -2- October 18, 1988 The developer's Exhibit "B" proposes to collect storm flows from the 800 acre canyon at De Port. Is Road and convey them to Temecula Creek in a trapezoidal channel. Two collection dikes are proposed on the east side of Margarita Road to capture storm flo~s traveling parallel to Temecula Creek. These flows would combine with the northern stream Just north of Highway 79. Following are the Dlstrtct's recommendationss Temecula Creek Channel should be constructed throught this tract as shown on the tentative map. e Both Temecula Creek Channel and the drainage facilities proposed to convey storm flows from the north and east shouldbe built to District standards. Some of these facilities are proposed to be constructed by Assessment District 159. If these have not been installed by the time grading permits ere requested, it will be necessary for this tract to construct drainage structures necessary to protect it from tributary 100-year storm flows. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be sub- mitted to the District and County for review and approval prior to recordarSon of the final map. A portion of the proposed project is in a flood plain and may affect 'waters of the United States", "wetlands" or 'Jurisdictional streambeds', therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and Related Regulations (44 CFR, Parts 59 through 73) and County Ordinance No. 458~ ae Aftsod study consisting of HEC-2 calculations, cross sections, maps and other data should be prepared to the satisfaction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the District for the purpose of revising the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map of the project site. The submittal of the study should be concurrent with the initial submittal of the related project improvement plans and final District approval will not be given until a Conditional Latter of Pap Revision (CLOHR} has been received from FEMA. A coW of appropriate correspondence and necessary permits from those government agencies from which a.Wroval is required by Federal or State law (such as Cnrpe of Engineers 404 ermit or Department of Fish and Game 1603 egreement~ should be provided to the District prior to the final District approval of the project. 'Riverside County Planning Department Roe Vesting Tract 23267 Amended No. 2 -3- October 18, 1988 e Oneits drainage ~cilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, 'Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions'. Offsite drainage ~cilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be recorded end a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage ~cllities should be ~nstalled. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergenc~ escape should also be provided. The property*s street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property c~ners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review. prior to the racordation of the final map, Development of this property should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that ~tsrcourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not diverted ~ros one watershed to another, This may require the construction o~ temporary drainage ~acilities or offsite construction and grading. & copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydralogic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Riverside County Planning Department Ret Vesting Tract 23267 Amended He, 2 October 18, 1988 Oues~ion, concerning this matter may be referred to Bob Cullen of this office at 714/787-2333, co, RANPAC BCsbab Very truly yours, t (~t~) 34z.sns t-t-88 ItS: PLANlaG DEPAR1XENT TIAC3' 23267 - ,AHXNDED 12 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, tim Fire Department recessends the followinK fire protection measures be provided in accordance vith Riverside County Ordinances end/or laceSnixed fire protection sr~ndszdsz FIRE PROTECTION Schedule w&w fire protection epprovad standard fire hydrants, (6wx&ex2|") located sue at rich street intersection end spaced us more then 330 feet ·pert in any directfoe, vith us portion of any lot frontale more then 165 feet from · hydrant, PLanimam fire flow shall be iS00 GPN for Z hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant;developer shall furnish one copy of the eater eyeten plane to the Fire Department for review. Plane shall conform to fire hydrant types, location end opecinK, end, the eyetee sHELl meet the fire floe requirements. Plane shall be eilned/sppraved by m registered civil engineer and the local eater companyr LOb the foliovinE certification: "l certify that the design of the eater eyeten le tn accordance with the requiremute prescribed by the liverside County Fire Department? 3~se requireduser ryeten, imcludiug fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior Co any combustible buildInS material beLnt placed on mimlLvidual lot, Prior to the recordatiou of the final up, the applicant/developer shall provide alternate or secondeL7 access Re appravsd by the County bad Department. tlITIGATIO!I Prior to the recordalLen of the final map, the developer shall deposit vith the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $&00.00 per lot/unit es militarism for fire protect/on impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/the my enter into 8 vr/tten stressant vith the County deferrent said payment to the timnor issuance of m building permLt. ~ Page A11 question regarding the meaning of. conditions ahalX be referred to the Planning and Engineering gruff, Bit)tONI) g, REGIS Chief Fire Departsent lianner By George S, Tares, PXanuin8 Officer :IiVE:I iD COUnC,u 'PLAnninG DEP :ICI11ERC October ]2, 1988 Htghland Sotls Engineering 183Z $, Comercenter Ctrcleo Suite A ..~~ Sin kraardtno, CA 92408 . Attention: fir. Robert C. Kannlng a~ '~~' Nr. ~farren L. Sherllng · Rr. Ifilllam T. Altaeyer SUBJECT: Alqutst-Prtolo/Ltquef Job No.: 07-6556-0t0-00-00 Vesttrig Tract 23267 County Geologtc Report N0.488 APN:926-016-002,003,010,011,012,013 Rancho California Area Canal,e-e: Ve have rawhad your report entitled *Fault Hazard and Preliminary GeotecMtcal Znvesttgatton, 242s Acres, Southwest of the Intersectton of Pargartta Road and State Htghway 79, Rlncho California, RIverside County, Your r~port determined that: Exploretot7 fault trenches 3,3 end 4 exposed fault offsets associated vith the active ~ffldomar fault. The localton of thts fault ts shmm on Plate IX, Geotechntcal Nap of your report. Z. l'ae setsmtc data for the Elstnore (bftldomr fault) Fault Zone located · ca stte ts as lollors: RaxfuProbable Earthquake -7.0 (lickterRagnltude) Peak ireend Acceleration - 0.63g DurattoaofStrong Notion - 30 seconds The settleeat otenttal under setsmtc loadtrig for the on-site and Ixslrockmterla~s tS moderate to ver~ 1or, respecthely. 11w potential for liquefaction ts considered high tn the larger drainage courses within Paube end ~folf Valleys on the site, LIquefaction my occur tn the fore of differential settlement, sand letls, and lateral spreading. 41280 LEMON 5111~ET. P FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CAUFORIGA 92501 (71q 782'~181 46-209 OASIS STkEET, ROOM INDIO CALIFORNIA (619) 342-P,~ · Htghland Soils Engineering -: - October X2, 2988 5. A alnor landslide area my be located at the central portton of the stte, shown on Plato IA, Geotechntcal Kip. 6. The allaytel soils generally are considered to have a low expansion · potential. The siltstones vtthtn the Pauba formtton on stts can be moderately to highly expansive. e The fine grained allaytel sotls tn the m~or dratnage courses'are generally compressthis In the upper five feet. The current area dealgeared as the ]00-year floodplain for ~emecula Creek exceeds the seismic-Induced flood 1nundalton area;that would result during Instantaneous fatlure of Skinner or Vail Reservoirs. Only the lowest area of Pluba Valle~ would be affected. Ground fissure development Is considered a significant hazard w4thtn the southuest portton of the stte, due to the presence of acttwo faulttng tn thts area. Your report recamended that: 1. A 50 foot setback zone from both stdes of the ttldomr Fault Zone ts required for human occupanCy structures. This setback ts designated on · Plate IA, Geotochfncal flap. 2. The folloming vtll mttfgats the liquefaction potential on thts stte: a. A cmF4cted ftll mat along wttha gravel blanket and additional foottng reinforcement should be used for structures. b. Structural setbacks free tops of ftll slopes toetng tnto liquefaction prone areas should be used. c. Letoral spreading hazards along Pauba Creak are mttt ated by the placemet of Lom Ltnds Drive and the 100 foot ~lde lutldlng Setback area. Thts affects Lots 490-503 d. Cradle aloe Tamscala Creek vtll Involve the placement of upwards of ]5 Feet ~ coopacted ftll over the 8-10 feet of recoanended allude1 rmovals, tn order to nearlJr eliminate the potential for earl 824; either the building setback should be Increased to tYIce the .slope botght or post-tensloned stabs and additional foundslion relafercment for lots , . Allerie1 soils sbould be overexcavated tn the lar r oxtsttn dretnage end cueyon erase to a minimum depth of S feet. ~A~re feastbTo total rmoval of loose allaytel sotls to bedrock ts recoanended. As an alternative, settlement monumnts and monitoring my be used tn the am itth thtck ellavine. · HIghland Soils [ntngeertng - 3- October ~2, xg88 4. Additional Investigation of the posstble landslide located it the central portton of the stte ts recomended prtor to stto grading. The SO foot huron occupancy setback to the northeast and the property bounds to the southvest of the located active fault wtll mitigate the portenttel hazard of ground fissure development on the stte. ttts our optutah that the report via prepared tne competent manner consistent rith the present 'state-of-the-art* and satisfies the requirerants of the A1 utst-Prlolo Spaeta1 Studies Zones Act, the associated RIverside County O:~tnence No. 547, and Iddtttonal InformClan required under the Callfo~nll Envtrunmental Quality Act raYtoy. FInal approval of thts report ts hereby given. Me Tecommend that the folioring conditions be satisfied before recordatlon of the final parcel map or County pemlts associated wtth thts project: The *Fault Hazard Zone* shwn on Plate IA, (Geotechntcal Hap) tn your report shall be delineated on the Environmental Constraints Sheet ([.C.S.), and the area tn between the setback 1tries shill be labeled "Fault Hazard Area." 2. A note shall be placed on the E.C.S. stating: · Thts property ts affected by earthquake faultlng. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed tn the Fault Hazard Area. This constraint affects parcels 490 through 504, 602 and 603." 3. Notes shall be placed on the final 1ned division map stating: (a) *County Geologtc Report No. 488 was prepired for this property on February 3, lg88, and ts on ftle at the RIverside County Planntng De rtaent. Spectftc Item Of concern tn this report are is fo~lovs: acttve earthquake faulting, liquefaction, ground fissures, landsliding, seismic Induced flooding, and uncoepacted trench backIll1." (b) 'This property ls affected by earthquake faulttn . Structures for humnoccupancy shall not be ellared tn the ~lult Hazard Are. The constraint affects purcell 490 through 504, 602 and file u sham on the accOepinylng Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of vhlch Is en file at the office of the RIverside County SurveTor. A copy oft he final asp and Environmental Constraints Sheet shall be submitted to the P1anntng Oepartmnt Engineering Geologist for raytoy and appront. HIghland Soils [etagearing October 32, ]g88 The exploratory trenches ere backfilled, but not compacted, and shill be compacted under the direction of the project geotechntcll engtneer tf an7 structures are contea;lured for construction over any porttons of these trenches. Very tru1~ ~ours, SAK:al c.c. Ranpat - Dave DI11H GONG - FJrl Hart Building & Safety - Norm Lostboa (2) Greg Nee1 - Team I RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT Roger S. $treeter - Pl nfng Dt ector e En 1neering 6eo CE~1205 !ZECglVEDNOV 8 1989 iVE : iDE COUh PLAnninG DEP CP--.r November 2,Zg8g Geo Soils, Inc. 575% Palmar Way, Suite O Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Robert G. Crtsman Paul L. HcClay Ttmothy E. Hetcalfe SUBJECT: Alqutst-Prtolo Spectal Studies Zone ~. O. gg4-SD Tentative Tract 23267 APN: 926-016'002,003,010,011,012,013 County Geologtc Report No. 488 (update) Rancho California Area Gen tl emen: ~le have revtewed your report entttled "Fault Xnvestt atton, Tract 23267, Old Vat1 Ranch, RIverside County, CA,' dated August 24, ~g8g. Your report determined that: 1. The Wtldomar fault, as previously 1denttiled by Htghland Sotls Engineering, Is not present on the project stte. The fault contacts Indicated by Htghland Sotls Engineering are actua11~ erostonal/strattgraphtc contacts produced by deposition of recent a11uvtum or colluvtum agatnst bedrock of the Pauba fomatton along the margtn of the Wolf Valley a11uvtal platn. 3. There ts a lack of geomorphtc expression characteristics of faulttng on the stte. Based on aertaT photographs, the active trace of the Mlldomar fault, northwest of Pauba Valley, appears to bend eastward tn Pauba Valley and dte out east of the project stte. Your report recommended that there ts no .need to place any fault related setback or restriction in the study area, 4080 LEMON STREET. 9T" FLOOR 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOu ~I? ~- iik;fieP~/=4A,, l{,tqlOfklll41l 0') ~" Geo Soils, Znc.' November 2, 1989 [t ts our opinton that the report was prepared tne competent manner consistent with the present "state-of-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of the Alqutst-Prfolo Spectal Studtes Zones Act and the associated Riverside County Ordinance No. 547. Final approval of this report ts hereby given. We recommend that the following condition be satisfied before tssuance of any County pemtts associated with this project: Uncompacted exploratory trench backfill shall be addressed by the ProJect Geotechntcal Engineer prior to issuance of project grading permits, [t should be noted that County Geologic Report No, 488 entitled "Fault Hazard and Preltmfnary Geotechntcal [nvesttgatton, 242~ acres, Southwest of the t~u y t e a 1988 was previously prepared for thqs property, Your report now supercedes only the fault setback aspects of that report, Very truly yours, ng Dtrec.~or I ,,~o /.! CEG-1205 SAK:rd c,c, Crosbyv Head, Benton & Assoc, - Engineer CDRG - Earl Hart Butldtng& Safety - Norm Lostben (2) Planning Team 1, Klm Johnson ;~ ~) /~ ,NTIII-DIIIAIITMINTAL LeTTeR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE October 7, 1988 Greg Nee1, P1an~ Department George hlterta, Chief Park Planner SUBJECT: 1723267,23299 01d Vat1 Ranch, [iR 281 The County Parks Department has revtewed the above referenced document and offers the following recommendations. Parks and Recreation Our department supports the extension of a ragtone1 open space/natural green belt aloq the Temecula Creek. This ts consistent with other specific plans and development along this creek. Our department will require an offer of dedication of this area be made to the Parks Department on the final tract naps. (Regional Park 'Am.) Ragtonal Park 'l' ts actually a local park and ts located in a strategic f position to serve as a canunity park. it does not qualt y as a regional park area due to its ltmited stze; however, the htstorlc adobe contained within this area can be successfully preserved wttha comaunity park setting and Interpreted. Overall, the parks contained vtthtn this development show a lack of large sports ftelds capable of accomodattng organized sports activities and thts my need to be examined. Community and neighborhood parks should be developed to the satisfaction of the ]ocal county service area (CSA). Recreation Tratls /eglonal Park "A' along the Teemcalm Creek correctly Identified the need for a rlmr7 equestrian tratl as shove. The trail localton and develolaent should As Indicated, on the attached exhtbtt No. 1., · Class ! btc~cle lane needs to be provided for along the Tamecalm Creek. Thts should be developed to count~ t standards and have connect ng access to local street Class ZZ btcycle lanes. fir. Grog Nesl, Planntng Oepartaent Page On the attached exhibit No. 1, provision for access to the Teamcalm Creek bjr a secondary riding and hiking trail must be Incorporated Into the project. This vtll utilize the proposed reinforced concrete box culvert under State HIghway 7g and provide access to the trills In the creek for residents to the north of this project. This access/secondirjr fret1 should be developed to a mtntma width 12 feet and to countJr standards. clearance. (See attached alelair.) accessl and minimum overhead Cultural/HIstoric Resources ';me proposed site of the Old Vail Ranch project ts in en extremly sensitive area for cultural resources. in the thorough cultural resources Issessaent he prepared, archaeologist Christopher Drover discusses the hlstortc tvo-storJr adobe Vat1 Ranch House and a large Lutseno indian archaeological stte. The Parks Department's Htstorjr Otvtston commends Ranpic Engineering Corporation for Its sensitive consideration of these cultural resources tn the EIR. We concur vtth the reposed mitigatIOn measures of recovering arttracts from the archaeological sr~es and making these available to the publlc tn an Interpretlye center, and preserving the Vii1 Ranch House through t rehabilitation and adapttun reuse. A 11brarjr, conaunt Jr center, am11 museum or restaurant vould I11 be appro~y'tete uses for the house, as vould be continued residential use tf proper mentalned. in iddttton to the mitigation measures mentioned tn the EXR, the Parks Department re;fists fUll-time monitoring by a quiltfled archaeologist durln the grading process. This ts essential due to the extreme likelihood o~ unknovn archaeological resources existing on the site. If any hisforte resources suffice, DIana Selder, HIstory DIvision Director, should be notified at (714)787-2S51. Shnuld you have questions regarding parks, recreation, or trail miters, please contact Be or Hirc Brewer of this department. 68110186 C: Paul Roeere, DIrector, Parks Department ha Ford, Deputy Director, Parks Department Diana hidere Htstory Dfvtston DIrector, Parks Department 14arc Irenr, Assistant PTanner, Parks Department L TOs iVE MDE COurlcu PL ' AllrlirlG DEPA CI11ErI ABleliar Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dud· goad Department Health - Ralph Lu~he rite Protection Flood Centrex District rich & Glue LAYCO, g Paisley U.S. Postal Service -Ruth E. Davidson Ran~o Caltf. Water Eastern Nuntctpal Water Southern Caltf. Edison Souther~ Callf, Gas General TelepJone Dept. of Transportation 18 Tamecola Elem~ Elstnore Union High $chool Tamecola Chamber of Comeroe Hi. Palemar Sterra Club Val layWide Parks County Aviation CemJssloner Sresson RIVE.RSID'--- C,": ;t~'Y pLANNING DE/'A.=.'. :,: --'.NT VZSTXNG TRACT 23261 - (to-t) - E.A. 3256k -ThotemAmartcau CaRp. - Rancho hcific - gauche CalifoRnia Area - rarer SupervisorlaX District - South of Rllhvay 79 and Vest of FArSatiRe Road - I-a Ze,o - Schedule A - 193,7 acres into 596 lot- - Concurrent Cases CZ 5150, rrl 23299 - Hod 120 - A.P, 926-160-010 to 013; C~ 926016-002-003 "~- County Parks Please review the case described abevet ·long vtth the attached case map. A Lend Division Committee mating has been tentatively scheduled for April 28, 1988. Zf it clears, it will then Is to public he·ring, Tour comments and racouaendattous are requested prior to April lit 1988 in order that ve may include then in the staff report for thin particular case. Should you have any questions relardinI thin lieu, please do not hesitate to contact Gcee hal at 787-1363 tleuner testinl Tract 23267.should be required to anna to an appropriate alencyvhichprovides park and recreation services, Annexation will mitigate lapacts of increased population to be served $~d fees (park development)s shall be used to acquire and develop · park site. D&TB$ 6"/6/88 SlURATOll C(~~~p,~er riBASK print name aud title SmsueX W. G al Nasatel, Valley-Wide Ree~eation an~ ,- 4080 LEMON STREET. 9~" FLOOR 48-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 0CT131988 RlVl:u jue:: :I;UUNTy %ANNING DEPARTMENT Oct~r 13, t988 Nr. Rtcherd NscHott, Supervising Planner River81cle County P1Mntng DepartJeent 4080 Lemon Street, 9~h Floor RIverside, CA 92601 SUBJECT: Veertrig Tentative Tract HaD Number 23267 Dear Hr. 14acHott: The following e~martzes our findings regarding the ftscal impact Malyst8 for the project identified above. The 8ppendtx attached eunemrtzes the basic assumptions used in the analysts. Pleue note that these results reflect the current levels of. Mrvtce provided by the County based on FlaGs1 Year 1988 - 1987 8cruel cost8 (per captt8 factors) end Oepartaental and Auditor-Controller review of operations and facility costs for servtces reviewed using case study elysis. Staff to t~e growth Fiscal Zmpact Task Force and Departsants are currently reviewing 8errice level8 provided end the need to tncrease the 1eYe18 of 8errice. Current' findings are that extettng levels of service are not adequat4 tn~oet came. Should the desired level of service be u~tltzed in ~he ftacal analyst8 performed, it would 8tgntftcantly 1norsue the cost,8 aesoctatad with ~ht8 development. COUNTY FUND (Operations end 14atntanance) FZ8CAL ZHPACT AFTER BUILDOUT CUNULATZVE FZaCAL ZHPACT AT BUZLDOUT County Generll Firs Free Ltbrary ($69,811) (110,360) ($329) (s18,426) ($20,720) (less) BUBTOTALCCUNTY ($80,200) .. ($38,804) Road Fund $8,230 812,460 GRAND TOTAL (873,790) ($24,344) RobetT. Andem~ Admln~aeveCenter 4elILBI]Is111~rr · ]ZIHFLDCl · IIIWR~~t2501 · 17141 717-~14 The following special circumstance· ·PDIy to this Pro;leer: 1. The developer assumption· included · factor of 2.1 persons Der dwelltag unit. CAO st·if uttltzed· factor of 2.69 persons per household, whtch t8 closer ~0 the countywide everage for t. hta type of unit. 2. CAO staff hem revtewed 11br·ry comt8 wtth Llbrary personnel.end incorporated actual operation· and maintenance casts into the analysts. Using Ltbrery st·if estimate8 of the co·t8 of providing the current level of earvice, considering the increase tn Population, this project should result tn onrttm capital factltty costs of $Te,283 (library ·pace, volumes) end ongotng annual operation· end maintenance cost~ of $14,694. Ltbrery ·tiff ham Indicated t~at the current level of 8errIce te not 8dequ·~e. 3. Flood Control st·if has tndtceted t. het flood control facilities constructed within Zone 7 ·re unltkely ~0 be 8efficiently funded for maintenance c081~. Current estimates indicate ~h·t funding abort·gee should occur for the next ten years. Suggested mitigation measures Include 8 cash deposit by the project developer or use of an assessment mechanism. The emoun~ of daDomit would be determined by · present value an·lye18 and DroJect ttmtng. The cost of maintaining flood control facilities not be known until final design Dheeee, when facility have been fully identified. Flood Control 8~eff therefore, condition proJect approve18 ~0 identify · of financing facility maintenance and 'operation necessary) prior to recorderton of subdivision·. will needs NIl1, ms·el (if bed on l~e analysts and assuming that the ·vetage 881e8 price of the unite will be $142,666, overall Vesting Tentative Trac~ 23267 will have · negative fiscal impact at buildout of 124,344. After buildout, tht8 project will have 8n annual nag·tire fiscal tBl~eCt tO the County of $73,970 at current levels of earvice. lnittal Review Review ApprovedBy: ATTACHMENT I I I ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 5150 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 which supersedes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 has 87 fewer residential units than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will involve minimal grading and therefore, is unlikely that any additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts regarding drainage and non- renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 1516~ of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and New Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Revised Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential units, the new project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. A: \VTM23267 30 CITY OF TEMECULA / \ VICINITY MAP ,~'~'V,,'Sr0 y.r.,,t CAG~ NO. yT-,..,r ~-~/ P.O. DATE 3- i~--~!1 ,/ CITY OF TEMECULA ~ S P ZONE CZ 5C6S ZONE MAP CITY OF TEMECULA F THE MEADOWS -' / I I I I I t SWAP MAP VA / 1 CASE NO. i E P,C, DATE ~'-/b ""~/~ i II t D HAWF SP'917 LU ' C', ,I"':../~ i, ,~, O.'-,..)"i-:: Z !" !- ' .... .I' I I' ~ 'i J ~ "'~ :' t' ? ,i '14.: FACSINILE COVER LETTER PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: NAME: DouZ Stevsrt LOCATION: City of Temecula ~ NUMBER: ]14/694-1999 FROM: Rslmond Casey cc: Victor DeCsstro, Riverside County Flood Control WE ARE TRANSMITTING A TOTAL 3 PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETTER. DATE -- 9-26-9 1 TIME: 4:00pm COMMENTS: D°u8 · Enclosed are the previous letters creatiq the moratorium Tracts 23267 and 23299 (26861) are currently under and drafts meant to bring that moratorium to an end. Plmase review for adequacy. l'hsnk you, Rayu~nd '-'Ciee~- IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL ~HE PAGES, PLEASE CALL BACK AS SOON AS PO$S I BLE. POR YOUR PUTUKE REFERENCE, OUR TELEPHONE NUNBER ONNIFAX 36D (619) 487-7307 September 26, 1991 Mr. David Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43180 Du~$ne~ ~a~k D~ve, ~uSte ZOO Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Tim Setlet, City Engineer Re: Vesting Tentative Tracts 23267 and 26861 (Old Vail Ranch) Dear Mr. Dixon: I am writing at the request the above referenced tracts. of the Presley Companies regarding At this time, we are prepared to issue clearance letters to allow the iiling of final subdivision maps [or the above described property, provided the lots within the existing flood plain are identified on the E.C.S. sheet of the final map as currently being unable to build on. In addition, we will be releasing grading permits for Tracts 23267-3, 4, and S shortly, to allow Presley to remove and re- compact the material immediately adjacent to the proposed Assessment District 159 (AD 159) Temecula Creek Channel improvements, as well as complete the Unit 4 fill. we will also be releasing grading permits for the placement of fill adjacent to the channel in 23267-3 and 23267-5 startiny forty-five days prior to the start of the AD 159 channel construction. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Very truly yours, Frank J. Peaits Chie~ of Planning Division September 26, 1991 Scott F. Field, Esq. City Attorney Burke, William and Sorerisen 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Hesa, CA 92626 RE: Vesting Tentative Tracts 23267 and 26861 (Old vail Ranch) Dear Mr. Field: Provided the City of Temecula is prepared to accept our filing of the final subdivision maps ~or those tracts within the flood plain (identi[ying those lots Mhlch Me are currently unable to build on, pending AD 159 improvements and subsequent FEMA processing); The Presley Companies hereby agree that the "development moratorium" described in your 11/19/90 letter, is litted for Tracts 23267 and 26861. Best Regards, PRESLEY OF SAN DIEOO Raymond A. Casey Pro~ect Manager co: Jerry Nordeman Nancy Harlan Bob Merrttt RAC/klv 16030 ~ ~cJ~ac~ J'u~ .eol· J"u.~ ~, ~3a,.~6, . (6~3j 46,-6'a00 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590 Ronald J, Parks Mayor Patrlcla H. Birdsall Mayor Pro Tem Karel R Llndemans Councilmember Peg Moore Councilmember J. Sal Mu~oz Councilmember David F. DIxon City Manager (714J 694-1989 FAX 17141 694-1999 September 30, 1991 Ray Casey Presley of San Diego 15090 Avenue of Science, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92128 RE: TRACT MAP NO. 23267 AND 26861 CLEARANCE AS TO PARK LAND DEDICATION AND/OR IN LIEU FEES. Dear Mr. Casey: TCSD Staff has reviewed the conditions as set forth in the County of Riverside/City of Temecula Conditions of Approval and recommend that the City Council APPROVE Tract No. 23267 and 26861 subject to the developer or his assignee entering into an agreement with the Temecula Community Services District to conform to the following: Neighborhood Park "A" which consists of a One acre park located within Sub Tract No. 23267-4 shall be'developed to TCSD standards and the attached conceptual design prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit. e Neighborhood Park "B" located within Sub Tract No. 23267-2 consists of an approximate 2.9 acre reservoir which the developer has agreed to drain and level to be contiguous with the remaining 6.3 acres of proposed park land to meet his current Quimby Requirement and to allow for a total land dedication within this tract of approximately 9.2 acres. The total 9.2 acres shall be developed to TCSD standards and the attached conceptual design prior to issuance of the 50th building permit for Tracts No. 23267-1,2, and 3. To date, all known interior slope areas are hereby conditioned to be maintained by an established Home Owners Association (HOA). Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards an completion of the application process. Should you have further questions my telephone number is (714) 694- 6480. Applicant or his assignee agrees to the aforementioned conditions as signified below. Applicant Date Yours truly, CITY FK~~~A ent Services Administrator f Z CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT REVISED VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 23267-1 DATE May 7, 1991 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS Streets and Drainage 906,000.00 ~ 453,000.00 Water ~02,500.00 8 51,500.00 Sewer 111,000.00 ~ 55,500.00 TOTAL 1,119,500.00 ~ 560,000.00 *Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) *(or Bonds if work is completed) $ 112,000.00 Monument Security City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFC Drainage Fee Due Signalization Mitigation Fee- SMD # Road and Bridge Benefit Fee Other Developer Fees 19,470.00 -0- 31,401.80 8,400.00 -0- -0- Plan Check Fee Due Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee Fee Paid To Date (Credit) Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due 42,418.75 37,433.75 632.78 80,485.28 -0- STAFFRPT\23267-1A. FTM ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL c Ty ATTOm ,¥ FINANCE OFFI(~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ~y_~ment of Public Works October 22, 1991 Final Parcel Map No. 21769 PREPARED BY: Kris Winchak RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council APPROVE Final Parcel Map No. 21769 subject to the Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Parcel Map No. 21769 is a 3 lot subdivision of 91.2 acres located on Rainbow Canyon Road immediately south of the Temecula Inn Golf Course. The site is currently vacant and zoned R-R, Rural Residential, and R-2, Multiple Family Dwellings. The applicant is Industrial Commercial Properties. Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 was approved by the Riverside County Planning Director on August. 21, 1987. The County Board of Supervisors approved the First Time Extension for Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 on October 12, 1989. This action extended the map through August 21, 1990. A revision to Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 was submitted in February, 1988 and subsequently approved by the County Planning Commission on March 12, 1990. Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 was transferred to the City of Temecula in April, 1990. On April 20, 1990, J. C. Resorts filed an appeal (Appeal No. 2) in protest of the County's tentative approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769. As such, the Temecula City Council at its meeting of June 26, 1990, continued the project off calendar and directed staff to review the matter further. As a result, a second request for extension of time was filed. The Revised Parcel Map and the second time extension were approved by the Temecula City Council on July 2, 1991. However, the second extension of time was due to expire on August 21, 1991. Thus, a third request for extension of time was filed (July 22, 1991) with the City Planning Department. This map is being processed in conjunction with the third request for extension of time. If the map records, the extension of time request will be dropped. ENG\PM21769.STF 1 According to the State Subdivision Map Act Sections 66463.5(b) and 66463.5(c): (b) "Once a timely filing is made, subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, approving, and recording, may lawfully occur after the date of expiration of the tentative map. Delivery to the county surveyor or city engineer shall be deemed a timely filing for purposes of this section." (C) "Prior to the expiration of an approved or conditionally approved tentative map, upon the application by the subdivider to extend that map, the map shall automatically be extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first." The following fees have been paid (or deferred) for Parcel Map No. 21769: * Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees $ 450.00 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Parcel Map No. 21769 subject to the Conditions of Approval. TN:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. e Development Checklist Fees and Securities Report Location Map Copy of Map Planning Department Staff Report dated May 20, 1991 Conditions of Approval ENG\PH2 1769. STF 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Parcel Map No. 21769 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Condition of Approval Condition No. 7 ( Planning Department) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility Traffic Signal Mitigation N/A Condition No. 2~ ( Engineering Department) Condition No. 19 Engineering Department ) Fire Mitigation N/A Flood Control (ADP) Condition No. 12 ( County Planning ) Riverside Service Area (RSA) N/A ENG\PM21769.STF CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP NO. 21769 DATE: October 10, 1991 IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL &LABOR SECURITY SECURITY Streets and Drainage $ -0- $ -O- Water $ -0- $ '0- Sewer $ -0- $ '0- TOTAL $ -0- $ -0- *Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) *(or Bonds if work is completed) $ -0- Monument Security City Traffic Signin9 and Striping Costs RCFC Drainage Fee Due Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD # Road and Bridge Benefit Fee Other Developer Fees $ -0- $ -o- $ -o- $ 45o.oo $ -o- $ -o- Planning Fee Quimby Fee Comprehensive Transportation Plan Plan Check Fee Due Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee Fee Paid To Date (Credit) Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 57.00 -0- -0- 810.00 -0- 303.60 1,178.60 -0- ENG\ PH21769. ST F CITY OF '~'F;.:~ECULA t&~A RC \ II VICINIT':' ii6AP ,,~ CASE NO. P.C. DATE 57 2Z>/':'l I STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council RECEIVE AND FILE Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 based on the Findings contained in this report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Industrial Commercial Properties Industrial Commercial Properties To create 3 parcels 17.7 acres, 43.7 acres, and 30 acres in size on a 91.4 acre site. Rainbow Canyon Road immediately south of the Temecula Inn Golf Course. R-R R-2 ( Rural Residential ) and {Multiple Family Dwellings) North: South: East: West: R-R ( Rural Residential ) 2 to 8 Dwelling Units/Acre (SWAP) R-R ( Rural Residential ) R-R ( Rural Residential) Not requested. Vacant North: South: East: West: Golf Course Vacant Vacant Vacant A: PM21769-A 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: Size of Site: No. of Parcels: Size of Parcels: 91.4 acres 3 17.7 acres, 30acres, and 47.7 acres Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 was filed in May. 1986 concurrently with Plot Plan No. 9198, a proposal for 320 apartments on a 30 acre portion of Parcel Map No. 21769, and Change of Zone No. LI70L), a request to change the zone from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-2, Multiple Family Residential, on the same 30 acre portion. Change of Zone No 4704 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 1988, and Plot Plan No. 9198 was approved at the County Planning Director's hearing on July 10, 1987. A Substantial Conformance to Plot Plan No. 9198 was filed on November 4, 1988 and approved on January 31, 1989. Plot Plan No. 9198 expired on July 10, 1989 without the commencement of substantial work, and the project is now defunct. Parcel Map No. 21769, as originally submitted, was never approved. An amended Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 was submitted on February 6, 1987 in conjunction with Tentative Tract No. 22294, a 117 lot R-2 subdivision on Parcel No. ~ of the amended Tentative Parcel Map. On August 21, 1987, Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 was approved at the Planning Directorms hearing. Tentative Tract Map No. 22294 was not pursued, and a letter to City Staff dated October 31, 1990 confirms the withdrawal of the application. The County Board of Supervisors approved a First Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 on October 12, 1989. Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 was filed on February 5, 1988 and approved by the County Planning Commission on March 12, 1990. The application was subsequently forwarded to the City of Temecula for Council action as a Receive and File item. On April 20, 1990, J o C. Resorts, owner of the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course, filed Appeal No. 2 in protest of the Countyms tentative approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769. Issues raised by the appellant include inconsistency with area development, potential erosion and significant impacts to landform, major rock outcroppings and oak trees due to the design of an interior street, and lack of evidence to support the findings that there is a reasonable probability that the project will be A: PM21769-A 2 consistent with the future General Plan and that there is little probability of substantial detriment to or interference. with the future General Plan. Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769 and Appeal No. 2 were continued off calendar at the City Council hearing of June 26, 1990 to allow Staff additional time to review the project and analyze the appeal. On August 10, 1990, a Second Extension of Time request was filed in order to prevent the expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map. Subsequently, another issue arose regarding the excavation of soil on a portion of the site which was formerly used as a landfill. Ranpac Engineering Corporation, the former owner the property, had obtained landfill soil excavation permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District in 1989. In a letter dated June 12, 1990, the lead agency, the County Department of Health, and Solid Waste Management Local Enforcement Agency ( LEA ), concurred with Ranpac's intent to remove soil from the site pending submittal of an excavation plan. Excavation began prior to approval of an excavation plan and was halted. A letter dated October 26, 1990 from the LEA indicated that an excavation and disposal plan and a permit from the State Department of Health Services to treat soils with a high lead content were still needed. On November 29, 1990, the State Department of Health Services classified the 4,000 to 6,000 tons of lead contaminated soil on the site as non-hazardous to health due to mitigating chemical characteristics pursuant to Section 66305{e), Title 22, California Code of Regulations. On January 7, 1991 an excavation plan was submitted. The LEA letter of January 16, 1991, stated that the work plan could not be accepted until the County Environmental Health Services Hazardous Material Branch approved a removal, transport, and disposal plan. On January 24, 1991, the LEA approved a revised work plan. On February 25, 1991, the new owner, Industrial Commercial Properties (ICP) indicated that a complete development package would be submitted to be processed concurrently with the Parcel Map, and that a new street alignment for the site's internal circulation would be provided. ICP later decided to proceed with the Parcel Map prior to the development plans. I CP agreed that the Parcel Map would be strictly a land division for conveyance A:PM21769-A 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: purposes only, that the proposed interior street would be deleted from the Tentative Map, and that no grading or site improvements would occur prior to approval of development plans. The deletion of the proposed street resulted in a reduction in the number of proposed parcels from four to three. The proposal is to create three parcels on a 91.4 acre site. The parcel sizes are 17.7 acres, 43.7 acres, and 30 acres, respectively. The proposed Parcel Map is a land division for conveyance purposes only and does not involve any grading or construction of improvements. Relationship Between Parcel Map 21769, Extension of Time and Revised Parcel Map 21769 Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 was continued off calendar by the City Council and has been on hold for various reasons delineated in the Background Section of this report· The request for a Second Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 21769 Amended No. 3 was filed in order to prevent the expiration of the original approval which would also render the Revised Parcel Map defunct· The Extension request and the Revised Parcel Map will go to hearing concurrently. Revised Parcel Map No. 21769, if approved, will supersede Parcel Map No. 27169 Amended No. 3. Appeal No. 2 J. C. Resorts, the owner of the Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course filed Appeal No. 2 in protest of the County~s tentative approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769. The stated grounds of the Appeal are summarized below: The proposed Parcel Map is inconsistent with area development, especially regarding the design of Street "A" (Street "A" has been deleted from the Revised Parcel Map). The project, especially the design of Street "A", will have a significant effect on the environment. No evidence is provided to support the findings of probable consistency with the future General Plan. A: PM21769-A 4 Drainage and erosion control measures will alter the design and increase the grading impacts of Street "A'~. Increased grading impacts are not conducive to the preservation of an oak tree cited in the biological assessment, or to the preservation of major rock outcroppings or natural drainage courses, and will result in significant visual impacts and possible changes in parcel boundaries. The Tentative Map should show the elevation of existing streets (Rainbow Canyon Road). The Parcel Map does not show the extent of work being conditioned to realign Rainbow Canyon Road. Because of steep slopes and riparian habitat, Parcel 1 should be represented as an open space easement. Land Division For Conveyance Purposes Only Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 is being processed as a land division for conveyance purposes only. Street "A", which was shown on Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 as tentatively approved by the County. has been deleted, resulting in the consolidation of the two parcels formerly separated by Street "A" . It shall be a Condition of Approval of the Revised Parcel Map that no permits for grading, improvements, or any other disturbance of the site will be issued prior to approval of development plans for the site, i.e. , approval of a Plot Plan or a Conditional Use Permit. Issues To Be Addressed In Conjunction With Site Development Proposals In processing the proposed Parcel Map purely as a land division for conveyance purposes, Staff is not denying that there are significant potential issues which will arise in connection with site development· These issues can be clarified and addressed more thoroughly in the context of site development proposals which will include greater detail regarding street alignments, grading, drainage, etc. Staff will address the following concerns when site development proposals are submitted: A: PM21769-A 5 Suitability of site terrain for the proposed use. Grading impacts on natural drainage courses, large rock outcroppings, and oak trees. Adequacy of proposed drainage facilities and erosion control measures. Proposed street alignments, including intersections with Rainbow Canyon Road and sight line distances. Traffic impacts. Stability of man-made slopes. Compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent uses. Landfill Excavation and Closure The northerly portion of the site has been used as a domestic solid waste dump site. The dump site is no longer active and is subject to the closure requirements of the State, the County Local Enforcement Agency, and regional air and water quality agencies· Permits for excavation of the landfill site have been obtained, and the excavation has been conducted. Excavation procedures were monitored by the County Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency and the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Team. Excavated soil has been stockpiled on site in accordance with the approved work plan and soil samples have been taken. Soil test results will indicate whether the excavation is complete and whether the excavated soils may remain on the site or should be disposed in a Class 1 Landfill. The major concern is the lead content of the soil. It shall be a Condition of Approval for Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 that no permits for grading, site improvements, or construction shall be issued until the landfill excavation and closure procedures are complete and the County Environmental Health Services, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have issued clearances indicating that the work has been completed in a satisfactory manner A: PM21769-A 6 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: and the site no longer poses a threat to public health or the environment· The proposed parcels, ranging in size from 17.7 acres to 43.7 acres, are consistent with the applicable minimum lot sizes in the Residential 8-16 dwelling units per acre designation and the Rural Residential zone. A portion of the site is designated for commercial office uses. Ordinance 348 stipulates no minimum lot size in the Commercial Office zone. The County adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 32434 in conjunction with the approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769. The County adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the original approval of Parcel Map No. 21769. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the lots are of sufficient size to conform to the standards of any zone. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed Parcel Map is ultimately inconsistent with the Plan. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule H. The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant detrimental impact on the environment in that the map is a land division for conveyance purposes only and no permits for grading, improvements, or any development related disturbance to the site will be issued prior to the completion of landfill closure requirements and approval of site development plans. A: PM21769-A 7 10. 11. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. All lots have acceptable access to existing dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. The design of the subdivision is such that it is not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare· That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council RECEIVE AND FILE Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in this report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SW: ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. Revised parcel Map No. 21769 A: PM21769-A 8 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED PARCEL MAP NO. 21769 TO SUBDIVIDE A 91.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS AT RAINBOW CANYON ROAD IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF TEMECULA CREEK INN GOLF COURSE. WHEREAS, Ranpac Engineering filed Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on May 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approval of said Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. ( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. A: PM21769-A 9 b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. { 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. q60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. A: P~21769-A 10 b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings. to wit: a) The County adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the original approval of Parcel Map No. 21769. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time in that the lots are of sufficient size to conform to the standards of any zone. A: PM21769-A 11 c) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with. the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed Parcel Map is ultimately inconsistent with the Plan. d) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. ~60, Schedule E. e) The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant detrimental impact on the environment in that the map is a land division for conveyance purposes only and no permits for grading, improvements, or any development related disturbance to the site will be issued prior to the completion of landfill closure requirements and approval of site development plans. f) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. g) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. h) All lots have acceptable access to existing dedicated rights-of-way which are open to. and are useable by, vehicular traffic. i) The design of the subdivision is such that it is not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) That said findings are supported by minutes. maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. A: PM21769-A 12 SECTION 2_.:. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicated that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the County. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 for the subdivision of a 91.4 acre parcel into 3 parcels located at Rainbow Canyon Road immediately south of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A; PM21769-A 13 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised Parcel Map No: 21769 Project Description: To create 3 parcels on a 91.4 acre site. Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-230-005, 006 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule H, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. Revised Parcel Map No. 21769 will expi re four years after the original approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is August 21, 1991· Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. A: PM21769-A 14 10. 11. 12. 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required. and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence· All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Any oak trees removed with four (4) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one ( 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to issuance of permits for grading, construction, or improvements on the site. a work plan for the disposal of contaminated soils resulting from previous waste disposal operations conducted on the site shall be approved by the County solid Waste Management Local Enforcement Agency ( LEA ) and shall be implemented to completion and all required post-excavation clearance shall be obtained from LEA and the regional air and water quality agencies. No grading, construction or site improvements shall occur prior to approval of specific development plans for the site. A: PM21769-A 15 Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. These conditions shall either supplement or replace as noted all conditions of the original Tentative Map approval and subsequent amendments. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 15. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 16. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 17. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; Parks and Recreation Department. 18. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. 19. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. 20. A development agreement shall be executed for construction of the internal loop road as directed by the City Engineer. 21o Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. A: PM21769-A 16 22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on any parcel, a formal development plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for formal development review processing. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 23. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. A: PM21769-A 17 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL DATE: 3-12-90 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP NO 21769, Rev. 11, Amd. 12 Road Correction No. I The following conditions of approval are for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21769, Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2, Road Correction No. 1. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP NO. 21769, Rev. #1, Amd. #2, Road Correction #1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of RIverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully In the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully In the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule H unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved tentative parcel ma~p will expire two years after the Board of Supervisors approval date unless extended pr?vided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers· All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the County Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility access· All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor· Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel map boundary to a County maintained road. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordat·on of the final map. TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP NO. 21769, Rev, #1 Amd. 12, Road Correction I1 Conditions of Approval Page 2 Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety. 10. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement reconvnendations outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 4-96-96, 3-12-89, a copy of which is attached. (Amended at Director's Hearing on 3-12-90). 11. The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittel dated 6-27-89, a copy of which is attached. 12. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 6-29-89, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10;25 of Riverside County Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map. 13. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 6-22-89, a copy of which is attached. 14. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittel dated 8-4-89, a copy of which is attached. 15. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittel dated 8-3-89, a copy of which is attached. 16. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Geologist's transmittel dated 11-15-88, a copy of which is attached. GRADING: 17. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County Ordinance or resolution. 18. Grading plans shall conform to the Hillside Development Standards as presented in the Comprehensive General Plan. All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan, increased slope ratio (e.g. 3:1}, retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a 15~ grade. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21769, Rev. 11 Amd. 12, Road Correction I1 Conditions of Approval Page 3 19. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, conceptual landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department for approval. There landscaping plans shall provide large native trees, suitable for raptors use, along the perimeter of areas of land to be graded. These landscaping plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. (Amended at Director's Hearing on 3-12-90). 20. Prior to the issuance of a grading permits the location of the large live oak trees, identified in BIological Report No. 266, shall be accurately mapped, and a copy of the map submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department for review and filing. 21. The 11ve oak tree, identified tn Biological Report No. 266 shall be preserved. The grading plans for developing the project site shall be done with the consultation of a qualified BIologist and shall Include the location of the live oak. These grading plans shall provide for the preservation of the 11ve oak as 1denttried tn BIological Report No. 266, and, these grading plans shall be submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department for review and approval. DEVELOPHENT STANDARDS: 22. Prior to the Issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/ur permits from the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. 23. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report done by a qualified Biologist shall be submitted and approved by the Riverside County Planning Department. This report shall address the status of the oak tree which has been required to be preserved. 24. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-R and R-2 zone. 25. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. 26. Corner lots shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460. 27. Prior to recordation of the final map the land divider shall execute a certificate of noncontiguous ownership. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21769, Rev. #1 Amd. tl, Road Correction I1 Conditions of Approval Page 4 28. All major rock outcroppings on the subject property should be preserved. Removal is permissible only upon the approval of the Planning Director. PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 29. Prior to the recordat.on of the Final Map, the following conditions(s) shall be complied with: The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the recordat.on of the final map. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS: 29. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordat.on of the final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. "County Archaeological Report No. 1201 was prepared for this property in September 1986 by Hichael K. Lerch & Associates, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. " be "County Geological Report No. 508 was prepared for this property on August 28, 1986 and September 20, 1988 by HIghland Geotechnical Consultants, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Speclftc items of Interest are potentially active faults and seismic design structures." Ce '"County Biological Report No. 266 was prepared for this property in May 1988 by David C, Hawks N.A. and Is on file at the Riverside County Planntn9 Department. TENTATZVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21769, Rev. tl Amd. t2, Road Correction I1 Conditions of Approval Page 5 Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject property as of the date of recordat.on of the final map. 30. The location of the oak tree, identified in County Biological report No. 266 shall be shown on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the Riverside County Surveyor. These constraints affect all parcels." RW:bc 3/9/90 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Department of Building and Safety DATE: INITIAL: NEXT LDC: _~'__Please make the following a condition of approval: X_a. Prior to commencing any grading exceeding 50 cubic yards~ ' from the Department of Building and Safety Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Constructing a road, where greater than 5~ cubic yards material is placed or moved, requires a grading permit. o~ Prior to occupancy and/or beginning actual use of this permit, a grading permit and approval of the grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. Provide verification that the existing graSing permitted and approval to construct' was obtained from the Building and Safety. .. The Grading Section has no comment on this site. NOTE: 284-134 For the final grading plan - Please provide the applicable information from County Grading Forms 28~-86 28~-el ~ev. 3/89 COUNTY OF R I VERS I DE Department of Building and Safety I{!,~*'~-.*~c ,.- _~(.__Please make the following a condition of approval: PrioF to commencing any grading exceeding 50 cubic the owner of that property shall obtain a grading from the Department of Building and Safety yards, permit Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Constructing a road, where greater than 50 cubic yards of material is placed or moved, requires a grading permit. · e. Prior to occupancy and/or beginning actual use of this permit, a grading permit and approval of the grading shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. Provide verification that the existing grading was permitted and approval to construct was obtained from the Building and Safety. ___g. The Grading Section has no comment on this site. NOTE: For the final grading plan - Please provide the applicable information from County Grading Forms 284-86 284-21 284-46 284-120 284-134 Rev. 3/89 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Planning Department Attn: David James Ri m ex-side DATE, .l'~fiy '~, IQR6 Sam Martinez, R.S., Senior Sanitarian - Environmental Health Services Division Parcel Map No. 21769 The Environmental Health Services Division has reviewed the information in regards to the tentative parcel map and would require prior to recordation of the final map, a "will-serve" letter from the aq~..roprla e districts concerning sewer and water availability. g GIrN. FORM 4. 3/65 ., ~, __!_~ERSIDE August 4, 1989 Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Patti Nahill County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Parcel Map 21769, Revision #1, Amendment #2 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for .all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant to S ction 19.5 of Ordinance 348. Very truly yours, ._ ~ /sn RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF 6-22-89 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: TEAM I RE: PM 21769 - REVISED MAP #1 - AMENDED #2 Planning & Engineering Office 4080 Lemon Street, Suite 11 Riverside. CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION - LOTS 1, 2 & 3 No fire protection requirements. FIRE PROTECTION - LOT #4 Lot #4 (tentative tract no. 22294), fire protection requirements will be addressed when the tract map is reviewed. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. MICHAEL E. GRAY, Planning Officer amb KENNETH L. EDWARDS CHIEF ENGINEER 1915 MARKrr ITREET P. O. BOX 1033 TmrmEPHONE (714) 787-2015 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERglDE, CALIFORNIA g25OZ Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. Planner P,f~(.'/S/,~F~7/ Area: '~¢4,')l/">~ma (T¢hl on Re: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home Supports." This project is in the Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~les and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~av/hb~enpr°ject will be constructed i n accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. c c: ;2AAY PA C 'ery truly yours, .OHN. r Civil Engineer OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR LeRoy D. Smoot ROAD COMHISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR March 12, 1990 COUNTY ADMI~iISTRATIV[ CENTER HAILING ADDR. L~: P.O BOX 1090 RIVERSIDE. CAUFORNIA 92502 (71,4) 787-6554 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Tentative PM 21769-Revised #1-Amend #2 Road Correction #1 Schedule H - Team 1 - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvements, street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations, a~l existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. Sufficient right of way along Rainbow Canyon Road shall be dedicated for public use to provide for a 100 foot full width right of way. Sufficient right of way along "A" Street shall be dedicated for public use to provide for a 66 foot full width right of way. Tentative PM 21769 - Revised #1 - Amend #2 Road Correction #1 March 12, 1990 Page 2 4a. 10. 11. 12. Rainbow Canyon Road shall be offered for dedication to provide for a 100 foot full width right of way and shall be engineered to a 24 foot graded section centered on the ultimate centerline or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Those portions of existing Rainbow Canyon Road which fall outside the proposed 100 foot dedicated right of way shall be offered for dedication to encompass the existing paved travelled way, plus a 12 foot parkway or as approved by the Road Commissioner. "A" Street shall be offered for dedication to provide for a 66 foot full width right of way and shall be engineered to a 24 foot graded section centered on the ultimate centerline or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° or as approved by the Road Department. The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of Ordinance 461 or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. The landdivider shall install street name sign(s) in accordance with County Standard No. 816 prior to recordation of the final map as directed by the Road Commissioner. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall comply with Road Department standards and require approval by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing maintenance through the establishment of a landscape maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet Tentative PM 21769 - Revised #1 - Amend #2 Road Correction #1 March 12, 1990 Page 3 format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted with the street improvement plans and shall depict only such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are to be placed within the public road rights-of-way. 13. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said Section. Sincerely, Road Division Engineer LT:jw April 18, 1988 Z:.' Board of Directors: Richard D. Steffey President James A. Darby Sr. Vice President Ralph Daily Doug Kulberg Jon A. Lundin Jeffrey L. Minkler T. C. Rowe Officers: Stan T. Mills General Manager Phillip ~,. Forbes Director of Finance - Treasurer Norman L. Thomas Director of Engineering Thomas R. McAliester Director of Operations & Maintenance Barbara J. Reed Director of Administration - District Secretary Rutan and'Tucker Legal Counsel Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Parcel Map 21769 (Revised) Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights,. if any, to RCWD. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doherty Engineering Services Representative F012/jkm132 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT RiVg )iDE colJnc.u PLAnnin DEP RClilEnC November 15, 1988 Highland Soils Engineering 1832 S. Commercenter Circle, Suite A San Bernardino, California g2408 Attention: Mr. William R. Altmeyer Mr. Warren L. Sherltng SUBJECT: Geotechntcal Report Review Job No. 40084-00 Parcel Map No. 21769 (Revised) County Geologic Report No. 508 Rainbow Canyon Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed the geologic, seismic and slope stability aspects of your report entitled 'Preliminary Geotechntcal Investigation, Rainbow Canyon Heights, Rainbow Canyon Road, Riverside County, CA," dated August 28, lg86, and your 'Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rainbow Canyon Heights, Tentative Parcel Nap No. 21769, Riverside County, Ca,' dated September 20, 1988. Your report determined that: No evidence of recency of faulting was observed along the Wtllard fault which passes through the site. A fault shear zone, representing the main trace of the Wtllard fault, trends northwest and is exposed in the borrow site on the property. A Magnitude 7.0 earthquake occurring on the Elstnore Fault Zone in close proximity to the site could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.71g at the stte, with the duration of strong ground motion exceeding 30 seconds. 3. The settlement potential under seismic loadtng conditions for the on-site materials is low. 4. The potential for liquefaction at the stte is considered low. 5. Cracking of ground at the site due to shaking fro8 seismic events is not considered a significant hazard and would have a minor impact on the proposed development. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 Htghland Sotls Engineering November 15, 1988 Page 2 The natural slopes on the stte are considered relatively stable. The predominant Jotnttng pattern strtkes northwest across the stte, and dips to the northeast at moderate to high angles wtth no out-of-slope components noted. But cut and ft11 slopes .ere found to have factors of safety tn excess of 1.5 stattc and ].% setsmtc and should be grossly stable tn the planned conflgurat~ons, 8. Eroston of the on-site sandy sotls and bedrock should be a significant concern. 9. DIfficult rtpptng and some blasting wtll be requtred for cuts tn excess of 20 feet. Your report recmnded that: Butldtng lots'astride the Wtllard Fault Zone eust be over-excavated a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the outer edge of exterior footings and to a depth of at least 3 feet when lots are cut, or ftll of less than 2 feet. For proposed structures lytng tn the Wtllard Fault Zone, all continuous footings should be tied together with a t4 reinforcement bar placed both top and bottom, All cut slopes should have drainage benches at approximately 60 foot vertical Intervals. Slopes over gO feet tn height should have a %2 foot wtde bench at approxteately aid-height. All exposed cut slopes should be observed by the project Engineering Geologist durtng gradtng. 4. All slopes should be planted wtth eroston resistant vegetation or otherwise protected as soon Is practical after gradtrig. 8utldtng located adjacent to the top or toe of a slope should be set back one half the hetght of the slope wtth a mtntmum setback of 5 feet to a emxteum of %5 feet. 6. The~e should be a complete overcavatfon of loose/low strength natural soils, existing ftll soils, and trash. 7. Subdrainage beneath any canyon ftlls ts recoamended, subject to verification durtng grading by an engineering geologist. Zt ts our optnfon that the report was prepared tn a competent manner and satisfies the additional Information requested under the California Environmental Quality Act review and the RIverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Highland Soils Engineering November ]S, t988 Page 3 Me reconmend that the following note be placed on the final map prior to its recordation: "County Geologic Report No. 508 was prepared for this property on August 28, 1986 and September 20, 1988 by Highland Geotechntcal Consultants, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Oepartment. Specific item of interest are potentially active faults and seismic design of structures". The recommendations made in your report concerning seismic/geologic hazards shall be adhered to in the destgn and construction of this project. Ver~ truly yours, RZVERSZOE COUNTY PLANNZN] DEPARTM NT Roger S. Streeter - Plan~tng Otre tot Steven ~'. Kupferma SAK:rd c.c. Ranpac Engineering - Dave Jamas Butldtng& Safety - Norm Lostbom (2) Team Z - Greg Neal #20/B/eg General Mana~,er D. James LauShlin Ch#e/ Engtneer and Deputy Gene, r~l Manager James H. Bunu~ Jr. Lq, al Co~ase/ Redwine and Shernll Director o/The .~,!firoFelim~ w~er DUma o/Somherw Cdi/orma Do.vie F Boen April 14, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department r. 4080 Lemon Street, gth Floor Riverside, California Boerd o/Direc~or~ John M. Coudures. Pres:dem RNzhlrd C. Kelley. Vice Presmdem Win. G. Akindie Chesm' C. Gilbert RodFf D. Siems Secrea~, Loumse C. Koeters T.,'e~ufer Rolen M. Cox SUBJECT: TENTATIVE P.N. 21769 The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project(s) relative to the provision of water and sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: X Is not within EMWD's: water service area sewer service area Must be annexed to this District's Improvement District No. in order to be eligible to receive domestic water/sanitary sewer service. X Will be required to construct the following facilities: a. ) Water Service b.} Sewer Service Onsite/offsite regionally sized gravity sewers and participate in regional sewer facilities. No sewers allowed now or future along lot lines. Sewer (existing) within 1320'. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PALOk. tAR OBSERVATORY lo5-24 This case is within 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory and is therefore within the zone requiring the use of low-pressure sodium vapor lamps for street lighting, as stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. We request that the design for other types of outdoor lighting that may be employed on this property be made consistent with the spirit of the decision of the Board of Supervisors which is intended to mitigate the adverse effects such facilities have on £he astronomical research at Palomar. Beneficial steps to that end include: 1. Use the minimum amount of light needed for the task. 2. Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial applications, the associated business is open past that time, in which case the lights should be turned off at closing. Use low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other similar applications. These lights need not be turned off ~t 11:00 p.m. For further information, call (818) 356-4035. Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 91125 TELEPHONE (818) 350-.~033 TEL[X 675425 CALTECH PSD ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY~~/~ FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works October 22, 1991 CITY/STATE ELECTRICAL AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Resolution 91 - approving the attached Agreement between the State of California (Caltrans) and the City of Temecula for the purpose of defining cost sharing of maintenance and electrical energy for traffic signals and roadway safety lighting along state-maintained highways in the City of Temecula. BACKGROUND: This Agreement, between the City of Temecula and the State of California (Caltrans), is for the purpose of defining cost-sharing responsibilities with regards to maintenance of traffic signals and roadway safety lighting along I-15, State Route 79 South, and Winchester Road. This Agreement applies only to billing procedures on existing systems (or soon to be constructed systems) and does not apply to construction costs for a new or revised signal and lighting installations. Under this Agreement, Caltrans is typically responsible for the ownership and operation of the signal and lighting system, including call-outs in the event of a power outage. However, utility companies would be requested to bill the City directly for 100% of the energy costs associated with routine operation of the system. Conversely, Caltrans would not bill the City for any cost associated with the maintenance of the system or any overhead assessment. The traffic signal at Margarita Meadows and Winchester Road (Costco) is an exception to the general rule stated above. Because this signal has been expedited through the Caltrans process by Assessment District 161, Caltrans has requested that the City agree to pay for maintenance costs of this signal until the s;gnal Cooperative Agreement is finalized. Staff fully expects that this Cooperative Agreement will be executed prior to the signal being -1- pwOl~qdrpt\lO22\elect.sllt 101591 energized, at which time the City and Caltrans Staff would recommend that the costs be shared by the agencies, as stated above. Under this Agreement, the costs for the signals on the Winchester Bridge are being fully absorbed by Caltrans since all legs of the intersection are under Caltrans' control. As additional signals along State right-of-way are installed in the City, this Agreement will be updated and brought back to the City Council for approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Energy costs for operating a typical traffic signal and safety lighting installation are in the range of $250.00 to $300.00 per month. Maintenance costs vary from site to site, but on the average, are comparable to or higher than the energy costs for system, especially if defective cabinet hardware is encountered or a stray motorists removes a traffic standard with a motor vehicle. -2- pwOl\~drpt\lO22\dect.a~t 101591 RESOLUTION NO. 91- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT REVISING THE EXISTING BILLING SYSTEM FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA WHEREAS, the State of California, through its Department of Transportation has presented an Agreement for revising the existing billing system for signal and lighting in the City of Temecula effective as of November 1, 1991 and to remain in effect until amended or terminated. WHEREAS, the City Council has read said Agreement in full and is familiar with the contents thereof: THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Temecula that said Agreement for revising the billing system for signal and lighting systems in the City is hereby approved and the Mayor and the City Clerk are directed to sign the same on behalf of said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991. ATFEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 216 08-RIV-79-15 ELECTRICAL AGRMT 08605-5T2000 TEMECULA THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON , is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and CITY OF TEMECULA a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as CITY. RECITALS STATE and CITY contemplate changing the existing system of billing for the maintenance and power costs attendant to the existing signal and lighting systems at all locations identified on Exhibit "A" which by this reference is made a part of this Agreement, all locations being within the CITY. SECTION I STATE AGREES: To control, maintain, and operate the above said signal and lighting systems and to absorb all costs attendant thereto, with the exception of the electrical costs. SECTION II CITY AGREES: To notify the Electrical Public Utility Company which provides the electrical power to operate the above said signal and lighting systems that all billings are to be sent to CITY. CITY further agrees to pay 100% of such charges directly to the Public Utility Company. (See Paragraph 6, Section III.) SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) This Agreement shall supersede all previous agreements and/or amendments pertaining to billing procedures for maintenance and power charges at the above said locations. (2) The intent of the Agreement is to eliminate the flow of paper work between CITY and STATE and to effect a reduction in administrative overhead for each entity. (3) Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this contract (or affect the legal liability of either party to the contract) by imposing any standard of care respecting the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. (4) It is understood and agreed that neither STATE nor an officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or. liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to the CITY under this Agreement for maintenance. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless the State of California, all officers, and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by the CITY under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to the CITY under this Agreement. (5) It is understood and agreed that neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the STATE under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to the STATE under this Agreement for maintenance. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless the CITY, all officers, and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought for or on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from anything done or omitted to be done by the STATE under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to the STATE under this Agreement. (6) It is understood that certain intersections will be shared with the County of Riverside. The CITY and the County shall reach a separate agreement for sharing the electrical costs at those locations. (7) The effective date of this Agreement shall be October 1, 1991. (8) The Agreement as above said may be amended or terminated at any time upon mutual consent of the parties thereto. This Agreement may also be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation ROBERT K. BEST Director of Transportation By ROBERT H. THOMPSON Deputy District Director of Transportation CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor Attest: City Clerk 5 EXHIBIT "A" Effective October 1, 1991 Revised ELECTRICAL FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST DISTRIBUTION CITY OF TEMECULLA Maintained by the State Route 15 Location S/B ramps at Winchester Rd. Type of Facility SIGNALS LIGHTING X X Cost Distribution State City Maint. Energy Maint. Energy 100% 100% 15 N/B ramps to Winchester Rd. X X 100% 100% 79 Ynez Rd. X X 100% 100% 79 Margari~a Meadows (when completed) X X 100% 100% ITEM NO. 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: APPROV CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department October 22, 1991 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24183 Charles D. Ray ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Bedford Properties Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Subdivide 48.8 acres into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park site within Planning Area No. 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, (The Meadows), Amendment No. 1 Southeast corner of DePortola Road and Meadows Parkway. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 North: South: East: West: Planning Area No. 9 (Medium Density Residential) Planning Area No. 2 (Very High Density Residential) Planning Area No. 3 (Medium High Density Residential) Planning Area No. 6 (Very High Density Residential) S\STAFFP, PT~24183VTM.CC2 PROPOSED ZONING: No change proposed EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Land Area: No. Proposed Lots: Proposed Density: Specific Plan Density: Minimum Residential Lot Size: 48.8 Acres 155 single family, 3 open spaces, 1 park site 4.37 DU/Acre 4.37 DU/Acre 5,095 Square Feet BACKGROUND: On August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed this item. The Commission's primary concern was parkland availability within the overall specific plan area. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) staff and the applicant the opportunity to discuss appropriate parkland dedications and associated improvements to be incorporated in the design of this tentative tract map. On September 16, 1991 the Commission again considered VTM 24183 including its proposed parkland dedication and related improvements. In the course of the Commission's Public Hearing of this item it was determined appropriate Conditions of Approval for necessary park site dedication and improvements should be as follows: AMENDED CONDITION NO. 25 "Prior to recordation of the FINAL MAP, the developer or his assignee shall meet with the TCSD staff, enter into an agreement as to the proposed location of the required 2.0 acre neighborhood community park, and dedicate said parkland to the TCSD." AMENDED CONDITION NO. 26 "Prior to the issuance of the 50th BUILDING PERMIT, the developer or his assignee shall improve the required 2.0 acre neighborhood community park to TCSD standards." The City Engineer also advised the Commission of a clerical error in the project's Conditions of Approval. The correct wording of Condition No. 79 should be: 79. "Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersections of DePortola Road S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM. CC2 2 and Street "A" and Street "A" and Meadows Parkway. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Department of Public Works for the design requirements." The applicant has reviewed and is in concurrence with the proposal's amended Conditions of Approval (Condition Nos. 25, 26 and 79) as described above. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT, the Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183, based on the findings contained in the staff report, and incorporating amended Conditions of Approval Nos. 25, 26 and 79 as specified above· ATTACHMENTS: Resolution approving VTM 24183 Conditions of Approval VTM 24183 Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/16/91 Planning Commission minutes dated 9/16/91 S\STAFFRPT\24183 VTM. CC"2 3 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24183 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 22, 1991 ATTACHMENT NO.1 RESOLUTION S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC1 4 .... RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24183 TO SUBDIVIDE A 48.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 155 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS AND I PARK SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 5 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 (THE MEADOWS), AMENDMENT NO. 1, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-023-002. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Vesting Tentative Tract Map; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Vesting Tentative Tract Map on October 10, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation· During S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 5 that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the-preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 ~ (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. B. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (1) The Council in approving of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: S\STAFFRFI~24183VTM.CC2 7 The proposed Tract Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. (b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. (C) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding land uses. (d) The proposed use complies with State planning and Zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A. (e) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a specific plan will be implemented with this project. (f) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage; or substantially injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the Initial Study. (g) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots provide sufficient southern exposure. (h) All lots have access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. Access is provided from Street "A" of the specific plan. S\STAFFP, FI~24183VTM.CC2 E~ (i) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. (k) Said findings are supported by minutes, maps,exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION II. 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 II1. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 for the subdivision of a 48.8 acre parcel into 155 single family residential lots, 3 open space lots and I park site within Planning Area No. 5 of Specific Plan No. 219 (The Meadows), Amendment No. 1, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923- 023-002 subject to the following conditions: 1. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. SECTION IV. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1991. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM. CC'2 9 RONALD J PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 10 VESTING TENTATIVE NO. 24183 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 22, 1991 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRFr\24183VTM.CC2 11 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No: 24183 Project Description: 155 Single Familv Residential; 3 Open Space; and 1 Park Assessor's Parcel No.: 923-023-002 Planning Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: A. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. B. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. S\STAFFRFr\24183 VTM. CC2 1 ~. .... C. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. 10. 11. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. An erosion control landscaping plan demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 13, 1990, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. This subdivision shall comply with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of Planning Area 5 as provided Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. B. Lots 1-155 shall be a minimum size of 4,000 square feet. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and non- through lots. Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas, located in recreation areas, shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. Bike racks and bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bike access to recreation areas. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. S\STAFFRPT',24183VTM.CC2 13 12. 13. 14. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.1. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. 15. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations. County Slope Stability Report No. 122 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: Slope Stability. 16. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City Engineering and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the City Engineering Department. The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance as taken over by the Community Services District. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 14 17. De The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: (1) Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. (2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. (3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. (4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: (1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. (2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. (3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. (4) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC2 15 18. 19. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: A. The project shall comply with the requirements of Development Agreement No. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: (1) Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. (2) Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. (3) All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. (4) Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM. CC2 16 (5) Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. (6) Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. (7) Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right- of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way. (8) Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. (9) All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 17 Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall comply with the design guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the design guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually operated permanent underground irrigation system. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 1-155, a plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the City Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, and shall contain the following elements: (1) A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback, and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots. (2) One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x 13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers' brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable). (3) One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color and materials board. The written color and material descriptions shall be located on the elevation. Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits may be phased provided: (1) A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing fees. S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC2 3, 19 20. 21. 22. (2) Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included within that plot plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 156, a plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is transmitted to any governmental agencies other than the City Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 19 proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. 23. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 24. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 25. Prior to rocordation of thc Final Map, thc dcvclopor or his assigncc shall mcct with thc TCSD staff and cntcr into an agrocmcnt as to thc proposcd sitc location of thc rcquircd 2.0 acrcs of improvcd parkland. AMENDED CONDITION NO. 25 26. "Prior to recordation of the FINAL MAP, the developer or his assignee shall meet with the TCSD staff, enter into an agreement as to the proposed location of the required 2.0 acre neighborhood community park, and dedicate said parkland to the TCSD." 27. Prior to thc issuanoc of thc 50th building pcrmit, thc dcvclopor or his assigncc shall improvc and dodicatc said 2.0 acrcs of improvod parkland to thc TCSD. AMENDED CONDITION NO. 26 28. "Prior to the issuance of the 50th BUILDING PERMIT, the developer or his assignee shall improve the required 2.0 acre neighborhood community park to TCSD standards." S\STAFFRPT~14183VTM.CC2 ~- 0 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, drainage facilities, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CC&R's. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar (925.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). S\STAFFP, PT~24183VTM. CC'2 2 '[ Riverside County Fire Department 35. Schedule a fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2 1/2") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. 36. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. 37. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 38. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. Department of Public Works The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 39. 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; Riverside County Flood Control District; S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC2 ~. ~ 40. City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Temecula Community Services District. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, all road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Streets B,C,D,E,and F shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40'). Streets G,H, and I shall be improved with a ten foot (10') median strip bounded by 20 feet of asphalt concrete pavement on each side, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (70'/50'). In the event that full improvements for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and Street A are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to the final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per Riverside County Standard No. 109 (100'/76'). The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and Street "A" and so noted on the final map with the exception of Public street intersections as approved by the Department of Public Works or shown on the tentative map. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. S\STAFFRPT\~4183VTM. CC'2 2 3 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. B. Storm drain facilities. C. Landscaping (street and parks). D. Sewer and domestic water systems. E. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. F. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the Department of Public Works. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. 53. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the Department of Public Works. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 ~- 4 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Department of Public Works. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A drainage study shall be submitted toand approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City of Temecula Department of Public Works for review. S\STAI=FP, Jrr\24183VTM.CC2 ::2. 5 65. The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. 66. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 67. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 68. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 69. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. 70. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 71. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 72. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC2 ~- 6 73. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 74. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. Secondary Access shall be provided for any phasing as specified and approved by the Department of Public Works. 75. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 76. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 77. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and Streets "A" through "1" and shall be included in the street improvement plans. S\STAFF1LuT~24183VT1VI.CC2 ~2 7 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 78. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 79. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 80. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Department of Public Works for the design requirements. 81. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersections of Meadows P,3rkway and Dc Fortola Road, De Portola Road and Street "A" and Street "A" and Meadows Parkway. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan when warranted. S\STAFFEFr\24183VTM.CC2 ~- 8 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 24183 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 22, 1991 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 S\STAFFP, FI'X24183VTM.CC2 2 9 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill September 16, 1991 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 Recommendation: RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183. PROPOSAL: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: Subdivide 48.8 acres into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park site within Planning Area No. 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, located on the southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. On August 5, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed this item, and a concern regarding parkland availability within the overall specific plan area was expressed by the Commission. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow the Community Services Department Staff the opportunity to discuss parkland dedications for this tentative tract map. Subsequent to the Planning Commission public hearing of August 5, 1991, the Community Services Department Staff discussed this matter with the applicant; and the following conditions of approval have been added to the project with the approval of the applicant. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee shall meet with the TCSD staff and enter into an agreement as to the proposed site location of the required 2.0 acres of improved parkland."; and S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 3 0 Prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit, the developer or his assignee shall improve and dedicate said 2.0 acres of improved parkland to the TCSD."; STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183; and g ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183. OM:mb Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Staff Report (Dated August 5, 1991 ) Planning Commission Minutes (Dated August 5, 1991 ) S\STAFFRPT~,24183VTM.CC2 3 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24183 TO SUBDIVIDE A 48.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 155 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS, AND 1 PARK SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-230-002 (PORTION) WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. S\STA FFRPT\24183VTM. CC'2 3 2 (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (8) There is reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. S\STAFFP-,PT\24183VTM.CC'2 3 3 (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that S\STAFFRF~24183VTM.CC2 3 4 alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Tract Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. c) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding land uses. d) e) The proposed use complies with State planning and Zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a specific plan will be implemented with this project. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 3 5 f) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the Initial Study. g) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots provide sufficient southern exposure. h) All lots have access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provide from Street "A" of the specific plan. i) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps,exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. S\STAFFRFr~24183VTM.CC2 3 6 SECTION 2__=. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in EIR 235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for adoption. SECTION 3_ Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 for the subdivision of a 48.8 acre parcel into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park site located on the southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-230-002 (portion) subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991. JOHN HOAGLAND 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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: I PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 3 7 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No: 24183 Project Description: 155 Single Family Residential; 3 Open Space; and I Park Assessor's Parcel No.: 923-023-002 Planning Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date· This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided ,by Ordinance 460. J Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road· Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval· A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval· All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 3 8 10. 11. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. An erosion control landscaping plan demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 13, 1990, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. This subdivision shall comply with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of Planning Area 5 as provided Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. b. Lots 1-155 shall be a minimum size of 4,000 square feet. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and non- through lots. Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas, located in recreation areas, shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. Bike racks and bike lockers in sufficient quantity shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bike access to recreation areas. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. S\STAFFEPT~24183VTM.CC2 3 9 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.1. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations. County Slope Stability Report No. 122 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: Slope Stability. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the City Engineering and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the City Engineering Department. The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance as taken over by the Community Services District. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 4 0 17. de The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: 1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (1 O) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain· The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC'2 4 1 - Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. 18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 19. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: The project shall comply with the requirements of Development Agreement No. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted. for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity· All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground· Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted· S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 4 2 Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right- of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM. CC'2 4 3 Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall comply with the design guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the design guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually operated permanent underground irrigation system. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lots 1 ~155, a plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the City Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, and shall contain the following elements: A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback, and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots. One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x 13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers' brochures)· Indicate on the board the name, address and phone numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable). One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color and materials board. The written color and material descriptions shall be located on the elevation. Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits may be phased provided: 1. A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing fees. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 4 4 20. 21. 22. Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included within that plot plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 156, a plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is transmitted to any governmental agencies other than the City Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site development with the Design Guidelines of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC'2 4 ~ 23. 24. 25. 26. 28. 29. 30. proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee shall meet with the TCSD staff and enter into an agreement as to the proposed site location of the required 2.0 acres of improved parkland. Prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit, the developer or his assignee shall improve and dedicate said 2.0 acres of improved parkland to the TCSD. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, drainage facilities, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in S\STAFFRP'I~24183VTM.CC2 4 6 the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 31. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. 32. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CC&R's. 33. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). Riverside County Fire Department 34. Schedule a fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2 1/2") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. S\STAFFRFl~24183VTM.CC2 4 7 35. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. 36. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 37. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. Department of Public Works The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 38. 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; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Temecula Community Services District. S\STAFFRFI~24183VTM.CC2 4 8 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, all road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Streets B,C,D,E,and F shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40'). Streets G,H, and I shall be improved with a ten foot (10') median strip bounded by 20 feet of asphalt concrete pavement on each side, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (70'/50'). In the event that full improvements for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and Street A are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to the final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 12 foot lane per Riverside County Standard No. 109 (100'/76'). The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and Street "A" and so noted on the final map with the exception of Public street intersections as approved by the Department of Public Works or shown on the tentative map. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. S\STAFFRFr\24183VTM.CC2 4 9 Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. 48. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. 49. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the Department of Public Works. 50. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. 51. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. 52. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the Department of Public Works. 53. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. 54. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Department of Public Works. 55. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM. CC'2 5 0 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City of Temecula Department of Public Works for review. The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 5 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 66. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 67. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 68. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. 69. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 70. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 71. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 72. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC2 5 2 fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 73. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. Secondary Access shall be provided for any phasing as specified and approved by the Department of Public Works. 74. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 75. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 76. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Meadows Parkway, De Portola Road and Streets "A" through "1" and shall be included in the street improvement plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 77. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 78. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC2 5 3 Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact the Department of Public Works for the design requirements. 79. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersections of Meadows Parkway and De Portola Road, De Portola Road and Street "A" and Street "A" and Meadows Parkway. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan when warranted. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 5 4 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 5, 1991 Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica Recommendation: 1. RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Bedford Properties REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates PROPOSAL: Subdivide 48.8 acres into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and I park site within Planning Area No. 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. LOCATION: Southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: Density North: South: East: West: Planning Area No. 9 Planning Areas 2 (Very High Density Residential) and 3 (Medium High Density Residential). Planning Area No. 3 (Medium High Density Residential) Planning Area No. 6 (Very High Residential) PROPOSED ZONING: Not Applicable S\STAFFRPT~14183VTM.CC2 5 5 EXISTING LAND USE: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: Vacant Total Land Area: 48.8 acres No. of Proposed Lots: 1'55 single family, 3 open space, I park Proposed Density: 4.37 DU/ac Specific Plan Density: 4.37 DU/ac Min. Residential Lot Size: 5,095 sq.ft. Useable Open Space Area: 1.60 acres (Lot 156) On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 88-470 approving Specific Plan No. 219 (Meadows). The Meadows provided a total of 5,611 dwelling units on 1,036 acres. In addition, the Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report No. 235 for Specific Plan No. 219 as an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, a statement of overriding findings was made for the Air Quality Impacts. On November 15, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 to the Riverside County Planning Department, which proposed to subdivide the subject 48.8 acre site into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and I park site. The project was reviewed by the Riverside County Land Division Committee (LDC) on December 11, 1989; February 26, 1990; and April 2, 1990. During these meetings the LDC indicated that Specific Plan No.219, Amendment No. 1 must be adopted prior to the approval of the tentative map. Subsequently, this project was transferred to the City of Temecula on April 23, 1990. On November 15, 1990, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project S\STAFFP, PT\24183VTM.CC'2 5 6 and address any possible concerns, as well as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre-DRC included the following: 2. 3. 4. Park Site Considerations Public Improvements Storm Drain System Drainage Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss the required supplemental material in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns. On February 27, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 was reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee; and, it was determined that the project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to conditions. On April 9, 1991, the City Council Adopted Resolution No. 91-36 approving Change of Zone No. 5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, amending the boundaries and land use designations of Planning Areas 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No. 219. Subsequently, on April 23, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amending Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertaining to Ordinance No. 348.2919 (Specific Plan No. 219) as it relates to zoning. The Planning Commission May recall that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 was originally scheduled for their public hearing meeting of March 18, 1991. However, at the request of the applicant, this item was continued prior to the meeting "off- calendar" in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to further discuss the Conditions of Approval, relative to traffic mitigation, with the Engineering Department Staff. S\STAFFRPT\:24183VTM.CC2 5 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: As noted above, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 proposes to subdivide the subject 48.8 acre parcel into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and I park site. The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. Traffic Impacts The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed this project; and determined that the proposed project is consistent with the traffic mitigation measures of EIR 235 adopted for Specific Plan No. 219. Thus, the project has been conditioned accordingly. Access and Circulation Access to the proposed subdivision is provided from proposed Street "A" and Meadows Parkway. The proposed access points are consistent with the circulation plan of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 (see Figure 4, Page 22; and Figure 15E, Page 91 of Specific Plan Text). Grading and Landform Alteration While substantial grading and recontouring of this site, which includes 635,000 c.y. of excavation and 450,000 c.y. of fill will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of site topography. The terraced landform creates view lots within the proposed subdivision, in which the slopes range from 5 to 30 feet in height. It should be noted that a recommended Condition of Approval has been included to require that all slopes over five (5') feet in height shall be landscaped immediately upon the completion of grading and shall be maintained by the homeowners association. S\STAFFRPT~24183VTM.CC2 5 8 General Landscape Requirements Pursuant to Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 (see Landscape Design Guidelines and Community Elements, Pages 223-295), all areas required to be landscaped shall be planted with turf, ground cover, shrub or tree materials selected from the plant palette contained in the guidelines. Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are completed on any portion of the site and shall provide for rapid short-term coverage of the slope as well as long-term establishment cover per City standards. The developer shall provide a landscape bond to the City at the time that the landscape plan is approved. The bond is to guarantee the installation of interim erosion control planting in the event that the grading operation is performed and building construction does not commence within ninety (90) days. The owners of parcels which require landscape development shall assess any existing common landscape areas adjoining their property. Where feasible, landscape development shall reinforce or be compatible with such existing common area setting. Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5') feet in vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than three (3') feet in vertical height shall be planted with a ground cover to protect the slope from erosion and instability. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15') in vertical height shall be planted with shrubs, spaced not more than ten (10') feet on center or trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20') feet on center or a combination of shrubs and trees at equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground cover. The plants selected and planting methods shall be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions. Refer to the plant materials palette for the list of community wide slope stabilization plants. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 5 9 SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The Planning Department Staff has included a Condition of Approval requiring that a final landscaping plan for lots 157-159 (open space) must be submitted for approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. Land Use The project site is located within Planning Area 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, which is designated as Medium High Density Residential and allows a maximum of 155 dwelling units. Therefore, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 is consistent with the specific plan, due to the fact that 155 residential lots are proposed. In addition, according to the development standards, as outlined in Specific Plan No. 219, in Amendment No. 1, Planning Area 5 permits a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet, in which the proposal provides a minimum lot size of 5,095 square feet. Thus, this project is consistent with the Specific Plan. Useable Open Space A 1.60 acre private park site (Lot 156) is proposed and is centrally located to provide recreational open space for the residents within the subject tract. The Planning Department Staff has included a Condition of Approval requiring that a plot plan application must be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The proposed project is consistent with the Land Use Designation of Specific Plan and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 (Planning Area 5 - Medium High Density Residential). In addition, Staff has determined it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC1 6 0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: Pursuant to Condition Of Approval No. 12 of Specific Plan No. 219,an Initial Study was performed for this project which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures described in EIR 235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption. The proposed Tract Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. m There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding land uses. The proposed use complies with State planning and Zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a specific plan will be implemented with this project. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 (~ 1 10. 11. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the Initial Study. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provide from Street "A" of the specific plan. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps,exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. S\STAFFRPT\24183 VTM. CC1 IS 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183; and e ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183. OM:mb Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Environmental Assessment 4. Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map B. Specific Land Use Map C. Planning Area No. 5 Map D. Planning Area No. 5 Standards E. Tentative Tract Map 5. Large Scale Plan S\$TAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC'2 IS 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Background 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Bedford Properties 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 Date of Environmental Assessment: (714) 676-7290 Februarv 13, 1991 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: e Name of Proposal, if applicable: CITY OF TEMECULA Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 e Location of Proposal: Southeast corner of De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway. II. Project Description Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 proposes to subdivide the subject 48.8 acre site, which is within Planning Area 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, into 155 single family residential lots; 3 open space lots; and 1 park. Project Summary: SP 219 TM 24183 Planning Area 5 155 D.U. 155 Lots S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 6 4 III. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation The following environmental impacts associated 'with Specific Plan No. 219 are insignificant in that the design of the project as proposed includes the necessary mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235: Water and Sewer: The project will have an average daily consumption of domestic water of 1,683,300 gallons at 300 gallons/d.u./day. The project will generation between 1.81 and 3.08 million gallons per day of sewage flow. Onsite wastewater collection facilities will be constructed to tie into Eastern Municipal Water District's master planned facilities being constructed through the Rancho Villages Assessment District. Construction of all structures within the project will conform to state laws requiring water efficient plumbing fixtures, Utilities: Gas, electricity, and telephone service will be provided by respective purveyors of the service. Lines for electrical and telephone services, and mains for natural gas are located along the project boundaries. Energy Resources: The project will increase consumption of energy for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, air conditioning, use of home appliances, and operation of construction equipment. The project will adhere to State Code Title 24 energy conservation standards and will employ site design, when possible, for additional energy conservation. Non vehicular pathways are included within, and adjacent to, the project site. Commercial and employment centers are in proximity to the project site. De Parks and Recreation: Project residents will create a demand for parks and recreation facilities, and for open space. The project design provides 242 +/- acres of recreation areas, parkway greenbelts, and paseo open space. The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified mitigation measures which have been adopted within EIR 235: S\STAFFP, Fr~241 ~3VTM. CC2 6 5 Seismic Safety 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: Slopes and Erosion 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: Although faults have been previously mapped on- site, they have been determined to be inactive and the risk of ground rupture due to faulting on the project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential exists along the entire flat alluviated area of Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary. During site development, additional geologic evaluation shall be continued in order to verify the extent and relative age of fault activity. Mitigation of the liquefaction potential within the southern portion of the site will occur as a result of project development, which will lower artificially high groundwater levels by removal of recharge ponds, as well as increase overburden as a result of site grading. The Meadows Specific Plan will unavoidably alter some of the existing landforms. Owing to the general granular nature of graded slopes, a moderate to severe erosion potential exists if slopes are unprotected. Removal and recompaction of portions of alluvial/colluvial soils within fill areas and shallow cut areas will be necessary. Temporary groundcover shall be provided to prevent erosion during the construction phase. Permanent vegetation shall be planted as soon as possible after grading. Specific requirements for alluvial/colluvial soils removal shall be developed during tentative map studies and incorporated into project grading. The three small possible landslide areas shall be investigated during design level studies and all mitigation measures identified as a result of that investigation will be incorporated into future development approvals. Remedial grading recommendations to provide for the long term stability will be provided based upon a finalized grading design. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 6 6 Flooding 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: Noise 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: Water Quality 1. Impact: Development of the Vail Meadows Specific Plan will alter the existing drainage patterns and will increase runoff to Temecula Creek and, to a lesser extent, Murrieta Creek. A master drainage plan has been developed to respond to the hydrological constraints of the site. A more in-depth assessment of the Temecula floodplain shall be conducted during the final design and preparation of the tentative tract maps, and all mitigation measures identified as a result of that assessment will be incorporated into future development approvals. Erosion control devices shall be utilized in hillside development areas to mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of discharge. If required, the project applicant will contribute Drainage Improvement Fees as appropriate. Noise generated from the project will derive from two sources, construction and vehicular traffic, but is not anticipated to result in unacceptable noise levels to existing or proposed off-site uses. Onsite areas adjacent to high volume roadways may be subject to noise impacts. A noise analysis shall be required in planning areas adjacent to high volume perimeter roads. If indicated, noise attenuation will be incorporated into project design. Implementation of the project will alter the composition of surface runoff by grading the site surfaces; by construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities; and by the irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff conveyed to Temecula and Murrieta Creeks will contain minor amounts of pollutants. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 6 7 2. Mitigation: The project will employ erosion control devices during grading, such as temporary berms, culverts, sand bagging or desilting basins. Urban runoff will be mitigated through implementation of a street cleaning program. F. Wildlife/Vegetation 1. Impact: As a consequence of grassland and coastal sage scrub vegetation removal, existing wildlife will either be destroyed or displaced. Impacts upon habitat containing a population of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat will result. 2. Mitigation: The project applicant will participate in any in-place County program which provides for off-site mitigation of impacts to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding wit the California Department of Fish and Game. G. Historic and Prehistoric Sites 1. Impact: Without proper mitigation, implementation of the Vail Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy archaeological/historical sites on the property. 2. Mitigation: Prior to the approval of any additional implementing processes, the applicant/developer will meet with the County Historical Commission to determine appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts to archaeological/historicalsites; all mitigation measures identified as a result of the meeting(s) will be incorporated into future development approvals. H. Circulation 1. Imoact: The Vail Meadows Specific Plan is anticipated to generate 47,600 vehicle trips per day at project completion. Approximately 40,000 of these trips would be external to the site. 2. Mitigation: Construction of the proposed circulation network will adequately service future on-site traffic volumes. Off-site improvements will be constructed as required by the County Road Department and CalTrans. S\STAFFP, FT\24183VTM. CC2 (~ 8 Le Fire Protection 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: Sheriff 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: Schools 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: Solid Waste 1. Impact: 2. Mitigation: The project site would be subject to Category II urban development requirements with regard to fire protection services. The project site will be served by a proposed fire station, to be constructed near Highway 79. The developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the Board of Supervisors. Project residents will impose increased demands on law enforcement and sheriff services. Project design will incorporate appropriate lighting, site design, security hardware and such design features as will promote optimal security. The developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the Board of Supervisors. The project will generate an estimated 3,109 students in grades K-8 and 1,187 students in grades 9-12, impacting the Temecula Union School District. The project has designated four elementary school sites and one junior high school site. The developer will pay school mitigation fees as required. Project residents, estimated at 14,587, will generate approximately 58 tons per day of solid waste, incrementally shortening the life of County landfill sites. The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes programs for reducing the quantity of wastes being landfilled, including source reduction and business and residential separation of recoverables. These programs may be implemented by project residents and businesses. S\STAFFRPT%24183VTM.CC2 iS 9 M. Libraries 1. Impact: The project's population will increase demand for library facilities and services. 2. Mitigation: The developer will pay library mitigation fees as required by the Board of Supervisors. The following environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be fully mitigation and a statement of overriding findings has been adopted within EIR 235: Air Quality 1. Impact: At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions for the project will total approximately 7,754 Ibs/day. Power plant emissions for electrical energy consumed on-site will total 175 Ibs/day. Natural gas emissions for project consumption will total 163.6 Ibs per day. Approximately 1 O0 Ibs of dust per acre will be generated each day of construction in addition to an undetermined amount of motor emissions during site preparation an construction. 2. Mitigation: Because most of the project-related air pollution emissions are generated by automobiles, effective mitigation is limited. On-site provisions for schools, shopping, and recreation has been incorporated into project design. Sufficient acreage has been zoned for industrial use in the Rancho CaliforniaFFemecula area to provide employment opportunities. project design includes a circulation plan designed for efficient and direct traffic flows and alternative transit modes including pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails. The Rancho Villages Policy Plan, to which this project is subject, requires pedestrian and bus stop facilities for commercial areas. These requirements will be implemented at the development application stage. Particulate matter and other pollutants generated during grading and construction will be reduced through compliance with County Ordinance No. 457 which specifies watering during construction, and planting of ground cover. S\STAFFRPT\24183VTM.CC2 7 0 IV. Conclusion The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Specific Plan No. 219 and Change of Zone No. 5140. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. The Board of Supervisors also adopted statements of overriding considerations for the air quality impacts. Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 proposes a residential development that is consistent with the guidelines and requirements of Planning Area 5 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1; and will not result in impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Condition of Approval No. 12 of Specific Plan No 219, this Initial Study has been prepared to demonstrate that the proposed Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. S\STAFFRPTX24183VTM.CC2 7 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets, which were adopted for EIR 235 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X February 13, 1991 Date Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner For CITY OF TEMECULA S\$TAFFRFrX24183VTM.CC2 7 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.:VestinQ Tentative Tract MaD No, 24183 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Hsbitst Conservation PIsn (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of AODroval Condition No. 21 Condition No. 26, 28 Park site dedication and improvements Condition No. 73 Condition No. 51 Condition No. 19.c Condition No, 38 Condition No. 70 Forns/Rng-M9 S\STAFFRFr\24183VTM.CC2 7 3 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 24183 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 22, 1991 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 S\STAFFRJ)T~24183VTM.CC2 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. and recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740; and Adopt Resolution 91-(next] recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5740, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland None Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 5.1 Proposal to subdivide 48.8 acres into 151 single family residential lots; 3 open space parcels; and 1 park (2.0) acres), within planning area No. 5 of the Meadows Specific Plan. Located north of Highway 79, between Margarita and Butterfield Stage Roads. CHARLES RAY provided the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if TCSD was satisfied with what they were getting from the applicant as park site. GARY KING stated that TCSD was satisfied with park land dedication and added that they would like to see the park fully developed and ready for dedication at 30% of Tract 24183 occupancy. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if the dedication of the park should be completed upon recordation of the final and the improvements and acceptance could occur at a later date. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned why there was no specific improvements to the park site stated in the Conditions of Approval. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked the assistant city attorney, without specific improvements determined, and if the map is approved, how does the City secure these improvements from the developer. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that staff could condition the dedication prior to the final map being recorded and also condition that prior to final map recordation that applicant and the TCSD enter into an agreement specifying necessary park improvements. PCMIN9/16/91 5 9-18-91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ROBERT RIGHETTI advised the Commission that at the August 5, 1991 meeting, staff amended Condition No. 77, which is now Condition No. 79 and should read, "Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for the intersections of DePortola Road with Street "A" and Meadows Parkway with Street "A". All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plans. Prior to designing the above plans, contact the Department of Public Works for the design requirements. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. ROBERT KEMBLE, Robert Bien, William Frost & Associates, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, representing the applicant, indicated their concurrence with the staff report. Mar. Kemble added that the applicant would concur with the request for an agreement for park site improvements; however, he asked that the wording of that condition be read. JOHN CAVANAUGH suggested that the Commission could condition for the dedication prior to final map recordation and that prior to recordation of the final map the City and the developer enter into an agreement specifying park site improvements at the time of recordation, in accordance with the development standards in effect. ROBERT KEMBLE indicated the applicant's concurrence with the amendments to the Conditions of Approval. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that based on the specific plan, she does not feel this area can support the higher density development proposed by Tentative Tract No. 24183. CHAIRMAN BOAGLAND concurred with Commissioner Fahey's comments. PCMI~9/16/91 6 9-18-91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and Recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183, modifying Conditions No. 25, No. 26 and No. 79, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland COMMISSIONER FORD stated that this item was brought back to the Commission to look at TCSD working out a mitigated park measure with the developer and not densities proposed by the tentative map design. The Commission questioned what action they could take, in regards to their general concerns regarding the residential density proposed. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that in order to take action in the form of denial of the tentative tract map, the Commission would have to make findings that the proposed application is somehow not consistent with or deviates from the standards of the Development Agreement as it applies to the governing Specific Plan. Mr. Cavanaugh added that the Commission could also continue this item to allow staff to make findings for denial, continue the project indefinitely or reconsider the Commission's original motion. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to reconsider his previous motion. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated based on the input from staff and the city attorney, the Commission is trying to address the density problem when it is no longer subject to Commission review therefore, she indicated that she would support the motion by Commissioner Chiniaeff. PCM:IN9/16/91 7 9-18-91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and Recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24183, modifying Conditions No. 25, No. 26 and No. 79, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that although she would support the motion, she still had concerns about the overall lack of park land in this area; however, the revised Tentative Map, including the proposed park site dedication, reflects the intent of the approved Specific Plan and Development Agreement, and cannot be changed by the Commission. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she would not support the motion based on the fact that the project is increasing densities without allowing for adequate park lands. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he was dissatisfied with the options left available to the Commission on this item. He added that although he feels that staff could not come up with valid findings for denial, the Commission has voiced valid problems as they generally relate to densities and small residential lot sizes when not supported by additional park sites or recreational amenities. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 7:45 P.M. reconvened at 7:50 P.M. The meeting 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 6.1 Proposal to subdivide 41.2 acres into 6 multi-family residential lots and 2 open space parcels, within Planning Area No. 6 of the Meadows Specific Plan. Located northeast of Highway 79 and Margarita Road. CHARLES RAY provided the staff report. PCMINg/16/91 8 9-1,8-91 ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY~z~ FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Directional Sign Ordinance PREPARED BY: Oliver Mujica RECOMMENDATION: 1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- entitled: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula adding chapter 4 to the Temecula Municipal Code pertaining to advertising regulations and establishing regulations for the use of Directional Signs." APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Directional Signs. LOCATION: City Wide BACKGROUND: The Planning Department Staff was directed to prepare an Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Directional Signs, due to the inadequacy of County Ordinance No. 348. Pursuant to this direction, the Planning Staff, in collaboration with the City Attorney, has prepared the attached Ordinance which includes: A limitation of 3 signs S\STAFFRFT\D~SGN.ORD 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Attachments: between intersections and design criteria for signs. On September 16, 1991, the Planning Commission considered this item and forwarded a recommendation of approval by a vote of 5-0. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- entitled: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula adding chapter 4 to the Temecula Municipal Code pertaining to advertising regulations and establishing regulations for the use of Directional Signs." 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ordinance No. 91- Public Hearing Notice Planning Commission Staff Report (Dated September 16, 1991) Planning Commission Minutes (Dated September 16, 1991) Planning Commission Staff Report (Dated July 15, 1991) Planning Commission Minutes (Dated July 15, 1991 ) vgw S\STAFFP, FI~DI]~SGN.OP, i) ~ ORDINANCE NO. 91 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 4 TO THE TEMECULA MLrNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGNORD 1 The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 91-__will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. There is an unsightly and confusing proliferation of off- site directional signs, relating to new residential development projects, including new rental projects (hereinafter referred to as "development projects"), and other business. Development projects by their very nature are most frequently located in areas where streets and highways are newly constructed. Such thoroughfares are seldom shown on maps available to persons seeking to purchase new homes; and, consequently, developers use signs, to aid such persons in locating their subdivisions. The result is a proliferation of signs which are: (1) unsightly and damaging to the appearance of areas such as that which is the subject of this ordinance; (2) confusing to individuals; and, (3) unsafe in that drivers of motor vehicles while searching for subdivisions or signs giving direction thereto, are distracted from the operation of their vehicles. Directional signs are needed by developers to a greater degree than other businesses because development project sales are ordinarily conducted for a relatively limited period of time for any particular location, that is, only until all units in the subdivision are sold. Thus, listings in such conventional media as telephone yellow pages are impractical. While other media such as broadcast media and newspapers are available, and maps could be disseminated in only some of such media, the most efficient method of directing prospective purchasers to development projects is the use of directional signs posted at intersections and other critical locations. Businesses with more permanent sales locations do not share these problems and, thus, have less need of directional signs. SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT\SIGNORD 2 SECTION 2. Chapter 4 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal code, which shall read as follows: Chapter 4 Directional Signs PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a uniform, coordinated method of offering developers a means of providing directional signs to their projects, while minimizing confusion among prospective purchasers who wish to inspect development projects, while promoting traffic safety and reducing the visual blight of the present proliferation of signs. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning law, Business and Professions Code, Section 52301 and Streets and Highways Code, Section 1460. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. When consistent with the context, words used in the present tense singular include the plural. (1) "City" shall mean the City of Temecula. (2) "Contractor" shall mean a person, persons, firm or corporation authorized by a license agreement to design, erect and maintain directional and kiosk signs within the City. (3) "Directional Sign" shall mean any off-site free standing, non-flashing sign which is designed, erected, and maintained to serve as a public convenience in directing pedestrian and vehicular traffic, but not used for the purpose of advertising uses and activities on site. (4) "Kiosk" shall mean a free standing, multiple sided, structure whose main purpose is to display signs or information. (5) "Off-Site Sign" shall mean any sign which is not located on the business or activity site it identifies. (6) "Person" shall mean an individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, estate, trust, syndicate, district or other political subdivision, or any other group acting as an independent unit. (7) "Street Intersection" shall mean where two or more streets or roads cross at the same grade. SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGNORD 3 (8) "Street or Road" shall mean the following: (a) Arterial (Urban) Highway - A six lane divided highway with a 134 foot Right-of-Way. (b) Arterial Highway - A six lane divided highway with a 110 foot Right-of-Way. (c) Major Highway Right-of-Way. A highway with a 100 foot (d) Secondary Highway Right-of-Way. A highway with an 88 foot REOUIREMENTS FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND KIOSK STRUCTURES. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, directional signs shall be permitted in all zone classifications subject to the following limitations: (m) Directional signs shall not obstruct the use of sidewalks, walkways, bike or hiking trails; shall not obstruct the visibility of vehicles, pedestrians or traffic control signs; shall, where feasible, be combined with advance street name signs; shall not be installed in the immediate vicinity of street intersection; and, shall be limited to not more than three (3) structures between street intersections. (2) Sign structures shall be ladder type with individual sign panels of uniform design and color throughout the City limits. (3) Sign structures shall not exceed 12 feet in height. (4) The width of sign structures and sign panels shall not exceed 5 feet. (5) Sign panels shall not be illuminated. (6) Sign structure installations shall include "break away" design features where required in right-of- way areas. (7) No signs, pennants, flags, other devices for visual attention or other appurtenances shall be placed on the directional signs. (8) The sign panel lettering for tract identification shall be uniform. SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGNORD (9) All signs erected on private property must have written consent from the property owner with the City to have a right to enter property to remove any signs not in conformance. (lo) The City, and its officers and employees, shall be held free and harmless of all costs, claims, and damages levied against them. (ii) All signs must have applicable Building and Safety and Planning Department permits. (12) Placement of signs must be in accordance with permit specifications. (i3) All signs within a public right-of-way must have an encroachment permit. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS PROHIBITED. Directional and kiosk signs, including travel direction signs, other than those on-site, are prohibited except as provided in this ordinance. AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENSE. The City Council may, by duly executed license agreement, grant to a qualified person the exclusive right to design, erect and maintain directional and kiosk signs within the entire City, or any designated portion thereof. Licensees shall be selected by soliciting request for proposals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person erecting or placing directional signs or kiosk signs on-site shall not be required to obtain a license. TERM. The term of each license shall be set forth in the license agreement. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS STRUCTURES: OPERATION. Licensee(s) shall make directional sign panels available to all persons or entities selling subdivisions (hereinafter referred to as "Subdividers") on a first-come, first-service basis. No sign panels shall be granted to any subdivider for a period of excess of two years. However, a subdivider who is soliciting sales of more than two subdivisions within a single planned community or a specific plan area shall not be subject to the two-year limitation during such solicitation. Licensee(s) shall maintain a separate waiting list for each sign structure. Alternatively, a subdivider may apply to licensee for a sign panel program consisting of a single sign panel on each of a series of sign structures as needed to guide prospective purchasers to his subdivision. A subdivider whose time of use for a sign panel or sign space program has expired, may reapply and shall be placed on the waiting list in the same manner as a new applicant. EXISTING SIGN PERMITS. No sign permit, use permit, or other permit authorizing placement of a directional sign issued on or before the date of adoption of this Ordinance by the City SANDEFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGNORD 5 Council shall be invalidated hereby, but shall remain valid for the period for which it was issued. Any such permit issued after the date of adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council, which would not be permitted under this Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. PENALTIES. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Ordinance. Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted. Any person so convicted shall be, (1) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation; and, (2) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second infraction. The third and any additional violations shall constitute a misdemeanor offense and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or six (6) months in jail, or both. Notwithstanding the above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Payment of any penalty herein shall not relieve a person from the responsibility for correcting the violation. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 6. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061(b)(3). SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. SANDEFKM\STAFFRP'F~SIGNORD 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED , 1991. this th day of ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK SAN D EFKM\STAFFRPT\SIGN O RD 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoin9 Ordinance No. 91-__ was duly introduced and placed upon its first readin9 at a regular meetin~ of the City Council on the day of , 1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meetin~ of the City Council on the day of , 1991, by the followin9 vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK Scott F. Field City Attorney SAN D EFKM\STAFFRPT~SIGN O RD 8 Commissioner Ford agreed that the number of locations should be dictated by the need to direct traffic to the projects. He also stated the definition of intersection should be clarified. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to refer this to staff to address the concerns addressed by the Commission and to continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of August 19, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. 11 Temoorarv Outdoor Activities Ordinance It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Ford to continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of August 5, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT Planning Director Gary Thornhill reported that a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission has been scheduled for Monday, July 22, 1991, at 7:00 PM to be held in the Performing Arts Room at the Temecula Valley High School. The purpose of this meeting will be to conduct a general plan workshop. He also reported that it is staff's intention to begin working on an interim sign ordinance and that the City is actively recruiting for permanent, full-time Planning staff. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff, to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 PM, to a joint meeting to be held on Monday, July 22, 1991 at 7:00 PM at the Temecula Valley High School, 31555 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92390. The motion was unanimously carried. John Hoagland, Chairman ATTEST: Gary Thornhill, Secretary 2/PCMins/071591 6 ITEM NO. 11 Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Directional Sign Ordinance City of Temecula City Wide An Ordinance Establishing Regulations for the Use of Directional Signs Categoria!ly Exempt Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43174 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Oliver Mujica, City of Temecula Planning Department (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula Tuesday. October 22, 1991 7:00 PM MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill September 16, 1991 Directional Sign Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91-92 recommending adoption of the Directional Sign Ordinance. PROPOSAL: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of directional signs. The purpose for preparing the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to Directional Signs. On July 15, 1991, the Planning Commission considered an Ordinance which establishes regulations for the installation of Directional Signs. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission continued this item in order to allow the Planning Department staff the opportunity to further define the term "intersection. Pursuant to the request of the Planning Commission, staff has has included the following definitions for "street intersection" and "Street or Road" within the proposed ordinance: "Street Intersection shall mean where two or more streets or roads cross at the same grade."; and A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A 1 CONCLUSION: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: "Street or Road shall mean the following: (a) Arterial (Urban) Highway - A six lane divided highway with a 134 foot right-of-way. (b) Arterial Highway A six lane divided highway with a 110 foot right-of-way. (C) Major Highway - A highway with a 100 foot right-of-way. (d) Secondary Highway - A highway with an 88 foot right-of-way. The proposed Directional Sign Ordinance provides the City with the standards to thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well as providing the necessary control measures needed to ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and control the overall quality and number of such signs· The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91 - recommending adoption of the Directional Sign Ordinance· vgw Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution "Draft'" Ordinance Planning Commission Staff Report (Dated July 15, 1991) Planning Commission Minutes (Dated July 15, 1991) A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 91-92 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE DIRECTIONAL SIGN ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348 ("Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, such regulations do not contain provisions for the use of directional signs for off-site advertising; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of directional signs for off-site advertising and to protect the health, quality of life, and the environment of the residents of Temecula; and WHEREAS, public hearing was conducted on September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance will provide for the establishment of regulations for the off-site directional signs in a fair and equitable manner. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with its land use plans. SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Exhibit "A" and dated September 16, 1991 for identification. A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A 3 PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991. JOHN HOAGLAND 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 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A PIJd~NING COMMISSION MINUTES Sv-PTEMBER 16, 1991 CBAIRMANHOAGLAND stated that an over-whelming concern of the residents attending the General Plan meetings is residential density within the City vs. public services/ recreation provided. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to send Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25417 back to staff and continue off calendar, and that the applicant develop full site development plans, including detailed park dedications, and related improvement plans, thereby providing the Commission a complete overview of the entire project,seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 5 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland None 7. Parcel Map No. 25059 Minor Change No. I Proposal to modify or delete engineering conditions. Located on Ridge Park Drive, south west side approximately 70 feet east of its intersection with Rancho California Road. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Parcel Map No. 25059 Minor Change No. i to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 7, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 5 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland COMMISSIONERS: None 8. Directional Sign Ordinance 8.1 City wide ordinance establishing regulations for directional signs. CHARLES RAY provided the staff report. COMMISSIONER FORD stated if would be difficult to get the 100' square Teet and suggested lowering the square footage. ( PCMU~n6/ea 10 9-1s-gin PLM~ING COI~MISSION MINUTES BEPTF, MBER 16, 1991 GARY THORNHILL concurred with his suggestions and added that staff could clarify either one side or the other. ClIAIRMANHOAGLAND clarified that under the Ordinance you would be allowed one sign in two places in the City. GARY THORNHILL indicated that this was correct. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:30 P.M. LARRY SMITH, Coleman Homes, 43180 Business Park Drive, Temecula, representing the Temecula Homebuilders Association, stated their concurrence with the sign ordinance; however, they feel there should be more allowable panels and also, Item i on Page 4, does not provide specific distances from the intersection. COMMISSIONER FORD agreed that there needs to be more panels allowed. He stated that he felt there are to many inconsistencies and should go back to staff for further work. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he felt that the penalties were not appropriate and should be raised. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND.suggested that staff come up with some quidelines on where these signs can be placed. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending adoption of the Directional Sign Ordinance, and direct staff to address the Commission's concerns, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None GARY THORNHILL requested a recommendation on the intersection distances. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND directed staff to confer with the Traffic Engineer for appropriate distances from the intersection. PCMINg/16/91 11 ~-18-91 Recommendation: 1. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1991 Case No.: Directional Sign Ordinance Prepared By: Oliver Mujica ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91- recommending adoption of the Directional Sign Ordinance. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use directional signs· LOCATION: City Wide BACKGROUND: of The purpose for preparing the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to Directional Signs in which Section 19.6 Subdivision Signs (attached) provides the following standards and requirements: No sign shall exceed 100 square feet in area. No sign shall be within 100 feet of any existing residence. No more than two such signs shall be permitted for each subdivision. The maximum period of time a sign may remain in place shall be two years. A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A 1 5. No sign shall be artificially lighted. DISCUSSION: An agreement, secured by a $1 O0 cash bond, shall be executed with the City for each sign, assuring the removal of the sign within the allowed time period· The bond and agreement shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. In order to provide the City of Temecula with specific and complete standards for regulating directional signs, Staff has prepared the attached Ordinance which includes, in summary, the following main components: Signs shall be limited to not more than three (3) structures between street intersections· Sign structures shall be ladder type with individual sign panels of uniform design and color throughout the City limits. Sign structures shall not exceed 12 feet in height. The width of the sign structures and sign panels shall not exceed five (5') feet· 5. Sign panels shall not be illuminated. 6. The sign panel lettering for tract identification shall be uniform. 7. The City Council may, by duly executed A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A license agreement, grant to a qualified person the exclusive right to design, erect and maintain directional signs and kiosk signs within the entire City, or any designated portion thereof. Staff has also included the following provision for exemptions within Section 4 of the proposed Ordinance: "Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, should any party believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to install a directional sign, they may apply to the Planning Director for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such application for an exemption shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon." CONCLUSION: As noted above, the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance provides the City with the standards to thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well as providing the necessary control measures needed to ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and control the overall quality and number of such signs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This Ordinance does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, Staff has determined that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061 (b)(3). FINDINGS: 1. The proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with the City's future Land Use Plan. There is reasonable probability that the proposed Directional Sign Ordinance will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with the goals and/or A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A 3 policies of the City's future General Plan· GENERAL PLAN AND SWaP CONSISTENCY: There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed policies are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that policies will be adopted for the new General Plan. Therefore, it is likely that the City will consider these policies during their preparation of the General Plan. The proposed Directional Sign Ordinance is consistent with SWAP. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this Ordinance will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91 - recommending adoption of the Directional Sign Ordinance. OM:ks Attachments: Resolution "Draft" Ordinance Section 19.6 (Subdivision Signs) A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A 8.1 8.2 Adopt a negative declaration; Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 225 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY WAREHOUSE WITH SALES/DISPLAY AREA LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH APPROXIMATELY 380 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHERLY INTERSECTION OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH AND WINCHESTER ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 909-281- 004. 9 Parcel MaD No. 25059 Minor Chancje No. 1 Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:08 PM. There were no speakers in favor or in opposition. It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of August 5, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. 10 Directional Sign Ordinance The staff report was introduced by Steve Jiannino. Planning Director Gary Thornhill advised the Commission that the staff recommends this program to help alleviate the proliferation of paper directional signs which are placed on all of the major city streets. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:14 PM Mike Wilson, owner of Temeka Signs, spoke favor of the City's adopting this type of program. Frank Gootrad, 28765 single Oak Drive, president of Temecula Homebuilders Association, spoke in favor of the program and outline several concerns the homebuilders association has regarding the interpretation of the "immediate vicinity of street intersection" and the suggested penalties for violations of the ordinance. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that the maximum allowed signs be established for each subdivision rather than limiting them to only two signs. He also stated he would like to see some public directories included such as to libraries, City Hall, etc. 2/PCMins/071591 APPRO.VAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFI(~~ CITY MANAGE CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning DATE: October 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 PREPARED BY: Richard Ayala RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; ADOPT Resolution No. 91-_ recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 17; and INTRODUCE and read by title only Ordinance No. 91 -_: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving Change of Zone No. 17 to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from R-A-2~ (Residential Agricultural - 2~ acres minimum) to R-1 (one-family dwellings) and R-5 (open area combining zone-residential developments) along the northeast corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-330-004 and 926-070-020. ADOPT Resolution No. 91 -_ approving First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: Change of Zone No. 17 Sterling Builders, Inc. Ranpac Engineering Corporation Change of Zone No. 17 is a proposal to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from R-A-2 ~ (Residential Agricultural - 2 ~ Acres Minimum) to R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) anc ~-5 (Open Area Combining Zone - Residential Developments). First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes a two hundred fifteen (215) lot residential subdivision of 88.4 acres. Northeast Corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage Road. LOCATION: R-A-2 ~ (Residential Agricultural 2 ~ acre minimum) EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: North: Rol South: RoR East: RoR West: SP (One-Family Dwelling) (Rural Residential) (Rural Residential) (Specific Plan) R-1 R-5 (One-Family Dwellings) (Open Area Combining Developments) Zone-Residential Vacant North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant Project Area: Proposed No. of Lots: Proposed Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Density: SWAP Density: Acreage Designated By Proposed Zones: R-1 (One-Family Dwe'~ings): R-5 (Open Area Comt-:ning Zone- Residential Development): 88.4 acres 212 residential, 3 open space 7,200 sq.ft. 2.3 DU/AC 2-4 DU/AC 61.61 acres 22 acres S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 2 BACKGROUND On October 7, 1991, Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 were approved by the Planning Commission based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and. subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23125 had previously been reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1991 and September 16, 1991, regarding the dedication of the proposed parkland and the maintenance of open spaces by the homeowners association (HOA). Subsequently, the park site and open space issues were resolved prior to the October 7, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The parkland dedication requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres of improved parkland identified on Tract Map No. 23125 as lot "A" which will be dedicated to the TCSD prior to recordation of the final map and be improved to TCSD standards prior to issuance of the 63rd building permit. Approximately 12 acres of undeveloped open space contiguous with the proposed park site identified as lot "C" and approximately 2.6 acres of wetland identified as lot "B" will be dedicated to the TCSD upon completion of required improvements and prior to the issuance of the 63rd building permit. In addition, all interior slopes including lot "D" will be maintained by an HOA (see Tract Map No. 23125). The exterior slope maintenance areas are proposed to be maintained by the TCSD and will be properly identified on the final map. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Change of Zone No. 17 The applicant is proposing to change the zone on 88.4 acres of land situated at the northeast corner of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road, which is identical to the original Zone Change No. 5122. The land use breakdown is as follows: R-l, One-Family Dwellings - 61.61 acres. This zoning permits single family dwellings. R-5, Open Area Combining Zone-Residential Developments - 22 acres. This zone allows for the development of parkland uses. The proposed zoning will be consistent with projects approved in the area such as the Crowne Hill project (Change of Zone No. 4814, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143) located immediately adjacent to the north. This project was approved by the Board of Supervisors on August 16, 1988, and will ultimately create 1,092 R-1 residential lots, 26 R-A-2~ lots and 11 open space lots for parks, a school, and open area. The Paloma Del Sol Plan (SP 219) is located directly to the west of the project site, across Butterfield Stage Road. This specific plan covers 1,389 acres and will allow up to a maximum of 5,611 dwelling units. The area of this specific plan nearest to the proposed project site calls for Medium Density Residential, 2-5 dwelling units per acre. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 3 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes to subdivide the subject 88.4 acre site into a residential development consisting of 212 residential lots and 3 open space lots, with an overall density of 2.3 units per acre. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-1 and R-5 zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: ACCEPT Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; ADOPT Resolution No. 91-__ recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 17; and INTRODUCE and read by title only Ordinance No. 91 -_: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving Change of Zone No. 17 to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from R-A- 2 ~ (Residential Agricultural - 2 ~ acres minimum) to R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone-Residential Developments) along the northeast corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-330-004 and 926-070-020. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23125 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Resolution (Change of Zone No. 17) Ordinance (Change of Zone No. 17) Resolution (First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) Conditions of Approval (First Extension of Time VestingTentative Tract Map No. 23125) Memorandum (October 7, 1991 ) Memorandum (September 16, 1991 ) Staff Report (July 15, 1991) Planning Commission Minutes (July 15, 1991 ) Planning Commission Minutes (September 16, 1991 ) Planning Commission Minutes (October 7, 1991) Development Fee Checklist S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 4 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 17 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 88.4 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-A-2~ (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL- 2 ~ ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND R-5 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN SPACE COMBINING ZONE-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926-707-020. WHEREAS, Sterling Builders, Inc. filed Change of Zone No. 17 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on October 7, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Change of Zone; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Change of Zone on October 22, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Change of Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 5 The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP and does meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 17 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Change of Zone may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Zone Change approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Ae The City Council in approving the proposed Change of Zone,makes the following findings to wit: (1) The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 6 (2) There is a reasonable probability that the Zone Change from R-A-2 ~ to R-1 and R-5 will be consistent with the future General Plan. Further, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. (3) There is not a reasonable probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposal is consistent with surrounding land uses. (4) The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the project site. (5) The proposed change in district classification will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the General Plan when it is ultimately adopted. The density and land use proposed are consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and approved and proposed adjacent specific plans. (6) The site of the proposed change in district classification is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district as it is of adequate size and shape for the proposed residential use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely to arise as the project proposes residential uses similar to ~,hose existing in the general vicinity of the subject site. (7) Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements to proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with Riverside County standards. (8) Said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance The Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby recommends approval of Zone Change No. 17 to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from R-A-2~ to Rol and R-5 along the northeast corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926- 330-004 and 926-070-020. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 7 SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of October, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 8 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 ~ (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - 2 ~ ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND R-5 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN SPACE COMBINING ZONE-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926- 070-020. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 17 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 blaces in the City. SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO: CHANGE OF ZONE NO: 17 ORDINANCE NO: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: STERLI, IG RANCH mA~E OF ZONE NO. ) ~,ee,,, /...CP.._.D__E PORTOLA RID R-I R-5 I~,RCEL"C" PARCEL"E" o ~7,c e~,~s ~EE DETAIL R-5 FARCE L "A' R-5 PARCEL"D" O~ TAIL "B" ONE-FAMILY DWELLINGS OPEN AREA COMBINING ZONE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ,\ R-5 PARCEL"B" '~ SEE ~ETNL ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23125-A 215 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 88.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330- 004 AND 926-070-020. WHEREAS, Sterling Builders, Inc. filed the Time Extension in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Time. Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on October 7, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Time Extension. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Time Extension on October 22, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Time Extension; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Time Extension; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan S\STAFFRPT\23125-17 .CC 10 The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following findings can be made: The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. The Planning Cammission, in approving the proposed Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: S~STAFFRP?~23~2S-~7.CC 11 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the proposed zone of the subject site, and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Environmental Impact Report adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Appr-val. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 12 (9) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes two independent access points from De Portola Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. (10) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. (11) Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval, As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance That the City of Temecula City Council hereby determines that the previous environmental determination (Adoption of Environmental Impact Report No. 263) still applies to said Tract Map No. 23125 (Extension of Time). SECTION 3. Conditions That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves The First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 for a 215 residential subdivision on 88.4 acres located on the northeast corner of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-330-004 and 926-070-020 subject to the following conditions: 6. Attachment 4 attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR S\STAFFRFT\23125-17,CC 13 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of October 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC I 4 ATTACHMENT 4 CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planning Department Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Thc subdividcr shall providc for thc dcdication of park land and/or in licu, fccs to thc satisfaction of thc Tcmocula Community Scrviccs District (TCSD) Deard of Dircctors PfilOR TO fiECORDATION of final map, as authorizcd by City of Tcmccula Ordinancc No. 4 ~0.03. The park land dedication requirement shall be a predetermined amount based on the use and number of units proposed. If the park land requirement cannot be met, the applicant shall be required to pay a predetermined Quimby Act Fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of the required park land acreage (Plus 20% for offsite improvements). No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars (9100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is October 20, 1991. The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 (see attached) except as amended herein. 6. Prior to recordation, Change of Zone No. 17 shall be effective· The applicant shall comply with the California Department of Fish and Game (Streamed Alteration Agreement 5-381-90) recommendations outlined in the transmittal dated August 18, 1990, a copy of which is attached. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 15 The applicant shall comply with the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers recommendations outlined in the transmittal dated February 8, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Engineering Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. The developer shall comply with all previous Conditions of Approval except as amended by the following conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; Parks and Recreation Department; and Temecula Community Services District. 10. Any Noticc of Intcntion to anncx into thc Tcmccula Community Scrvicc District, Scrvicc Lcvcl "C" (Landscapc Maintcnoncc), civil bc submittcd to thc TCSD prior to rccordation of thc final map.. All coGtc involved in District anncxation shall bc bornc by thc dcvclopcr. 11. Noticc of Intcntion to anncx into thc Tornocula Community Scrvicc District, Scrvicc Lcvcl "A" (Mcdians), 3hall bc 3ubmittcd to TCSD prior to recordat, on of thc final map. All costs involvcd in District anncxation shall bo bornc by thc dcvclopcr. 12. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. 13. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any Subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 14. Prior to any work being. performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid =nd an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 16 15. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 16. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 17. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 18. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees), By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 19. If construction of improvements are phased and completed prior to development occurring on adjacent properties, a 28' wide secondary access road shall be provided within a recorded private road easement as approved by the City Engineer. 20. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 21. A signing plan shall be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with 66' of right-of-way or less and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. 22. Condition No. 32 of the Riverside County Road letter dated June 28, 1988, shall be deleted. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 17 Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) Department 23. The exterior (perimeter) slopes proposed in the Tract Map No. 23125 may be dedicated to the TCSD by way of an irrevocable offer to dedicate for landscape maintenance purposes, upon compliance to existing standards as approved by the TCSD, and upon completion of the application process. 24. The Parkland Dedication Requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres of improved parkland to be dedicated to the TCSD prior to issuance of 63rd Building Permit. 25. Approximately 12 acres of undeveloped open space contiguous with the proposed park site identified as Lot "C" shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD upon completion of required improvements, and prior to the issuance of the 63rd Building Permit. 26. All interior slopes including Lot "D" shall be maintained by an HOA. 27. The exterior slope maintenance areas proposed to be maintained by the TCSD shall be properly identified on the final map. 28. Riverside County Condition Nos. 18, d and e shall be replaced by the following condition: All non-arterial slopes shall be maintained by the established homeowners association for the subject tract (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125). 29. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall offer for dedication 2.75 acres of land (lot "A") and execute with the TCSD and agreement to improve the proposed 2.75 acre park in accordance with TCSD standards at the time of execution for park purposes within the area currently designated as a wetland. In the event that it is determined to be infeasible to provide parkland within the wetland area, applicant shall provide the required amount of land dedication and improvements at an alternate location within the project site. The responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of the remaining ope.~ space area (lot "B") shall be borne by the applicant and/or homeowners association until such time that improvements as required by State and Federal law are satisfied. 30. Prior to recordation of the final map, a grading plan for the project shall be approved by the City Engineer. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 1 ~E~ -'_n:ic..ed --re r~o ..-.~pze.- ,:.f Streambed Al:eraCion Agreement 5-381-90, >'cu -,.~ree v~.-.h :.he ,:..~ndx~x,rn:..'m:.-:,.u'e-. ir~es:e '-:~n '.'..;th ,:T~Aei In,.t re:'.:r~ :.:,e :.:, :'.:r if :,-:ur ;ntenr, .'.o c::mence 22-'-' j :': :. ~cr..;vl.'.;:: T'ne '.'".ilf:rr,:-m Fi:h -.n~ ,}-.me ,2.:..je requ:re~ ~hsr~ y.:.u n:.~zfy Zer. arr, r,e~r, :n wr~.',;ng v~.-..h~n :; .~:y.- .:f r_-c.e~pr~ :f :.'r,; s Proposal ;f you :o vxll '/.-~xd your r:.~h~, .'-..~ mrDx:rar..~cn, It :s recc.mmende,j ckmc you .-.cne, ac: t, he ~epart. men~, .-.s -.oon ~s ~s~ble t.o discuss .oc,;s~ble changes vi.shzn ,'..he pr,~p.'.sed Agreement, _'~ no~ ,~ake shy ch~n~es .~r ccrrecc:cn:'~ '-.~ .-..he proposed Agreemen~ vtt. h,gu,, firs,, rece~vtng Departr, entsL ,.' f ':'..-u h-_ve que:t Zcnl .- .9..4rd :n.) ,,ke preposed c.:.nd; t. :.:;n-, i:.le~-.e ,:ont. ac~ -.~ -.~ :-.1.~; 615--.'02I, :,--_.~ eke -.~.-sve you for your coope, raci¢n xn ~hi$ ma~er, AGPrnIENT EEGAEDINf) P_OFOSED .STI~M CE LAKE ALTE~TiON AGREEMENT, en~,ere..i ::'.:.~ .:f Fi*~h ~nd Gsme, !'.ere~n-_f,,er -.-_iled --'.-,e r, ep-,r-.=en-., =_r.~ ;,i,~--'AB, :ha 2e ar~..--en., ~ ~ .. .......... .--. ::e:erm~ned -. r. sr.. -:':.:h ,:,per~t.x,~r,s may · .e: :.: :-.ce.S f$,.,n)t TI-IMEOEE, ~he ~epart---enr, hereby i:r~,rx~:ee me~-,ure: t.~ p.r,:.:ec: f:-.h and '~l,jl:fe reeource-. durLn.) r..he E!i.~er)r,..-.r'-. york, '.'he ,Dperr, c.r ~ere~.:,' :.)ree~ ~.~ -..::tp', :he f.~ll.svtn.) me~:,:e-./ccn.~L.-..:.sne a-, ::)rr, .;f the pr~.pc. le.: york: see =_cta.:h.~ Iisr, .:.f propose,~ --e~aure.- ~. 'f -.~.e ,Dr~r~.~r"- work ch~n~e-. fr.--a ,..hat, -:.~ated ~n ~,he :,.ne,.-zfled shove, P-.his A,Keemenr, t-, no l..'.n~er v~lid and a new .=.-ai' '.:e :u~m~r,.-,e,~ ',.~ ~,h4 Department, .sf Fish end Game. -rat[';re '.: :::ply ie.:s:::'.s, :nciudln.) but n~ t:m&,,ed .'.: Filh and .}~me ,:.sde Sic'.'-::'.-. ~i03. "!03,5, 5550, =..55n, =.937 .and ~9~8 may reaul~ tn prosezu~:n. '::-.~'.tn7 ;n tees Agreemen5 aur, h.:r'.:e'. the Cpera~.sr t.: :re-.F--a--,- :.~ any :-_he :-- Frcperr, y, nor doe,~ ,,, relieve the Operat.,sr ,:.f re:pons:k.:l:'.y ft.r :~mp~;-_nce vtr, h .applicable federll, ,.t.a,,e, .:r !:.cal lava ::n-:,.::.-.:,~e,'J A,2reemen~ doee no~ .:onst~,,ur, e Oep~rcmenr, ,:.f Fish ."nd '.:,_.-.e end.~r'.eten', .:.f the pror>ssed .:.perlr,~.~n, .:r .-_t-.ure the ::n,:v:'.-e~ce v~th .r. erm~P..-~ requxred t'rcm-:'..her :iser"-: :r: Lgn~re ( · t~n~t,;re ) ( date ) Ca I ~ f~rnt.m Departmen~ o f Fish .and Game ( si~Jnatu~e ) ( date ) 2. .'.:e ,iperat. or prcpo-.es t-.~ -.liar -.~.e *.'.re.-m~.~ f.~r placement of fill vLth:n a r~partan and sandy valh habitat. fti'. :,f *_ -.mail r:F..,.-r~'-n *-tea :re=--.i:n ,:f !n a,jdit:,:,z~.ai .S ..~cre*. :f =:par:-_n [-;?h.~r...ar.. =..~j.m,zent. -.:, -..he 6. -~-,e Operator s.hall ~ubm;~ ~.~ ~he ~e~ar=~en~ f.:r review and approval. prx:r :o snitiatXon of proJec~ .s,:~vLtxe~, .s datalied plant.~n~ r,a/e~t.e for =he =~s~n area within LG~ l. ~ndx,:at~n) ~pe.c:ea. ,tuan~L=y, ~nd l.scat~on .:f ?i~nt~ng~. Included vxth =m~:enmnce plan f.:r the m~t:.)a~i.:n are~ tF.a~ vzll :n~ure a m:=:='*-.- :f ~0% ~,lrv:'.-al .after th~ first year'~ .)rcv~h .and 100% f~r yenrl ~vo th~cugh five. in :r-,'e~' '.s-determxne if the reve)etat;.:n techni.~:ei -.uc,:e-.sful .'..he plant** *,,hall .schxeve P.h.e mxnxmua growth at ~he end ,:,f three and f:ve year-,. If th~ minimum gr~.vth ~*, not achieved then ~he ':.oerar.~r *.hal: :'.e reeponsxble for r~aking c. he .appropriate .:orrectxve -~eter=:r. ed by Oepart.ment representat~','es. .'It40perat,:.r shall '-':e re-,p~n-.xble -::r l.-.y c.-*.t o,:curred during c, he ,~e-_-,u:el. 3PECiZ~ ~ISE AT FLANTI!!G HEIGHT PLANTING ::~ITEEB ~ years ~ year~ (GALLCNB) Arr::,'s ~Lll,sv PB ,) ft l0 ft 15 ft X gal/,~n ,B ft [Oft X5 ft ~yc~:cre 1 gallon 20 ft 5 ft g ft 5 gallon ~n = ft "ft X3 ft 15 gallon 25 ft 10 ft 18 ft gall.:n · ~ ft 12 ft gallon · ) ft 15 ft gallon · t3 ?t 20 ft -0 f: 2.2.. :r '--; T~-,e .i~.ers~or :l-,~ll :'~bm~ to r~he ~e~rc. men: f:r r.av:ew -.rld ~-~r.,rcvai vl~hln 59 l--ys =-fief ::mple~-:.rn cf the =.nn.;=.i ly chere=.,'r..er :.~%rz. ugn >'e)r .5. .'l:e ,Dpe. rmt.:,r :hall .~ml,~t.-m&n';,.::e ..~f }',and t...~..~ls and mppr~ve,~ herbzc:de-.) an e:.:o~;c pl.mn~ :'eraoval program during. :he ms;n.:ensnce g. .'r.e ,]petstot shall ,:amply v&th sll litter snd ~ollutx.:n l~vs. .All .:characters. ~ubccr~rsc~ors snd employees ~hsll s!so ::bey these l~s snd shall ke ~he resoonsxblL~v ,Dr ~he O.oera~or t.o ~ns.Jre ~he~r :,~mpli~nce. 10. ~:,~ e,:u&~menc :s&n~ensnce shall the e~u~men~ ~.~v enter these sre)s under any ~lov, i1. ~'.e Ee~srt. ment reserves the rloht t.o ent. er the cro.~e.;~ (:re)~ shy ~lme to e~s,ze ths~ :here :s c:moit.lnce vx~h ter:s./,:~n,~:.:ns ,if t~:~ A.3reemenc. 12..'!:e De~ar. cment reserves the, riohc to sus~oend .and/or revoke r, hxs A,~ree:en~ ~:' the ~e~.srt=ent ,]eterm~ne~ ~h. st ~h4 c:r:'~s~.snces ';arrant. czrc'~scances t.P~ .:3ul,] r~uxre .~ reeval~c$on xnclu.je. b. ~e ~nf,~rmat~,;n orov~d~ by the O~r~or ~,~ree:en~,'Not~f~,:.~t::n zs de~erm:ne,] b'/ ~ncc:~le:e. ,:.r ~n.mcc,:a~e. :. ~n r. ev ~r,f.srm.m~&,sn ~cc. mes .mv.sxXable ~,s the Ce~mrtmen~ re:re~enca~ve(~) t.h.s~ was no~ known when c. reMrSn?J ~h.e .:r~snsl ~er:s..c:nd~t~,:ns of this Aqreemen~. ~. ~e ~r.o.~ec~ ss descried ~n the No:xfics:&cn,'~reemen~ .;hmr.:ed..st ,:~nd~,:ni .sffec~n.: fish Ind v&ld~fe reto,:cei .:~noe. i3. ~-.e ,3~e. ra~or lha[1 provide a cooy of this Aoreement to all contractors. subcontractors. an~ the O~erator's oro.ject supervisors. Co~les o~ the aareem~.~t shall be readily avai?able a~ work si~es at all times durine perxodr: ot active work .~nd must be ~resented to any Ceeartment ~e, rsonnet. or enfcrcemen~ personnel from another a~encv u:x>n demand. i=. Ti',.- l--.-.r-.:.=r shall ::..~::f-/-.}-.-. '~-::'---'-=-~n:. in vri:lnq..aC lea~c five(S) Jays crlor to initiation of con~cruction(Dro.)ec~) actlvitie~ and z'ive(~) days ~rZor to cornDIe:ion of con~t~uc~on(oro.lec~,) ac~ivmCie~. ::~.~.i~::'-~..:,:n -_h~ll ?-e .*en~ to the ~er.,.~r.'.:en~ ~t l'-O ,:-,-~l,~en Eh,:.re..~uir..e .=g. ~,:n.: _'--.-_ch.C.~.. 90~'.On.. ~n: -'nv~r.:n~enr..al Z F:sh and C-sine Auaus~ :8, ef.~ · TO ak! I[NTION O' Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGSL(S DISTRICT, CORPS Of rNGIN(i'RS mO IOi~lt LOS ANGELES CAI. iFORNIA ~$3-~325 February 8, 1991 Sterling Builders c/o RANPAC Corp. ATTN: John R. Easton 27447 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, California 92390 RE: File Number 91-201-MJ Gentlemen: This is in reply to your application dated June 29, 1991 for a Department of the Army Permit to place 20,000 c.y. of fill material in 0.56 acre of waters of the United States, of which 0.15 acre of wetland habitat. As mitigation, 0.3 acre of wetland habitat will be created on-site. The project is located in the streambed of an unnamed tributary of Temecula Creek, approximately 6000' west-northwest of State Highway 79 bridge crossing over Temecula Creek, in the city and county of Riverside, California. Regulations for our permit program, published in the Federal Register, include Part 330 - Nationwide Permits (see the enclosure). The Corps of Engineers has determined that your proposed activity complies with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit at Part 330.5(a)(26) for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, that are located above the headwaters or are isolated waters and which would cause loss or substantial adverse modification of less than one acre of such waters. As long as you comply with the nationwide permit conditions described in Part 330.5(b) and submit mitigation site reports to the Corps every year for the next three years after mitigation has been completed, an individual permit is not required. This letter of verification is valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. All the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued or revoked prior to 13 January 1992. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public notice announcing the changes when they occur. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide permit is modified or revoked~ you will have twelve months from the date of the modification or revocation to -2- complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. A nationwide permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. Also, it does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others or authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. Furthermore, it does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. If you have any questions please contact Mike Jewel1 of my staff at (213) 894-5606. Sincerely, Diane K. Noda Acting Chief, Southern Section Enclosure RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPART)4ENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23125 DATE: AHENDED NO. 2 / EXPIRES: /*j '- '~' ~' STANDARD CONDITIONS The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees frun any claim, action, or ~roceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or ~ployees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the County Of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body :oncerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23125, which action is brought mbout within the time period provided for in California Government Code )ection 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the ;ubdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of iverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to )romptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or 'ails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, ':hereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold ha,less the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the -requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall subnit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 6. Xf any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall subnit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT Conditions of Approval Page 2 23125, ~md. #2 7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to carmencement of any grading outside of county ~klintained r h ofmy. oad rig t 8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final n~p. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 6-28-88, a copy of which is attached. 10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract ~lp boundary to a County maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Coenissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Heal th Department's letter dated 6-23-88, a copy of which is attached. 14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations ~ outl_.tnP, d by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated -': ./'~'6-28-8B~ a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an ~../~'~daa~(~d'flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be co lected h by t · Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall comply outlined in the County which is attached. with the fire improvement recommendations Fire Parshal's letter dated 6-22-88, a copy of Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially confom to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: YESTII~ TEffTATIVE TRACT I10. :3125,*Amd. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 3 a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net. b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained condition and shall be either planted with interim provided with other erosion control measures as Director of Building and Safety. in a keed-free landscaping or approved by the Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirenents outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County mood Control County Health Department County Planning Department Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5122 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformante with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. ~c~-__Prior to --reco__rdation of the final annexed into C$A 1t3 map, the pr~jeei: sitt~ih'iTi"'be' Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee simple title, to all common or common open space areas, free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which in the sole discretion of the County are acceptable. As a conditions precedent to the County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall su)it the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. VE.%'TII~ TE::I(TAT~VE TRACT I~. 23125, ~lld. II2 Conditions of Approval Page 4 The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provide for a term of 60 years, (b) provide for the establishant of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall, if dormant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners' association shall unconditionally accept fr~n the County of Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of the 'c~mmon area', more particularly described on Exhib~t'A' attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the property owners' association and the decision to require that the association unconditionally accept title to the 'co~non area' shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside. In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is conwmyed to the ~roperty owners' association, the association, thereafter shal own such 'coffmnon area', shall manage and continuously maintain such 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent c~ the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common aream. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control." Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map recorded, VESTING TE!FFATXVE TRACT lO. 23125,/ed. 12 Conditions of Approval Page 5 The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation system until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanentl filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shal~ be tranmitted to the Planning Depar~ent for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Deparl~nent and the Depar~ent of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: 'County Environmental Impact Report No. 263 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERNITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. ~ 1 mitigation for seismic and liquefaction hazard shall be that which is found in Environmental Impact Report No. 263. The following tree preservation guidelines shall the projects approved grading, building and appropriate: be incorporated in landscaping plans as Every effort shall be made to prevent encroachment of structures, grading or trenching within the dripline or twenty-five (25) feet of the trunk of any trees, whichever is greater. If encroacl~nent within the dripline is unavoidable, no more than one third of the root area shall be disturbed, grading or covered with impervious materials. The root area is considered to extend beyond the dripline a distance equal to one half the radius. 3. Building, grading or improvements shall not occur within ten (10) feet of any tree trunk. Retaining walls shall be constructed where necessary to preserve natural pVrade at least one-half the distance between the trunk and the dri~ inc. Walls shall be designed with a post or caisson footing rather than I continuous footing to minimize root damage. VEST[JIG TENTATIVE TItACT N0. 23125, Condjtjmu of AppPoval Page 6 0o Alteration of natural drainage shall be avoided to the greatest extent poss i bl e. Runoff channelled near trees shall not substantially change normal soil moisture characteristics on a seasonal basis. Runoff shall not be directed towards the base of trees so that the base of the trees remain in wet soil for an extended period. Where natural topography has been altered, drainage away fro~ trunks shall be provided where necessary to ensure that water will not stand at the crown. Sedimentation and siltation in the drainage ways shall be controlled where necessary to avoid filling around the base of the trees. Land uses that would cause excessive soil compaction within the dripline of trees shall be avoided. If the areas are planned for recreation, provide trails to restrict compaction to a small area. Heavy use under trees shall be avoided unless measures to minim3ze compaction are undertaken. Landscaping or irrigation shall not be installed within ten {10} feet of any trees. All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. If any archaeological resources are uncovered during grading or trench' all activities shall cease and an archaeologist shall be consul~): Any recommendations of the archaeologist shall be adhered to~ All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall incorporating the following grading techniques: natural terrain and be contour-graded 1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged· The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain, 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. V~'TIM6 TERTATIVE TRACT I. Conditions ef Approval Page 7 23125, ABd. t2 4) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope s~all be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologast and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with publ ~c facility fi ' measures· A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library develoment. d4 Prior to the sutxnittal of building plans to the Department ' ' engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be ap lied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce aPmCient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. M1 street lights an other outdoor lighting shall be shown on h electrical plans submitted to t e 0apartment of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed park site and riparian area develormnent lens shall be submitted to the Planning Deparment for approval. T~ese plans shall conform with guidelines found in the approved design manual (Exhibit M). The park shall include active YESlXMG TEMTATXYE TItACT NO. 23125, Amd. t2 Conditions of Approval Page 8 recreational features such as picnic l~bles, ~rbecue areas, tot lots, etc. For the security and safety of future residents, the following crime ign: a. Proper lighting in open areas; b. Visibility of doors and windows from the street and between buildings; c. Fencing heights and materials; d. ~equate off-street parking; and e. A clearly understood method of street numbering to facilitate emergency response. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be su)itted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping, and shall confom to the standards set forth "- in the tract's approved Design Nanual (Exhibit M). The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation, and shall incorporate drip irrigation wherever possible. · Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth beming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenaries where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department. 3. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the pro~ect. 4. Where street trees cannot be planted within ri ha-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufVicient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road r i ght-of-way. VESTING TE)ITATIVE TRACT gO. 23125, lmd. ~2 Conditions of Approval Page 9 5. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought t~lerant plants where appropriate. 6. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 7. Front and rear yard landscaping shall incorporate the use of shade trees. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equi;nent or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. All front yards shall irrigation. be provided with landscaping and automatic A plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Deparb~ent pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the Riverside C~unty Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformante of the final site develo~nent w~th the tract's approved Design ~nual (Exhibit)4), and shall contain the following elements: A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setbacks, fences and/or walls, and ~oor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots. One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of B X 13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers; brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone numbers ot~ both the sample board preparer and the project a plicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers w~ere possible (trade names also acceptable). One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color and materials board. The written color and material descriptions shall be located on the elevation. X 10 i of both color and materials board and colored architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review and agency distribution. All writing must be legible. VESTZI~ TENTATIVE TRACT RO. lZ3125o Aid. ~2 Conditions of Approval Page 10 Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planing Director · tth ' ~orp l:sns. u,~ of any buildi nnits for lots included with,n submittal of otPeplans prior to the issuance of building permits may be phased provided: A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planing Depart=ent for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing fees. Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included within that plot plan. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERHITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Wall and/or fence locations shall conform to approved site plan. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control reasures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. c. Prior to occupancy, bike paths shall be installed along De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection. )t ~thstanding the preceding conditions, ~erever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation ~rposes, the heights of all ,required ~lls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to occupancy, the park site and riparian enhancement area shall be developed in accordance with approved plans· GN:sc 9/02/88 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Road and Survey Department May 11, 1988 TO: l~ee Johnson, Principal Engineering Technician FRO~: Edwin S~udor, Transpor=a=ion Planner MAY 16 1988 RIVEh .,,,. ,. 'dNTY PLANNING DEP:A'RTM ENT RE: Tentative Tract 23125 (Sterling Ranch) - Traffic S=udy We have reviewed ~he Traffic Study for Ten=a~ive Trac= 23125, and generally agree with ~he analysis rela=ive ~o ~raffic and circulation. Based upon our review of ~his proposal, i~ is recommended tha= the following considera=ions be given in developing conditions of approval for ~his projec=. e The projec~ proponen~ shall participa=e in the Traffic Signal Mi=igation Program as approved by ~he Board of Supervisors. Bu~=erfield S~age Road and De Portola Road, adjacen= to ~he project, should be improved to an arterial highway (110' foo= right-of-way). A 150 foot left turn lane pocke~ should be [~rovided for traffic on But=erfield Stage Road and De Por=ola desiring =o turn left into each projec~ en=rance. ES:AE:lg co: PXanning Department Subdivision file March 8, 1988 RIVERS;DE COUNTY PLArINING DEi=A~T Board of Rjcbard D. St~ffey Jams A. ~b)' ~. V~ ~ident ~ph D~ly ~ug Kul~rg Jan A. Jeffny L. M~er T. C. Officers: Stan T. Mills General Mana&~r Philtip L. Forbes D~r of Fmanc, - Norman L. Thoumaw Diretot of Enr. neerml Thoumaw R. McAlleeter Dirtc~r of OperaUreas & Ma~nranence Barban J. P. aed DistrEt 5ecrwtary Rutaa end Tucker Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Vesting Tract 23125 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property o~ner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.-- Sites for additional water production facilities ma be required within the proposed development depending upon the level of increased demand created by the proposal. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Ver~ truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Engineering Services Representative FO11/dpt84 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRIC 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA. CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0( ATTACHMENT 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director October 7, 1991 Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time-Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 were presented before the Planning Commission on September 16, 1991. Both applications were unanimously motioned to be continued to the October 7, 1991, Planning Commission meeting in order for both Staff and applicant to address the dedication of the parkland and the maintenance of open spaces by the homeowners association. The parkland dedication requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres of improved parkland identified on Tract Map No. 23125 as lot "A" which will be dedicated to the TCSD prior to recordation of the final map and be improved to TCSD standards prior to issuance of the 63rd Building Permit. Approximately 12 acres of undeveloped open space contiguous with the proposed parksite identified as lot "C" and approximately 2.6 acres of wetland identified as lot "B" will be dedicated to the TCSD upon completion of required improvements and prior to the issuance of the 63rd building permit. In addition, all interior slopes including lot "D" will be maintained by an HOA (see Tract Map No. 23125). The exterior slope maintenance areas are proposed to be maintained by the TCSD and will be properly identified on the final map. S~STAFFRPT\23~ 2S-~ 7. CC 19 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council: ACCEPTANCE of Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 17; and ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. Memorandum (September 16, 1991 ) Staff Report (July 15, 1991 ) Resolution (Change of Zone No. 17) Resolution (First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) Condition of Approval (First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) California Department of Fish and Game Transmittal Dated August 18, 1990 Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers Transmittal Dated February 8, 1991 Minutes (July 15, 1991 ) Minutes (September 16, 1991 ) S\STAFFRPT\23125-17,CC 20 PLzd~NING COMMI88ION MINUTES 2EPTEMBER 16, 1991 Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Proposal to change the zoning on 88.4 acres from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5; and subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single family residential lots. Located on the northeast corner of DePortola and Butterfield Stage Road. RICHARD AYALA provided the staff report. GARY KING advised that Condition #22, page 27, would be amended to read "...prior to recordation of the final map, and approved to TCSD standards prior to issuance of the sixty third building permit." COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if any more lot 215 could be developed. GARY KING stated that there was approximately 5 acres that has been set aside as wet land area, 2.75 acres negotiated as park land and approximately 10 acres is designated as open space, which can be intergrated into the City trail system. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned deliniating lot 215 into two separate lots through conditioning. GARY THORNHILL advised that they could condition that separation. CHAIRMAN BOAGLAND stated that the City would be able to accept the 2.75 acre park site; however, deny or accept the wet land area through dedication. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. DAVE JAMES, Ranpac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated their concurrence with the staff report. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the applicant would be willing to designate lot 215 into three separate lots as slopes, park land and wet land. DAVE JAMES stated that they would be willing to condition that the final map designate lot 215 into three separate lots. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAMD asked if the Homeowners Association would accept the slope area for maintenance. PCMINg/le/91 -11- 9-12-91 PLkNNIN(~ CO]O~ISSION KINUTES B~PTEMBER 16, 1991 · DAVE JAMES stated that they had hoped the City would accept all of lot 215 including the slopes; however, if the City did not accept all of lot 215, the HOA would maintain the lot(s) not accepted as dedication. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that a condition be included to ensure that the Homeowners Association maintain the interior open spaces. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned Condition No. 2 being redundant to TCSD condition requiring land dedication. GARY KING concurred with Commissioner Fahey and stated that Condition No. 2 could be deleted. GARY THORNHILL recommended deleting Condition 18, D & E, and amend with a condition stating that the Homeowners Association shall maintain non-arterial slopes. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated he was unclear how the City was going to develop park land on what appeared to be the sump area of the wet lands. DOUG STEWART stated that staff will investigate the sump location prior to approving the park land. " COMMISSIONER FORD suggested conditioning that applicant will work with Engineering and TCSD to get the wet land area into useable land. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting Tentatie Tract Map No. 23125, to the next available meeting, to allow staff to address the concerns of the Commission regarding --dedication of the park land and the maintenance of open spaces by the Homeowners Association and bring back to the Commission with the written conditions, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that the applicant needs to work with TCSD to provide plans for improvement to the park area taking into consideration the location of the storm drain. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMINg/16/91 -12 - 9-18-91 ATTACHMENT 5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director October 7, 1991 Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time-Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 were presented before the Planning Commission on September 16, 1991. Both applications were unanimously motioned to be continued to the October 7, 1991, Planning Commission meeting in order for both Staff and applicant to address the dedication of the parkland and the maintenance of open spaces by the homeowners association. The parkland dedication requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres of improved parkland identified on Tract Map No. 23125 as lot "A" which will be dedicated to the TCSD prior to recordation of the final map and be improved to TCSD standards prior to issuance of the 63rd Building Permit. Approximately 12 acres of undeveloped open space contiguous with the proposed parksite identified as lot "C" and approximately 2.6 acres of wetland identified as lot "B" will be dedicated to the TCSD upon completion of required improvements and prior to the issuance of the 63rd building permit. In addition, all interior slopes including lot "D" will be maintained by an HOA (see Tract Map No. 23125). The exterior slope maintenance areas are proposed to be maintained by the TCSD and will be properly identified on the final map. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17,CC I 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council: ACCEPTANCE of Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 17; and e ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum (September 16, 1991 ) Staff Report (July 15, 1991 ) Resolution (Change of Zone No. 17) Resolution (First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) Condition of Approval (First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) California Department of Fish and Game Transmittal Dated August 18, 1990 Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers Transmittal Dated February 8, 1991 Minutes (July 15, 1991 ) Minutes (September 16, 1991 ) S\STAFFRPT~23125A.VTM 2 ATTACHMENT 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director DATE: September 16, 1991 SUBJECT: Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time-Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23125 were presented before the Planning Commission on July 15, 1991. Both applications were unanimously motioned to be continued to the following Planning Commission meeting in order for both Staff and applicant to address slopes, H.O.A., and acceptability of the proposed park site for the subject project. In response to the Commission's direction to reduce the slopes on the subject tract map, the applicant feels that a re-design of the project in order to reduce slopes would be an extreme hardship, due to the tentative and final map approvals that have been obtained over the past three years at a cost of approximately 9728,000.00 for consultants and agency fees alone. The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) has reviewed the subject tract and has concluded that interior slopes within Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 shall be maintained by an established H.O.A. However, the exterior slopes may be dedicated to the City of Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) by way of an irrevocable offer of dedication for maintenance. In either case, the slopes proposed shall comply with existing standards as approved by the TCSD. The proposed tract consists of 212 single family residential homes. The parkland dedication requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres or payment of the equivalent fair market value plus 20% for off-site improvements. The proposed tract has approximately 18 acres of open space to the east of the project and is proposing to improve 2.75 acres for active park use. Therefore, the applicant meets the required parkland dedication. The remaining open space will retain its natural condition and will be maintained by the TCSD. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 2 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council: ACCEPTANCE of Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of Change of Zone No, 17; and ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. Staff Report (July 15, 1991 ) Resolution (Change of Zone No. 17) Resolution (First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) Condition of Approval (First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) Minutes (July 15, 1991 ) S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 2 2 ATTACHMENT 7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION July 15, 1991 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 17 First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: Forward the following recommendations to the City Council: ACCEPT Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 17; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Sterling Builders, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Ranpac Engineering Corporation PROPOSAL: ChanQe of Zone No. 17 Change of Zone No. 17 is a proposal to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural - 2 1/2 Acres Minimum) to R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone - Residential Developments). S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.C0 2 3 LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: R-A-2 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 23125 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes a two hundred fifteen (215) lot residential subdivision of 88.4 acres. Northeast Corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage Road. 1/2 (Residential Agricultural - 2 1/2 Acre Minimum) R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) South: R-R (Rural Residential) East: R-R (Rural Residential) West: SP (Specific Plan) R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone Developments) Residential Vacant North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant Project Area: Proposed No. of Lots: Proposed Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Density: SWAP Density: Acreage Designated By Proposed Zones: R-1 (One-Family Dwellings): R-5 (Open Area Combination Zone- Residential Development): 88.4 acres 212 residential, 3 open space 7,200 sq.ft. 2.3 DU/AC 2-4 DU/AC 61.61 acres 22 acres Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 were presented before the Planning Commission on July 15, 1991. Both applications were unanimously motioned to be continued to the following Planning Commission in order for both Staff and applicant to address slopes, H.O.A., and acceptability of the proposed park site for the subject project. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 24 - BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The original application, Change of Zone No. 5122 was a request to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural 2 1/2 Acres Minimum) to R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) and R-5 (Open Area Combinating Zone - Residential Development) zones. This Zone Change was approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 20, 1988, along with Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 which proposed a 212 Residential lot subdivision on 88.4 acres. However, due to an oversight by the County, the Zone Change was acted upon on May 29, 1990, after the official incorporation date of the City of Temecula (December 1, 1989). Therefore, the Zone Change was never officially adopted. The applicant submitted a new application, Change of Zone No. 17, to the City of Temecula Planning Department on May 21, 1991. First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 was submitted to the City of Temecula on July 6, 1990 and was processed through Pre-DRC (Development Review Committee) at which time the zone change issue was identified. The Extension was then put on hold until the Zone Change could be resolved, Therefore, both Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 are being processed concurrently. Chanae of Zone No. 17 The applicant is proposing to change the zone on 88.4 acres of land situated at the northeast corner of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road, which is identical to the original Zone Change No. 5122. The land use breakdown is as follows: R-l, One-Family Dwellings - 61.61 acres. This zoning permits single family dwellings. R-5, Open Area Combining Zone Residential Developments - 22 acres. This zone allows for the development of parkland uses. The proposed zoning will be consistent with projects approved in the area such as the Crowne Hill project (Change of Zone No. 4814, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23143) located immediately adjacent to the north. This project was approved by the Board of Supervisors on S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 2 5 ANALYSIS: August 16, 1988, and will ultimately create 1,092 R-1 residential lots, 26 R-A-2 1/2 lots and 11 open space lots for parks, a school, and open area. The Paloma Del Sol Plan (SP 219) is located directly to the west of the project site, across Butterfield Stage Road. This specific plan covers 1,389 acres and will allow up to a maximum of 5,611 dwelling units. The area of this specific plan nearest to the proposed project site calls for Medium density residential, 2-5 dwelling units per acre. First Extension of Time for Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 23125 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes to subdivide the subject 88.4 acre site into a residential development consisting of 21 2 residential lots and 3 open space lots, with an overall density of 2.3 units per acre. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-1 zone (One- Family Dwellings). The project site is located at the Northeast corner of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road. At present, the site is vacant. Chanae of Zone No. 17 The subject site is currently zoned R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural, 2 1/2 Acres Minimum) and designated 2-4 DU/AC by the SWAP (Southwest Area Community Plan) Map. Surrounding properties adjacent to the subject site are designated by SWAP as being 2-4 DU/AC, Commercial and Specific Plan uses. Currently, there is an approved specific plan (Paloma Del Sol) situated to the west, and a 1,092 residential subdivision (VTM 23143) directly to the north of the subject site, which consists of similar developments and densities being proposed by the applicant. The applicant is proposing to zone the areas adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road R-5 in order to provide for adequate open space between the proposed roads and residential development. The interior of the subject site is entirely zoned R-1. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 2 6 In addition, Staff has reviewed the proposed zoning for the subject site and has found it to be acceptable due to the proposed density being consistent with the SWAP and approved projects adjacent to the subject site. First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 23125 Design Considerations The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) zone and Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460. The main access to the project is provided by De Portola Road. Open SPace/SloPes The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) has reviewed that subject tract and has concluded that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 shall be maintained by an established H.O.A. However, the H.O.A. may, at a later date, elect to have the slopes dedicated to the City of Temecula, Community Services District (TCSD) by way of an irrevocable offer of dedication for maintenance. In either case the slopes proposed shall comply with existing standards as approved by the TCSD. Density The proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) has a density of 2.3 DU/AC. The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) calls for 2-4 DU/AC, thus, meeting the SWAP residential Density requirement. Quimbv Act The proposed tract consists of 212 single family residential homes, The parkland dedication requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres or payment of the equivalent fair market value plus 20% for off-site improvements. The proposed tract has identified a proposed 2 acre park. With the required parkland dedication of 2.75 acres, the 2 acre park has a shortage of .75 acres. The applicant has agreed to increase the park to 2.75 acres in lieu of parkland fees. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 2 7 FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: The proposed Change of Zone and density of 2.3 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-4 units per acre. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. In accordance with the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Environmental Impact Report No. 263 was prepared in connection with the proposed project. All significant effect of the project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effect was evaluated in accordance with the Riverside County Rules to implement CEQA. Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 263, was approved by the Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. Change of Zone No. 17 The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. There is a reasonable probability that the zone change from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5 will be consistent with the future General Plan. Further, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. There is not a reasonable probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposal is consistent with surrounding land uses. The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the project site. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 28 The proposed change in district classification will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the General Plan when it is ultimately adopted· The density and land use proposed are consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and approved and proposed adjacent specific plans. The site of the proposed change in district classification is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district as it is of adequate size and shape for the proposed residential use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely to arise as the project proposes residential uses similar to those existing in the general vicinity of the subject site. Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements to proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with Riverside County standards· Said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. First Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Tract MaD No. 23125 There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amen,ties commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17, CC :~ 9 There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. S\STAI~FRPT\23125-17.CC 30 10. 11. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site, and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes two independent access points from De Portola Road which has been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 3 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the following recommendations to the City Council: ACCEPTION of Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; ADOPTION of Resolution No. 9 1 - recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 17; and ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. vgw Attachments: 1. 2. Resolution (Change of Zone No. 17) Resolution (First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) Conditions of Approval (First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) Exhibits A. Change of Zone No. 17 B. First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 3 2 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ CASE NO/~-7-. ExT. LOCATION 'MAP ~ p.C. DATE i~-~-~1 CITY OF TEMECULA THE MEADOWS -- SP 219 - ' / .-i I ' L .~ / DU/;AC' .,.,/-J / VAI"L~RANCH ,- SP },?,,,3 SWAP MAP CASE NO. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ S P ZONE ~-~ \ S'~ZONE c 3Z ZO~4E MAP ) CASE NO. / .zs/zr P,C, DATE CHANGE OF ZONE NO. / "' ,.,.,~ SEC8,9,/7,16, I'BS, R2W, ,5'.88 8 M ' .... ~LSO BEING ,4 PORT/ON OF R4NCHO''~! ~ P4UB,4 ~ j VICINrTY MAP \ \ R-t I:~RCEL'E" i 6; AC GRO$~ R-5 F~IU~,,EL"C" 0 r/AC GRO~S T'::,',.7. '~. ~3,25 A,='\ ;25_ 33;_ Drj,¢ SEE DETAIL R-5 PARCEL "A" /797AC GR~SS 'R-5 PAI:~,CEL"B" O 04 AC GROSS '--SEE DETAtL R-5 I=hIF~EL"D" 322 ,kC QROS$ ~ ._Z~.. DE F:~:::~TgL~_' RD DETAIL "B" 0 2CX) CASE I "' ~ RANPAC MAY 1991 3 E ion of Chairman and Vice Chairman It was m ed by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner F. ey to nominate Commission John Hoagland for the office of Chairperson. Commissioner For laced the name of Commissio r Chiniaeff in nomination. Commissioner Chiniaef eclined the nomination. The motion was unanimously ried. Chairman Hoagland entertained no ' ' ns for the office of Vice Chairperson. It was moved by Commissioner Chi ' d by Commissioner Blair to nominate Commissioner Linda Fa ' · Chairperson. The motion was unanimously carrie 5 Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. The staff report was presented by Steve Jiannino. Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned the maximum height of the slopes proposed and asked who would have maintenance responsibility for these slopes. Staff advised that the slopes range from 30 to 60 feet and that ultimate maintenance responsibility has not been determined. Commissioner Ford expressed concern with the lack of information regarding the parks dedications proposed. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:22 PM. Dave James, representing Ranpac Engineering, 24727 Enterprise Circle West, representing the applicant stated that the applicant agrees with the conditions of approval and advised that the map is conditioned to allow for the Quimby fees to be negotiated at the time the design development guidelines are addressed prior to recordation of the final map. Commissioner Chiniaeff again outlined his concerns regarding the maintenance of the slopes which are shown to be on private residential parcels. Planning Director Thornhill suggested that a homeowners association be required for this purpose. Mike Gray, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that the County's slope maintenance program is very difficult to administer where individual private parcels are involved. He adviseC that in some instances the problems have been unsolvabls 21PCMine/O71591 2 7 In response to e question from Commissioner Fahey, Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh advised that if a homeowners association is in place and is given the responsibility to properly maintain the slopes, the association should require that an easement be granted which allows them access to the private property. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue the public hearing on this matter to the meeting of August 19, 1991, with direction given to staff to 1) work with the developer on the design with the goal of reducing the severe slopes, 2) to condition the project to require a homeowners association, and 3) to work with the Community Services Department on the matter of slopes dedications and the acceptability of the proposed park site. The motion was unanimously carried. Aooeal No. 15 Jiannino presented the staff report outlining the proposed sign Iocati~ roof of the adjoining suite. Hoegland opened the public hearing at 6:45 PM. It was by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissi Public Hearin 6:45 PM and to adopt a resolution enl Ford to close the RESOLUTION NO. 91-68 A RE', TEMECULA TO INSTALL AN EXISTING ROOF AVENUE AND AVENUE. THE PLANNING C 3N OF THE CITY OF APPEAL NO. 15, A[ PLOT PLAN NO. 91, )] I SQUARE FOOT SIGN ABOVE AN ON )RTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON KNOWN AS 27425 JEFFERSON The motion carried by the AYES: 5 C( Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 None ABSENT: 0 $SIONERS: None Chanqe of Zo 16 The staff ~ort was presented by Steve Jiannino. Chai~ Hoegland opened the public hearing at 6:51 PM. 591 3 Pr.s. NNIN0 COMXI NGZON MINUTE8 8EPTEMBER 26, 199X Change of Zone No, 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Hap No. 23125 9.1 Proposal to change the zoning on 88.4 acres from R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 and R-5; and subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single family residential lots. Located on the northeast corner of DePortola and Butterfield Stage Road. RICHARD AYALA provided the staff report. GARY KING advised that Condition #22, page 27, would be amended to read "...prior to recordation of the final map, and approved to TCSD standards prior to issuance of the sixty third building permit." COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if any more lot 215 could be developed. GARY KING stated that there was approximately 5 acres that has been set aside as wet land area, 2.75 acres negotiated as park land and approximately 10 acres is designated as open space, which can be intergrated into the City trail system. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned deliniating lot 215 into two separate lots through conditioning. GARY THORNHILL advised that they could condition that separation. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that the City would be able to accept the 2.75 acre park site; however, deny or accept the wet land area through dedication. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. DAVE JAMES, Ranpac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated their concurrence with the staff report. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the applicant would be willing to designate lot 215 into three separate lots as slopes, park land and wet land. DAVE JAMES stated that they would be willing to condition that the final map designate lot 215 into three separate lots. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked if the Homeowners Association would accept the slope area for maintenance. PCMINg/16/91 -11- 9-18-91 Px.~I~NING COIO!ISSION NINUTES 2~-PTF. I~R 16o 1991 DAVE JAMES stated that they had hoped the City would accept all of lot 215 including the slopes; however, if the City did not accept all of lot 215, the HOA would maintain the lot(s) not accepted as dedication. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that a condition be included to ensure that the Homeowners Association maintain the interior open spaces. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned Condition No. 2 being redundant to TCSD condition requiring land dedication. GARY KING concurred with Commissioner Fahey and stated that Condition No. 2 could be deleted. GARY THORNHILL recommended deleting Condition 18, D & E, and amend with a condition stating that the Homeowners Association shall maintain non-arterial slopes. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated he was unclear how the City was going to develop park land on what appeared to be the sump area of the wet lands. DOUG STEWART stated that staff will investigate the sump location prior to approving the park land. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested conditioning that applicant will work with Engineering and TCSD to get the wet land area into useable land. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time Vesting Tentatie Tract Map No. 23125, to the next available meeting, to allow staff to address the concerns of the Commission regarding dedication of the park land and the maintenance of open spaces by the Homeowners Association and bring back to the Commission with the written conditions, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that the applicant needs to work with TCSD to provide plans for improvement to the park area taking into consideration the location of the storm drain. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMINg/16/91 -12- 9-18-T1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1991 further as suggested by Mr. Perry· COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hea the staff report to include the expanding the z l e to extend north to include all four quadrants of t~ee fro ring the hills and up to Sixth Stre. ~xtending down Pujol Street to include the slaugh' 'house and the AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Bli Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that Items 9, 10, 11 & 12 confer with the City of impacts. the Ci' of Murrieta was requesting e contj to allow their staff to staff regarding circulation CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the No. 9, No. 10, No. 11 and No hearing at 7:05 P.M. on Items COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF conflict of interest. COMMISSIONER BLAIR and No. 12 to the seconded by : 4 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN:I CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 17 AND FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23125 down on these items due to a to continue Items o. 9, No. 10, No. 11 scheduled meetin of October 21, 1991, FAHEY. COMMISSIONERS: Blair, F ey, Ford, Hoagland COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: ' ' 5.1 Proposal to change the zoning on 88.4 acres from R-A-2-1/2 to R-1 and R-5; and subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single family residential lots. Located at the northeast corner of DePortola and Butterfield Stage Road. TPCMIN10/07/91 -5- 10/08/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1991 RICHARD AYALA provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. DAVID JAMES, RanPac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, indicated concurrence to the staff report and the Conditions of Approval. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised the applicant that staff had modified Condition 29, first sentence, to read "Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall offer for dedication". COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and recommend to the City Council Acceptance of Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 17 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending approval of First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. The motion failed due to lack of second. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed concerns for the following: that the Commission is relying on old county documents in regards to the HOA, referring to dormant; Conditions 10 and 11 were deleted and Commissioner Ford felt they should remain; and what improvements will be done to Area C, open space. GARY KING stated that Conditions 10 and 11 were deleted because it is an automatic when the tracts are conditioned through DRC, that TCSD goes into an agreement with the applicant for dedication of the slopes. GARY THORNHILL advised that the applicant has approved CC&R's with the City Attorney that requires an active HOA. Mr. Thornhill suggested modifying Condition 29 to read " ..... land, and execute an agreement with TCSD to improve the proposed 2.75 acre property in accordance with TCSD standards at the time of execution." COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that Condition 25 be modified with the same language as above. COMMISSIONER FAMEY moved to close the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. and recommend to the City Council Acceptance of Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. TPCMIN10/07/91 -6- lo/oe/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7o 1991 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next] recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 17 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending approval of First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND declared a five minute recess. reconvened at 7:30 P.M. The meeting COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND opened the public hearing on Item No. 13. The applicant requested that the item be postponed to later in the public hearing to allow for his consultant to arrive. · TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 25892 6.1 Proposal to sub-divide 20 acres into 34 single fax residential lots. Located on the south side of ~ between Ynez and Margarita Roads. heraring C I e h~~ at 7:40 P.M. expressed a c cern with ition 49 requiring that CC&R's be provi d to ma' n slopes and common open were some common drainage areas, which the a was requesting TCSD maintain. Mr. Masyczeh reque~ deleting Condition 49 and replace with a condition D maintain the drainage areas and that adequa warning given to the property owners for the maint~ of areas. ly Road CHAIRMAN maintain asked if these drainage areas. be interested in TPCMII GARY advised that the TCSD was interested in the app request to amend Condition 4 ASMUS, 40521 Calle Cansione, Temecula, s ke in favor -7- 07/~1 TE-VTM23125 ATTACHMENT 11 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 1 Condition No. 2 Condition No. 18 Condition No. 18 Condition No. 3 County Condition No. 15 County Condition No. 14 S\STAFFRPT\23125-17 .CC 44 ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC .CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Dave Dixon, City Manager City Council Rick Sayre Chief of Police October 22, 1991 I-15 Overcrossing RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: Council approve the appropriation of additional funds totaling $63,000 to continue the Rancho California 1-15 Overcrossing Program until signals are installed during Spring of 1992. During budget hearings for F.Y. 91-92, all indicators were that the 1-15 Rancho California Overcrossing would be signalized by September of 1991. Based upon this information, $25,000 was budgeted for the program. Current information indicates the signal installation will be delayed to Spring of 1992. If the I-15 Overcrossing project is to continue, sufficient funding is required to maintain the operation from October 1991 through April of 1992. The program has been very successful! The current contract with All Cities Management is through June 30, 1992. FISCAL IMPACT: On an average, the monthly fees for the services provided by All Cities Management is $9,000. The projected needed funds are $63,000 to be appropriated through Resolution #91 - RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $63,000 TO TRAFFIC GUARD PROGRAM The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That the FY 1990-91 Annual Budget of the City of Temecula is hereby amended to appropriate $63,000 from Unreserved Fund Balance, Account No. 001-305 to Traffic Control, Account No. 001-170-710-42-5253, to continue the Rancho California 1-15 Overcrossing Program until signals are installed during Spring of 1992. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOFrED, this 22nd day of October, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor AT'rEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 4\Re~o~212 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 91- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 22rid day of October, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4\Re.o~212 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS APPROVAL: CITY ~F-~ ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Chief Building Official October 14, 1991 Building and Safety Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: During the month of September, Staff has seen a continued decline in permit activity. Revenue for the f'trst three months of the fiscal year remains higher than this time last year regardless of this recent decline in permit issuance. The following is an update of projects of special note that Staff is currently involved with: NEW CONSTRUCTION: Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Paradise Chevrolet General Dynamics Commerce National Bank Primadonnas Restaurant Main Street Emporium Soup Exchange K-Mart Jefferson Creek 80% complete 25 % complete 85 % complete 35 % complete 85 % complete 85 % complete 30% complete 90% complete 90% complete Agenda Report October 14, 1991 Page 2 COMPLETED OFFICE, OFFICE/WAREHOUSE SPACE: Ballatom Building (40,000 sq. ft.) Complete Hawthorne Park - 13 Buildings (400,000 sq. ft.) Valley Medical Center (36,000 sq. ft.) Temecula Valley Bank Tenant Improvements 10% complete Tenant Improvement 90 % complete Complete AJE/sf v:wp\agenda.rep\eeeml014 This Month DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY Monthly Activity Report For: September, 1991 Last Month 'LAWS CHECKED: ~ Residential I 2 Commercial 1 3 Indust./Warehouse 0 0 Others 2 0 TOTAL: 4 5 PERMITS ISSUED: BUILDING 88 97 Value 2,408,918 3,322,616 Fees 18,913 20,740 ELECTRICAL 56 69 Fees 3,766 6,831 PLUMBING 41 42 Fees 3,388 3,315 MECHANICAL 32 23 Fees 1,723 i, 401 TOTAL PERMITS: 217 231 ---TOTAL FEES: 2 7,790 32,287 2HIS MONTHS NO. OF NO/UNITS PERMITS: PERMITS YR/DATE SINGLE FAMILY 11 51 DUPLEX 0 0 MULTI-FAMILY 0 0 COMMERCIAL 0 5 INDUSTRIAL 0 0 RELOCATE/DEMO 0 1 SWIMMING POOLS 2 25 SIGNS 6 20 OTHER 48 164 ALTER/ADD TO DWELLING 20 91 TO COMMERCIAL 2 7 58 TO INDUSTRIAL 0 0 TOTAL: 114 415 BUILDING VALUATION is Fiscal Year to Date: $13,302,292 Last Fiscal Year to Date: $12,285,692 This Last Last This Fiscal Fiscal Calendar Calandar Year Yr/Date Yr/Date Yr/Date 14 44 29 16 51 77 I 0 5 10 25 40 41 120 151 313 430 1,249 13,302,292 12,285,692 84,180,011 82,113 82,022 408,873 213 213 822 17,149 21,319 70,200 155 142 628 19,314.87 11,306 74,077 113 79 511 9,652 5,141 34,380 794 864 3,207 128,228 119,788 587,530 PLAN CHECK PERMIT TOTAL VALUATION FEES FEES FEES 1,629 13,076 14,705 1,483,528 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 518 934 23,464 244 505 749 15,400 461 2332 2,793 17,948 1,508 2983 4,492 217,390 4,048 8,378 48,796 651,187 0 0 0.00 0 8,099 27,790 36,098 2,408,918 This Calendar Year to Date: $84,180,011 Last Calendar Year to Date: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFI CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: SHAWN D. NELSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENTAL REPORT Community Services Department PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR The City is now in the process of developing a Parks and Recreation Master Plan in conjunction with the General Plan. A Community Workshop for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan has been scheduled for Monday, October 28, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. at Vail Elementary School located at 29915 Mira Loma Drive in Temecula. Bob Kast has been appointed as Maintenance Superintendent for the Community Services Department. Bob was employed by the County of Riverside for over eight (8) years with his last three (3) years serving as Maintenance Supervisor for CSA 143. His duties will include the execution of a proactive maintenance program for City parks, medians and slope areas. Bob will begin his employment on October 24, 1991. Several Requests for Qualifications (RFQ's) have been released to Architects to provide conceptual schematic drawings and construction documents for the Community Recreation Center, Amphitheater, Community Pool, and parking improvements in the Rancho California Sports Park. RFQ's will be accepted through November 8. Development Services Division has been working diligently to finish several projects which include recording the Notices of Completion of both Phase I and Phase II of the Ball Field Lighting Project at Sports Park; as well as completing street and electrical improvements to Sam Hicks Monument Park. The Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project is scheduled to begin on October 9, 1991, and will be completed by the end of December. The Community Services Department continues to offer a variety of special interest classes ranging from Beginning Ceramics to Investment and Money Management. The Community Services Department will sponsor a Halloween Dance for Seniors on Monday, October 28, from 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m. Temecula residents who are 55 years of age or older are encouraged to enjoy an afternoon of live entertainment, dancing, costume judging, and refreshments. The dance will be held at the Belair 57', located at 27780 Front Street, in Temecula. Tickets are $10.00 each and are on sale now at the Community Services office. The Community Services Department will sponsor two Halloween Craft Classes on Thursday, October 24th and Friday, October 25th, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The classes are for youngsters six to eleven years of age, and will be held at Temecula Elementary School in the auditorium. Youngsters will rotate in small groups from table to table to construct a total of six simple craft projects. Tickets are $3.00 per child. On October 30th and 31 st, the Community Services Department will open the doors to this year's Haunted House. The haunting will begin at 5:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. at 28545 Front Street in Temecula. The Haunted House will consist of eight chambers of monsters, ghosts, and goblins. Tickets are $2.00 for adults and teenagers 13 and up, and $1.00 for youth ages 6 through 12. Children under 6 are free and must be accompanied by an adult. Tickets are on sale for half price at the Community Services office. Game booths, candy treats, and entertainment by radio station KRTM will also be part of the festivities. Tickets are now on sale at the Community Services Department office for the 1992 Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade. Ticket price is $75.00 which includes round trip transportation, reserved seating, viewing the magnificent parade floats and marching bands, and a tour guide. The Community Services Department has recruited over forty volunteers to assist in a variety of different tasks for various City Departments including Fire, Police, Building and Safety, and City Clerk. 0 0 Or,r- .~0 r~__ n-- Wl' 0 0 0 0 0 ~' 0 0 0 0 ,- ~ ~ o o ~ 6 0 0 0 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO.' FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: City Manager/City Council Planning Department October 22, 1991 Monthly Report Gary Thornhill, Planning Director~2' Recommendation: Receive and File Discussion: The following is a summary of Planning Department's caseload and project activity for the month of September: Caseload Activity: The department received applications for 27 administrative cases and 8 public hearing cases; following is a breakdown of case type for public hearing items: Conditional Use Permits (1) Conditional Use Permits Extension of Time (1) Public Use Permits ( 1 ) Tentative Tract Maps (1) Tract Map Extension of Time (3) Onaoing Proiects: General Plan: A joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting was held to review and discuss draft goals and policies. Please forward any additional comments to Staff. A public workshop/town hall meeting has been scheduled for October 29, 1991 at Vail Elementary School. Old Town Boundary Expansion: The Planning Commission reviewed this item at the October 7, 1991 meeting. A non-public hearing on the expansion has been scheduled for the City Council at the November 12, 1991 meeting followed by a public noticing and public hearing before the Council in December Directional Sign Ordinance: Presented to the Planning Commission on September 16, 1991 and scheduled for City Council review on October 22, 1991. WIMBERVG\PLAN\MTHYRPT. OCT City Manager/City Council Monthly Report October 22, 1991 Page 2 Antenna Ordinance: Scheduled for review by Planning Commission on October 21, 1991. Adult Business Ordinance: Scheduled for review by Planning Commission on October 21, 1991. Billboard Ordinance: November 4, 1991. Tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission on * Noise Ordinance: City Staff is currently reviewing draft ordinance. Old Town Master Plan: Staff has received 18 statements of qualification (SOQ's) from interested consulting firms. Staff is developing the work program and reviewing the SOQ's. Upon completion of these two steps, Staff will invite qualified consultants to respond to a request for proposal (RFP) vgw WIMBERVG\PLAN\MTHYRPT.OCT TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: DAVID F. DIXON DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 SUBJECT: BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB PROPOSAL PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Consider a loan to the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley to purchase a 5,000 sq. ft. modular building. If approved, authorize staff to enter into an agreement for a loan of $24,800 with the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost to purchase the modular building is $24,800. Unencumbered funds exist in unreserved TCSD Fund Balance. DISCUSSION: The Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley has requested that the City of Temecula financially assist in securing a modular building to be used as a site for their youth programs. The total cost of the building is $31,000. In March, 1991, the City loaned $6,200 to the Boys and Girls Club as a down payment for the modular building. The Boys and Girls Club agreed to pay the balance owed to the Boys and Girls Club of El Cajon within six (6) months. At that time, the Boys and Girls Club expected to receive a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to pay for the modular building. The County of Riverside later determined that the grant proposal to pay the balance for the modular builiding was ineligible for funding because the location of the modular building could not be designated in a low to moderate target area as identified by the CDBG. If the modular building is purchased, the Boys and Girls Club may approach the City at a later date to lease a portion of undeveloped park property to locate and improve the modular building for their program. The Boys and Girls Club is attempting to secure temporary storage for the modular building and will pay the costs associated with transporting the building to Temecula. BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF TEMECULA VALLEY 27475 Ynez Road, #232 Temecula. CA 92390 (714) 676-5090 October 4, 1991 City of Temecula Shawn Nelson Director of Con~nunity Services 43190 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92590 Dear Mr. Nelson: The Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley is making a formal request from the City to finance a permanent facility for the Boys and Girls Club. We are requesting financing in phases. The City has already assisted us by providing a down payment for the 5,000 square foot modular building being purchased from the Boys and Girls Club in E1 Cajon. The $24,800. balance is now due and we are requesting the City to finance the building. The second phase would be the construction financing of moving the buj. lding to a permanent site in Temecula and rolling over the m~dular building note and construction note to a permanent fifteen year note. Officers M~chae Donalc~son President Timmy Dan,els 1st Vice President Dawd Paragone 2nd Vice President Donald Engdahf Treasurer Laugh EngOahl Secretary Board of Directors Gwen Barnett Doug Bio~s Doug Davies Earl Fa~son Jan Falson George Graynet Ronn~e Hewerr Jeanme Mney J~m MHey Jimmy Moore Ronald Parks Sue Thompson Enclosed is our formal proposal and our most current financial statement as of 8/91. We want to thank you and Mary Jane Henry for all your support in discussing our plans. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at my office, 695-5562 or 676-1776. Financial Resource Develo~nent Chairman That the City provide the funding of the modular building. The loan request is for $31,000. including the down payment of $6,200. already advanced by the City. The con~mitment originally made to the Boys and Girls Club of E1 Cajon was to have paid them by September 30th, 1991. They have extended our agreement to October 31, 1991. The Boys and Girls Club does not want to loose this opportunity to purchase a 5,000 square foot building for such a bargain price. This is phase one of our original request to finance the Boys and Girls Club permanent home. That this loan be eventually v~apped into a permanent loan package that will include moving the modular and placing it on a permanent foundation on park land. That interest be waived on this loan and the future loan request to move the building on to a permanent site. Repayment to comnence one year after purchase. Payments will graduate from $4800. a year to $7200. Year One: Zero Principal Reduction Year Two: 12 @ $400. month Year Three: 12 @ $400. month Year Four: 12 @ $600. month Year Five: 12 @ $600. month Year Six: 11 @ $600. month 1 @ $500. month Since source of repayment is due 100% from fund raising, it is crucial for the Boys and Girls Club defer the first years payment. It allows our first year in fund raising to be used for hiring a staff and to initiate programs for the youth of our cc~nunity. The Boys and Girls Club is not eligible for United Way funding until we have been in business for at least two years where we have had programs in existence. United Way covers approximately 40% of normal operating expenses of a Boys and Girls Club. That is why year two and three show a small principal repayment program. 80YSGRLS-All Accounts 8/ 6/91 B.G.C.T. BALANCE SHEET As of 8/ 6/91 Acct S/6/91 Balance ASSETS Cash and Bank Accounts BOYSGRLS CHECK-010129917 CHECKING 80YSGRLS SAVING-O14443321 SAVINGS 2,663.10 15.00 Total Cash and Bank Accounts 2,678.10 Other Assets DEPOSIT-MODULAR 6,200.00 Total Other Assets 6,200.00 8,878.10 Page 1 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES & EQUITY LIABILITIES Other Liabilities LOAN PAYABLE-CITY OF TEMECULA'LOAN Total Other Liabilities 6,200.00 6,200.00 TOTAL LIABILITIES EQU'ITY TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 6,200.00 2,678.10 8,878.10 B.G.C.T. INCOME STATEMENT 1/1/91 Through 8/6/91 BOYSGRLS-Selected Accounts 8/ 6/91 Category Description INCOME/EXPENSE INCOME DONATIONS OTHER INC.-FILING FEE REBATE TOTAL INCOME EXPENSES FEES-FILING FEES SUPPLIES Expenses - Other TOTAL EXPENSES l/1/91- 8/6/91 2,286.75 15.00 2,301.75 -838.59 462.24 0.00 -376.35 2,678.10 Page 1 TOTAL INCOME/EXPENSE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley is a non-profit youth organization; and WHEREAS, the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley desires to establish a recreation program benefitting all youth within the City, NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Temecula loans $31,000.00 to the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley for the acquisition of a modular building to be used for the establishment of a Boys and Girls Club recreation program. On October 23, 1997, the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley promises to pay the City of Temecula the principle sum of 31,000.00 with no interest, as referenced on the payment scheduled hereinafter refered to as Exhibit A. The date upon which this instrument is payable may be extended until October 23, 1999, at the option of the Boys and Girls Club by giving written notice to the City of Temecula at least thirty (30) days before October 23, 1997. The previous promisory note dated March 3, 1991, between the City of Temecula and the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula Valley is hereby null and void. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF TEMECULA VALLEY By: Name: Title: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk comserv\boys & girls club.agr EXHIBIT A Payment Schedule Year One: Year Two: Year Three: Year Four: Year Five: Year Six: Zero Principal Reduction 12 mos. @ 6400.00 per month 12 mos. @ 6400.00 per month 12 mos. @ 6600.00 per month 12 mos. @ 6600.00 per month 11 mos. @ 6600.00 per month I mo.@ 6500.00 per month TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA II CITY OF TEMECULA PROPOSAL FOR A STUDY OF USER FEES AND CHARGES AND A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE OCTOBER 1~)1 dmq DAVID M. GRIFFiTH AND,4SSOCIATES. LTD. :.= ':'- a i-.',-' ~"5 ',:ar.cy'- .,~e ,-'~,.:e 4 Car.-, c."ae'. CA -,;5_&;8 Y6: ,~85-3'~'2 CBIifomia Office: 5715 Marconi Ave., Suite A / CBrrnichz~el, CA 95608 / (916) 485-8102 drnq NDGRIFFITH DAVID M. , Cat'lfornza Office,' 5715 Marconi Ave.. Suite A ASSOCIATES, LTD. Carm,cnaeL CA 95608 1916) 485-a~02 September 23, 1991 Proposal Review Committee Temecula City Hal/ 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Proposal Review Committee: David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. (DMG) is pleased to respond to your proposal for revenue enhancement services. We have carefully reviewed your request and have prepared this proposal which we believe to be completely responsive to your needs. DMG is a national firm specializing in revenue enhancement services for local government. In California, we have served over 200 cities and all of the State's counties. In each area of interest to the City of Temecula, we have developed a specific program of service as follows: · Cost Allocation System DMG began preparing cost allocation plans/systems for California cities in the early 1980's. Plans have been prepared for over 70 California cities utilizing DMG's proprietary computer system. User Fee Studies DMG developed a system known as FASTR ~ee And Service Technical Review) to calculate the full cost of user fee services. DMG has prepared comprehensive user fee programs for over 50 California cities. Development Impact Fee Studies (AB 1600) AB 1600 became effective Ianuary 1, 1989. Prior to this, DMG assembled a team to assist California cities in this area. To date, 17 California cities have contracted with DMG for development impact fee studies. Proposal Review Committee Page -2 - No other firm has this depth of experience. DMG is prepared to assign a team of specialized consultants to work with the City of Temecula. Please contact me in Sacramento for further information or to arrange a presentation of DMG's approach. DMG looks forward to being of service for the City of Temecula. Sincerely yours, - J Bradley Wfikes Vice President 0 Z --I0m mmr- z rn TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I Proposal Summary SecaonH Qualifications of the Firm 3 Section III Specific Goals for Temecula 13 Section IV Section V Section VI Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Work Plan Project Organization and Staffing Project Schedule California Client List User Fee Highlights Development Fee Study Highlights Newspaper Articles 16 24 31 SECTION I PROPOSAL SLSI~IARY PROPOSAL S U343 4R Y DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD. David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. (DMG) was incorporated in 1976. DMG is a national firm specializing in providing cost accounting-related services for state and local government. DMG provides service to over 1500 governmental agencies nationally. DMG opened its California office in 1980. The firm has grown rapidly and now serves over 200 California cities and all of the State's counties. Currently, our West Coast office staff numbers nearly 30 experienced consultants. Our offices in Pasadena and Carmichael (Sacramento) are dedicated solely to serving local governmental agencies in the calculation of cost and in enhancing revenue. With such a narrow focus and with such a sizeable staff, DMG is able to meet the needs of governmental clients when other broader range firms may not be able to. DMG has noted your ambitious schedule for the user this schedule can only be met by a firm that has an areas, and by a firm with the substantial resources to commit to the proposed schedule. In order to complete a sound, accurate and thorough analysis of user fees and development impact fees, DMG will bring its extensive experience to the City of Temecula. Having conducted numerous Citywide (versus departmental only) analyses for both areas of interest, DMG understands how to 1) work with departments in obtaining dam, 2) provide rapid turnaround time for departmental review, 3) guide departmental staff and city management in development of recommendations and policy and 4) design an implementation program that builds on DMG's reputation for solid cost accounting work. fee and impact fee study. DMG believes extensive background in both specialized DNIG National Firm · West Coazt Offices in Pasadena and Sacramento · Staffof30 Experienced Governmental Consultants Nearly 50 California Citywide User Fee Clients · Nearly 20 California Citywide Impact Fee Clients SERVICES OFFERED DMG is proposing to provide the City of Temecula the tollowing products: · Dedicated Solely to Governmental Cost/Revenue Consulting A Cost Allocation System - DMG has developed hundreds of systems for California cities. DMG allocation systems have been developed for the largest to the smallest of California cities. David M. Gnffitn & Associates. Ltd. 1 City of Temecuia A Comprehensive User Fee Analysis - Nearly 50 citywide user tee studies have been conducted by DMG. Numerous departmental studies have also been conducted. A Development Impact Fee Study - DMG has more citywide AB 1600 clients than any other California firm. Citywide clients number nearly 20 California cities. Each of these services is a specialty of DMG. Each service has been successfully provided for a large number of California cities. The City of Temecula will benefit from the extensive experience DMG can bring to this project. WHY RETALN DNIG? In reviewing DMG's proposal and comparing it to others, the following should be kept in mind: DMG has specific expertise in each of the study areas required by the City. In each case DMG has conducted more actual citywide studies than any other firm. · DMG's consultants are fully trained and no "on-the-job learning" is required. · DMG's reputation is unparalleled. DMG has the experience and staff ready and able to meet the goals of this project in accordance with the suggested schedule. In sum, with DMG's extensive experience, DMG consultants are able to spend less time "learning how to calculate the numbers,' which many less experienced firms are still struggling with, and are able to focus more heavily on the unique objectives the City may have and on the implementation of the program. Davtd M. Gnffith &Assoctates, Ltd. 2 City of Temecuta SECTION II QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRM UA LIFICA TIONS David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. (DMG) is the nation's leader in the calculation of the cost of governmental services. In our varied service offerings we have served over 1500 clients nationwide. DMG opened its California office in 1979. Since that time the fu'm has served over 200 California cities and all of California's counties. We believe the principal benefits of our service axe: DMG is committed to work with clients to ensure implementation of products. To this end, we provide presentations to elected officials, management groups and department/individuals impacted by study results. We work to achieve one hundred percent understanding. DMG consultants axe all individuals working in axeas within which they have intimate familiarity. We do not subject clients to on-the-job training. DMG is committed to objectivity. All of our work will stand on its own. DMG strives for technical accuracy. We believe, in the end, that our clients will be best served by the correct solution. In view of the close scrutiny of cost accounting applications at the present time, we believe that short cuts with accuracy will ultimately fail. DMG will guarantee its products. In axeas where products must be approved by review authorities, governmental cost allocation plans, SB 90 cost claims, special analyses in audit situations, DMG is prepaxed to make its fee contingent upon ultimate approvals. BACKGROUND California cities are finding that a more 'business-like' approach to cost recovery is one tool in funding 1) general fund user fee related services, and 2) capital projects required by growth. An analysis of the total cost of providing user fee services and a cost allocation plan which identifies general fund support to user fee services, provides a fn'm base for increasing cost recovery levels. DMG's proven methods of impact fee development, which adheres to All 1600 guidelines, will provide the foundation for funding capital projects for years to come. Dav~l M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. 3 City of Ternecula User Fee Studies DMG's methodology calculates total cost by cost component. Cost is illustrated in terms of labor, benefits, supplies and services, department overhead, and citywide overhead. DMG's reports display the data in terms of total cost, current revenue/fee, subsidy, recommended fees, and includes graphics and charts. The voluminous amount of detailed accounting work is summarized in a "user friendly" Executive Summary for management and council. DMG computer systems provide flexibility in modeling differing assumptions such as staffing levels, volume, salary levels, time estimates, etc. Comments and changes from staff and management reviews can bee quickly input, reports can be remn, and analysis and decisions can be made on the most accurate cost data possible. DMG's models and methodology have been tested and refined in over 50 California citywide user fee studies. Development Impact Fee Studies · Direct tabor Costs · Direct Materiah · Direct Supervision · Divisional Management · Departmental Managemtnt · Citlwidt Ov,rhtad · Votutu or Units. · Curnnt Fee Lgvtl · Current Subs~iy Level · Contpatisons W'gh Other Cities · Recomtundeg Fu Ltvdx Since the inception of AB 1600, DMG has dedicated resources to keep in the forefront of the legal, economic, and development related requirements of this sensitive area. DMG's goal is to provide a solid basis of analysis in the development of impact fees while maintaining a "user friendly" format. DMG computer systems provide modeling of different project lists, project costs, buildout population assumptions, etc. Our actual experience gained in our previous citywide studies has helped shape our approach. The City of Temecula will benefit from the fact that our staff will require no on-the-job training. Our staff will bring a "fine-tuned" methodology to this project, allowing us to approach the proposed schedule with confidence. S'FUDY ELEMENTS · Projea Cost$ , OmograpMa · AB 1600 C, uidalines * Impact Pea SPECIFIC RELATED EXPERIENCE The City of Temecula has requested three specific consulling products as follows: A Cost Allocation System. A Comprehensive User Fee Study. A Development Impact Fee Study. David M. Gdffith &Associates, Ltd. 4 City of Temecula DMC offers extensive successful experience in each of these areas. Our experience is described below: Cost Allocation Plan/Indirect Cost Rate Proposal Experience DMG has designed a computer based cost allocation system specifically to calculate costs for local governments. Our firm has been retained by over 1,700 governmental clients nationwide to develop and negotiate central service cost allocation plans. Our services include: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (s) On-site data collection Computer processing of input data Negotiation of the plan's approval with State and Federal agencies Monitoring of recoveries Training of local personnel in the plan's use to ensure perpetuation of the plan An annual update capability Technical consulting in cost allocation Development of indirect cost rate proposals The preparation of central service cost allocation plans and related services, such as indirect cost rate proposals, was the first service offered by our firm and remains a principal line of business. A description of each of our related assignments is not feasible due to the large number. In California we have provided cost allocation services for over 70 cities and more than 40 counties. We have successfully negotiated plans with all agencies having cognizance over plan preparation. Selected DMG city cost plan clients are listed on Exhibit I on the foliowing pages. David M. Griffittt &Associates, Ltd. 5 City of Temecula DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD. California City Cost Plan Clients City Years/Service Anaheim Beverly Hills Burbank Carlshad Culver City Cupertino Dixon El Segundo Fairfield Fontana Fresno Hayward Lancaster Livermore Long Beach Menlo Park Ontario Palm Springs Pasadena Port Hueneme Redcling Redondo Beach Redwood City Rialto Ridgecrest Riverside Sacramento San Femando San Francisco San Jose San Mateo Santa Clara Santa Monica Santa Paula South Gate Suisun City Stockton Torrance Vacaville Vallejo Ventura Whittier Woodland 7 A-87, FC 1 FC, UF 5 A-87, FC, SB-90 3 FC, UF, SB-90 5 A-87, FC, SB-90 1 FC, UF 1 FC, AB 1600, SP I FC, UF, SB-90 1 A-87, FC 1 A-87, FC, SP 5 A-87, FC, UF, SB-90 2 A-87, FC, SB-90, 2 A-87 3 A-87,FC, UF, SP, SB-90, P-4 6 A-87, FC, P-4, SB-90, SP 1 FC, UF, SB-90 5 A-87, FC, P-4, SB-90, SP 3 A-87, FC, SB-90 2 A-87, FC, SB-90 1 FC, SB-90, UF 2 A-87, FC, UF, SB-90 2 A-87, FC, SB-90 3 A-87, FC, SB-90 1 A-87, FC 1 A-87, FC, SB-90 6 A-87, FC, SP 5 A-87, FC, SP 4 A-87, SP, P-4 4 A-87, FC, P-4 4 A-87, FC 1 A-87, FC, SB-90 2 A-87, FC, UF 1 A-87, FC, UF, SB-90 1 FC, UF, SB-90 3 A-87, FC 3 A-87, FC 5 A-87 1 A-87, FC, UF, SB-90 1 FC, UF, SB-90 1 A-87, FC 2 A-87, FC 3 A-87, FC, SB-90, DC 5 FC Exhibit I Davia M. Grfffith & Associates, Ltd. City of Temecula Key: A-87 = FC = UF = SB-90 = P-4 = SP = DC = AB 1600 = Cost allocation plan references include: City of Carlsbad Mr. James Elliot Director of Finance (619) 434-2867 City of Ontario Mr. Lee Pearl Budget Director (714) 986-1151 Services Offered to Client OMB A-87 Cost Allocation Plan Full Cost Plan User Fee Study SB 90 Claiming Appropriation Limitation Calculation Special Cost Study Disaster Claiming All 1600 Plan City of Mission Viejo Mr. Irwin Bornstein Director of Administrative Services (also a client in the City of Whittier) (714) 582-2489 City of San Fernando Mr. Michael Moon Finance Director (818) 898-1244 Comprehensive User Fee Studies The purpose of a user fee study is to determine the full cost of services offered by the agency for which user fees are currently charged or could be charged. The full cost is then compared to current revenues to determine the amount of subsidy or the amount being over charged. With this knowledge and the assistance of DMG, decisions can be made concerning appropriate fee adjustments. DMG can assist in understanding elasticity of demand and provide information on what others are charging. However, in the final analysis, the actual decision to increase or decrease a fee is a local decision. The first step in preparing a user fee study is to distribute central service costs (indirect costs) to departments through a central service cost allocation plan. When this is accomplished, the next step is to distribute the departmental and divisional costs to each fee-for-service area. This cost accounting procedure requires detailed analysis of each service area. Typically a user fee engagement requires about two to four months to bring it to the point where DMG and staff involved with the project are satisfied with the results. Departmental staff and the city council may require additional time which is difficult to estimate. User fee studies have been completed (or are in progress) for the following California enti,aes: Da~4d M. Griffith & Associates. Ltd. 7 City of Temecula City/County Palm Springs Cupertino Carlsbad Culver City Ridgecrest Port Hueneme Suisun City Livermore Sacramento County Sheriff Camarillo Yolo County Whittier Rcdondo Beach Fresno Menlo Park Santa Monica Nevada County San Carlos Redding Beverly Hills Tuolumne County Ventura El Segundo Torrance Brisbane San Mateo Vacaville Fontaria Santa Clara Santa Barbara Thousand Oaks Palo Alto Campbell Millbrae Ontario Escondido Vista Norco Ariahelm Norco Rancho Cucamonga Lompoc Palmdale South Gate Year Completed 1984 1984 1985 1985 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1987 1987 1987 1987 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. 8 City of Temecula City/County Mountain View Stockton Dana Point Watsonville Concord San Femando Burbank Vallejo Camarillo Fontaria Lodi Long Beach Mission Viejo Whittier User Fee Study References Include: City of Carlsbad Mr. Jim Elliot Finance Director (619) 434-2867 Year Completed 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress In Progress City of Ontario Mr. Lee Pearl Budget Director (714) 986-1151 City of Hermosa Beach Mr. Kevin Northcraft City Manager (213) 318-0216 City of Torrance Ms. Mary Giordano Finance Director (213) 618-5885 City of Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Jim Hart Director of Admin. Services (714) 989-1851 City of Dana Point Mr. Loron Cox Finance Director (714) 248-9890 Development Impact Fees (AB 1600) Effective January 1, 1989, the State of California required local agencies to justify fees charged to developers for the funding of governmental infrastructure. In essence, fees charged must be related to both cost and use. This relationship is referred to as the "nexus". Preparation of an impact fee program requires analysis of land use and development patterns, existing and planned facilities, and funding responsibility. Davfcl M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. 9 City of Temecula Another important part of the impact fee study is the identification of key demand variables that drive the need for specific types of new improvements in response to development. Those variables provide the linkage or "nexus" between new development and the facilities to be funded by impact fees. DMG has developed methodologies for both closed-ended and open-ended fee systems and has prepared impact fee programs for a wide variety of clients who, collectively represent the full spectrum of impact fee situations. We are committed to supporting the client thoroughly by adoption and implementation, including public participation through whatever mechanisms best serve the needs of the client. Thousand Oaks Fairfield Norco Menlo Park Hawthorne Morro Bay Santa Maria Dixon Martinez Livermore Fontana Paso Robles Madera Perris San Luis Obispo Burbank Dana Point Yuba County Suggested references for developmental impact fee studies include: City of Santa Maria Ms. Vicki Zorcocy Asst. City Manager (805) 925-0951 City of Hawthorne Mr. Tom Caracash Administrative Analyst (213) 970-7948 City of Norco Mr. Bob Wooclings City Engineer (714) 735-3900 OTHF~R RELATFX) EXPERF_~CE In addition to the specific areas of expertise listed above, DMG provides a number of other related services. These include the following: Special Department Cost/Rate Studies DMG routinely conducts cost of service/rate/fee studies for city and county clients. Examples include: David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. 10 City of Ternecula City of Burbank -- Analysis of the City's refuse collection and disposal operation. As a result of this analysis the City raisexi collection fees by more than $700,000. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BARI) -- We assisted BART in its presentations relative to electric utility rates before the California Public Utilities Commission. Ventura County Planning and Resources Agency and Corrections Services Agency -- We have annually prepared a departmental cost distribution for these agencies for the past five years. Our work is utilized to determine user fees and charges to governmental grants. Sacramento County Sheriffs Depaament -- DMG has been retained on three occasions by this agency to develop costs of service. Services include: housing prisoners, airport security, obtaining license permits, etc. In the area of prisoners, our work has been approved by the U.S. Marshals Service. Riverside City Library -- DMG was retained to analyze the cost of services of this facility. Ventura Regional Sanitation District -- DMG prepared departmental cost allocations for this agency involved in both liquid and solid waste. City of Culver City -- Analysis of the City's refuse collection and transfer station operation. As a result of this analysis the City raised fees by more than $800,000. Proposition 4 Appropriation Limitations (as modified by Proposition Proposition 4 of 1978 requires all local entities to annually prepare an appropriation limitation that distributes all revenues between "proceeds of tax" and "non-proceeds of tax". To the extent that a user charge exceeds the cost of a service, the excess charge is to be included as "proceeds of tax". DMG has assisted a long list of cities and counties in the preparation of their appropriation limitations (or review of limitations prepared internally). DMG has also been active in the presentation of the concepts of Proposition 4 before many groups Statewide. Some of our clients for this service include: Cities Counties Livermore Ca/averas Long Beach Glenn Los Angeles Imperial Madera Madera Menlo Park Mercer Moreno Valley Nevada David M. Griffitlt & Associates, Ltd. City of Ternecula Newark Placer Pacific Grove Plumas Palo Alto San Francisco Pomona San Mateo Ponola Siskiyou Ridgecrest Stanislaus San Jose Teharna Santa Barbara Tulare Scotts Valley Yolo Soledad State Mandated Cost Claiming (SB90) DMG is currently the only fLrm serving cities and counties in claiming State mandated costs. We are proud to have been endorsed by both the County Supervisors Association of California (CSAC) and the League of California Cities for SB 90 claiming services for their respective members. Our service to cities is provided through the California Cities SB 90 Service. We have served over 150 California cities in the area of SB 90 claiming. References for this service include: County Supervisors Association of California Mr. Steve Swendiman Executive Director (9 16) 327-7523 League of California Cities Mr. Dan Harrison Administrative Analyst (916) 444-5790 The above project descriptions summarize typical DMG assignments. We strongly recommend that the City of Temecula discuss our services with clients of the firm. D~vid M. Griffitlt &A$$ociate$, Ltd, 12 City of Temecula SECTION III SPECIFIC GOALS FOR TEMECULA SPECIFIC GOALS FOR TEMECULA USER FEE STUDY Current Services Current services for which user fees are charged will be reviewed thoroughly. Costs will be analyzed in the most detailed manner possible. Salary cost, fringe benefits, capital costs, supply and services will all be calculated. In addition, DMG's well known program of indirect cost calculation will be applied to program, departmental and citywide indirect support. Complete costs will be displayed in total, per unit and by cost category. (Please refer to the detail data sheets supplied as a separate attachment to this proposal for an example of our work.) DMG's computer models allow for modeling various assumptions and rapid turnaround time. Potential Fee Areas In approaching a user fee study, DMG computes the total cost of all general fund activities. This is important because we review current and potential fee areas. The methodology described above is applied not only to current fee areas but to any potential areas as well. Our statewide data base of fees charged in other cities assists departments in understanding what is possible. Areas of Overcharging A review of the City's budget shows a number of areas of concern. For example, Engineer fees are estimated to generate revenue of $1.9 million in 1991-91 while the costs of Engineering equals less than $1.8 million. Building revenue is shown at $I. 1 million with costs of less than $800,000. It would appear that fees in these departments are generating revenue in excess of cost. DMG knows that this is not unusual. Several of our clients were experiencing this same situation. DMG's full cost methodology works to compute all costs of engineering and building inspection. Overhead costs, costs in other line departments for support in plan check, long-range planning costs, etc. are all calculated and compared to revenue. In addition, our reports assist in the understanding of the timing problem between fees collected and work completed. In this way the appearance of overcharging is smoothed out and a more accurate comparison is available. Cost AHocation System DMG cost allocation is widely known and accepted. The allocations will be used in the user fee analysis but also can be used in developing OMB A-87 overhead charges to CDBG, transportation programs and other federally or state funded programs. David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. 13 City of Temecula In addition, the general fund support to the re, development agency and other non-general fund departments will be calculated. This is important even if the agency does not currenfiy have the ability to pay for that support. This would allow the City the option, for sometime in the future, to document and perhaps require the agency to repay the general fund once the agency is up and running. LMPACT FEES AB 1600 Guidelines DMG has followed the guidelines since 1989. More importanfiy we have worked with the guidelines in over 18 other studies when developing impact fees for projects across all city departments. We have a solid, tested, practical understanding of the legal, accounting, development and economic concerns of AB 1600. DATA REQUIRRM'ENTS DMG understands the City is recently incorporated and the amount of data available may not be as voluminous as might be found in a city many decades old. We are prepared to guide the City in the sensitive areas of impact fee development and implementation as well as be ready to work with whatever data is available. We believe that the open-ended type of development fee system pioneered by DMG is especially useful in situations where the land use and development environment is dynamic. This is particularly true where the General Plan is outdated or, as in the case of Temecula, has yet to be adopted. DMG recently completed an impact for the City of Dana Point which is also recently incorporated and faced similar challenges with respect to data availability and policy direction. IMPL~NTATION Of particular concern to the client is the effective implementation of impact fees once the program is in place. DMG is particularly well qualified to assist the City of Temecula in adoption and implementation of impact fees, because of our wide-ranging experience in the implementation of both impact fee and user fee programs. GENERAL GOALS Fee Comparisons Because of DMG's long-term interest in these areas, we have gathered hundreds of fee comparisons from California cities. Our projects routinely include comparisons of fees charged in neighboring communities. Da~4d M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. 14 City of Ternecula Implementation In both areas, user fees and impact fees, concerns and problems must be anticipated and addressed before council meetings. Public groups such as the B.I.A., department heads, individual council members, all have unique and important concerns and objectives. DMG has learned to approach these highly sensitive studies in a pro-active manner versus a reactive manner. Our basic accounting work is solid and reliable, but all the effort up front can be lost if the implementation phase is not well organized and well thought out. To this end, DMG will work with the City and outside interest groups to ensure as smooth as possible implementation of fees. Two examples of this effort occurred in the cities of Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga. In both cities our projects were reviewed by the B.I.A. and in both cases the council meetings were very professional and smooth. Dav~cl M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. ~. 5 City of Temecula SECTION IV WORK PLAN WORK PLAN DMG's approach is to assign specialized consulting teams to the two principal areas as follows: Cost Plan and User Fee Analysis Developmental Impact Fee Study Task O. Projea l~n In our first task we will carry out those activities required to initiate the engagement in a manner that will ensure timely and successful project completion. Included are the following: Meet with the City Manager, Finance Director, and others as appropriate to discuss the goals, objectives, and overall scope of the engagement. Our designated Project Managers will represent DMG in this initial meeting. It is important that the City be represented by individuals who will be most directly concerned with the ultimate engagement results. Based upon this meeting, we will refine the engagement scope as appropriate. Any significant variations will be documented in writing and provided to the City. · Obtain pertinent data relating to the project, including: organization charts budgets prior fee/revenue analysis (if any) municipal code · Establish project Halson requirements We believe the activities of this task are crucial to the ultimate success of the effort. To this end, we will commit whatever resources are necessary to ensure that the project gets off to a good start. Davfd M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. ], 6 City of Temecula COST ALLOCATION PLAN USER FEE TASKS Task I-1. Eaablish Pro/ca Advisory Group The revenue related services to be analyzed are carried out in various departments and budget units. DMG intends to commit a major consultative effort at the department level. This effort will be directed toward fully understanding all aspects of the provision of the specific services within the City of Temecula. We believe it is extremely useful to have a departmental liaison person within each of the major departments to work with us during the engagement to ensure our interpretations are correct and to assist in finding the appropriate records to review or individuals to talk to. Task I-2. Prepare Full Cost Cost Allocation Plan DMG will utilize its proprietary computer system to prepare a full cost cost allocation plan. A cost plan allocates the costs of central services, i.e., purchasing, city manager, personnel to the City's operating departments, i.e., recreation, public works, planning, etc. These costs became an important part of all fee calculations. The plan may also be used to bill enterprise funds and when prepared in accordance with OMB A-87 for State and federal claiming. Task 1-3. Develop Schedule of Current and Potential Fees and Non-Fee Area to be costed. In this task, DMG will develop a schedule of current user fees charged in the City. In addition, a listing of potential user fees will also be developed. Our experience in working with California cities will aid in the development of this list. DMG uses "check lists" of fees found in other cities to assist in identifying potential fee areas. Task 1-4. Develol~ Co~t Objective Or~avi, ntgnn In the previous tasks, the DMG Consultants have concentrated on the revenue and potential revenue producing activities carried out by the City. In Task 14, it is necessary to step back and review the structure of the City's organization as it relates to actually performing the services in question. In accounting terminology, the potential revenue service components become cost objectives. In this task, it is necessary to determine throughout the government structure the interrelationship of all cost components of these services. Potential cost components include indirect costs in the areas of central services, departments, programs, and divisions. Davfd M. Gr~ffith & Associates, Ltd. I 7 City of Ternecula Task I-.$. Develop lXrea Service Costs For each cost objective, where a revenue producing service is being performed (or a non- revenue producing service for which a fee could be imposed), DMG will develop the direct costs of the service. This process is accomplished within the departments utilizing a DMG form known as the Direct Cost Distribution Sheet. Direct costs generally include those individuals actually performing the service and any services and supplies that can be directly attributable to the service. To the extent possible, it is our desire to identify as many costs as possible as direct and treat the remaining costs as indirect. Despite this, based upon extensive experience, we know that the vast majority of supervisorial, service and supply costs will have to be treated as indirect costs. In any event, a hallmark of the DMG approach is to present all costs fully substantiated. Task 1-6. D/adbute Dqaament/ProFam Overhead Costs In Task I-6, the final layer of indirect costs will be distributed to each service area (cost objective). In general, this level reflects the supervision occurring at the department/division/ program level and their associated services and supplies. DMG's approach to this distribution depends on the complexity of the governmental unit being analyzed. The overall distribution of costs is accomplished using DMG's FASTR System. This system is the most comprehensive tool available to analyze governmental service costs. Exhibit II, following this page, illustrates the DMG approach to fee analysis by highlighting both direct and indirect costs. Task I-7. Match Service Revenue Vlrtth Service Costs In this task, the total cost of each service is matched with the total revenue resulting from each service. In its basic form, the resulting table illustrates the total tax subsidy associated with each service. The table provides a departure point for use in fee discussions and the development of consultant recommendations. Task 18. Review Cost and Revenue Relationships with Depanments The cost relationships developed by DMG are based upon information supplied by the City's departments. In Task 1-8, we return to each department to review the preliminary results. We believe this to be an extremely important step as it is the departments that must ultimately be comfortable with the costing methodology. Based upon the departmental reviews, changes will be made as appropriate. David M. Grilfith &Associates, Ltd. 18 City of Ternecula _ EXHIBIT II DMG APPROACH TO FEE ANAL YSIS USER FEE: VARIANCE 1. FULL COST OF PROVIDING SERVICE: o Direct Labor: Total Per Unit Senior Planner I $29,502 $59.72 Planner $76,562 $154.98 General Administrative $26,265 $53.17 $134,311 $271.88 o Other Direct Costs $19,034 $38.53 o Departmental Overhead $7,493 $15.17 o City Overhead $28,869 $58.44 o Incoming Costs $3,458 $7.00 TOTAL FULL COSTS: $193, 165 $391.02 2. UNITS OF SERVICE 3. CURRENT REVENUE: 4. GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY: 5. POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL REVENUE: 494 1 $14,935 $30.23 $178,230 $360.79 $178,230 $360.79 19 Task I-9. Review Cost and Revenue Relationship with the Projea Advisory Group and Others in City Management. In a simplistic approach, the City could raise its user fees to eliminate the subsidy depicted in the subsidy table. There are a number of problems associated with doing this that must be taken into consideration: · It may not be politically feasible to raise a particular fee. · It may not be legal to raise a particular fee. An undesirable social consequence may result from raising a particular fee (i.e., a group may be excluded from a desired service). An undesirable economic consequence may result (i.e., an increase in fee may result in less revenue due to elasticity of demand). In Task 1-9, the possible consequences of each potential action will be discussed with the Project Advisory Group and other management individuals. Based upon these discussions and our knowledge, recommendations will be formulated. Task I-I0. Prepare and Provide Draft Executive Summary Our standard procedure is to provide our project report to our clients in draft form prior to final distribution. This procedure offers an opportunity to discuss individual recommendations in detail prior to report finalization. Based upon these discussions, the draft report will be modified as required and submitted in final form. The report will specifically discuss the City's relationship to other California cities. With our city and county fee data base, we have a unique resource that allows us to make the comparisons desired. Task 1-11. Present Irmal Rtl~ort The nature of the proposed engagement is controversial. The subject of fees for service raises many important considerations within the governmental bureaucracy, at the political level and with the public. We believe it is extremely important that all parties fully understand the basis for and rationale behind the project findings and recommendations. To this end, DMG is committed to working to ensure the requisite level of understanding. This typically requires: Davfd M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. 2 0 City of Temecula A presentation to management with less emphasis on detailed methodology, but greater emphasis on the impact of recommendations and implementation strategies. Engagement presentation to the City Council to provide an overview of the project and its findings. Any questions concerning the project will be answered at this time. For costing purposes we have assumed that one presentation will be required. DEVELOPM'ENT IMPACT FEE STUDY Task H-1. Evaluate Development Potential ol' the Study Are~ DMG will review the available planning documents, demographic data, data, economic projections and other relevant information, and consult with the City staff to evaluate the development potential of the study area. An understanding of the potential for future development within various land use categories is fundamental to the projection of capital facilities requirements and the documentation of impacts. DMG will rely on available information resources, and does not propose to conduct special surveys or prepare original studies of land use, housing, population, etc. This task includes the following sub-tasks to be carried out by the Consultant: 1.1 Assemble and correlate relevant information on existing land uses, population, housing and employment. 1.2 Evaluate development potential of undeveloped portions of the study area by and use category, using zoning maps, demographic and economic data and other available information. 1.3 Document planning assumptions (e.g. average residential densities, persons per household, jobs per household, floor area ratios) used in assessing development potential. 1.4 Prepare tables correlating projections of acreage by land use category with projections of population, dwelling units, employment and other key components of growth. Prepare brief report describing the extent of existing development and the potential for future development within the study area. Present report to the City for review and approval. Completion of this report constitutes the f'u-st milestone of the engagement. David M. Griffith &Associates, Lt~l. 2 ]. City of Temecula Task 11-2. lkfine Level-of-Service Standard for Each 13~e of Facility or Improvement to be Addressed. DMG will work with City departments to establish appropriate level-of-service standards to be used in analyzing the need for capital facilities and improvements to support future development. City policy will govern the selection of standards to be used in the analysis. 2.1 Evaluate existing facilities and establish existing level-of-service for each type of facility or improvement being addressed. 2.2. Identify widely accepted level-of-service standards, if any, for each type of facility or improvement. 2.3 Propose level-of-service standards to be used in the subsequent analysis. 2.4 Identify existing deficiencies with respect to proposed level-of-service standards. Submit a brief report on level-of-service standards for review and approval by the City. Completion of this report marks the second milestone of the project. 4 Task H-3. Analyrt Fatairy and lmgrovement Needs and Costs. Using the development projections and service standards developed in tasks II-1 and I1-2, DMG will assist City Departments to analyze facility and improvements needs related to future develo- pment. Whenever possible, cost estimates will be based on actual project cost data available from the City. When such information is not available, planning level estimates will be based on generally accepted standards or costs for comparable projects. This task includes the following sub-tasks to be carried out by the Consultant: 3.1 3.2 Conduct orientation sessions for department representatives to discuss the requirements All 1600 and the naXur= of the study, as well as the service standards and development projections to be used in defining facility and improvement needs. Work with department representatives individually to analyze the impacts of development on facilities and infrastructure related to their operations. Compile the needs analysis and cost data and tnl~are a report summarizing facility and improvement needs and cosu to be used in the calculation of impact fees. Present x~-~port to the City for review and approval. Completion of thk report c~,nstitutes the third milestone of the engagement. Dav~ M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. 2 2 City of Temecula Task H..4. Calculate Fee Schedule and Prepare Impact Fee Report. In order to calculate impact fees that comply with AB 1600, it is necessary to allocate costs to various types of development in accordance with their proportional contribution to the demand for facilities. DMG will develop allocation procedures based on the impact analysis performed in Task II-3. This task includes the following sub-tasks to be completed by the Consultant: 4.1 Define an appropriate allocation basis for each type of capital facility of improve- ment being addressed. 4.2 Specify equations for fee calculation and determine appropriate variable values for each facility type. 4.3 Calculate impact fees. 4.5 Prepare an impact fee report including fee schedules, cost allocation policies and methodology used in calculating fees. The report will also include "nexus" statements formally documenting a "reasonable relationship" between the fees and the impacts of future development. 4 Present fee schedule and impact fee report for review and approval by the City. Completion of the impact fee report constitutes the fourth milestone of this engagement. Task H-5. Present Report. Representatives of DMG will attend up to two meetings or workshops, as requested by the City, to present the report and answer questions. Additional presentations would be on a time and expenses basis. Task H-6. Work w~th the City to Implement the Impaa Fee Program. Once the impact fee program is adopted, DMG will assist the City to set up accounting and reporting procedures and a fee collection system to implement the program. DMG will conduct one staff training workshop for personnel involved in the implementation of the fee program. David M. Gtiffith & Associates. Ltcl. 2 3 City of Temecula SECTION V PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING DMG offers a team of highly skilled consultants to the City of Temecula. expertise include: Specific areas of · Governmental cost accounting. · Knowledge of governmental service delivery within each of the departments to be analyzed. · User fee service structure and service type in other California city governments. · Knowledge of the requirements of AB 1600 and developing cost and nexus relationships. · Development of presentations for city councils and the general public. · Management of major projects. Our project organization and project team members are described below. PROJECT DIRECTOR - J BRADLEY WILKES Mr. Wilkes is a Vice President at DMG. He is responsible for cost allocation plan, user fee and AB 1600 engagements. Mr. Wilkes has been with DMG for over nine years. As Project Director he will be responsible for staff assignment, quality control, report review and client presentations. Mr. Wilkes has a B.A. from Brigham Young University and an M.B.A. from the California State University at Sacramento. PROJECT MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES - JOSEPH M. COLGAN, A.I.C.P. Mr. Colgan is a Project Manager with DMG. He is a professional planner with an excellent working knowledge of civil engineering principles and particular expertise in relating planned development to capital facilities needs as required by AB 1600. Prior to entering the consulting field, Mr. Colgan served as Principal Planner for the University of California-Davis, Medical Center where he was responsible for coordinating a $200 million capital improvement program. He has had more than 11 years of experience as a local government planner and planning director. Mr. Colgan is currently working on DMG's Livemore, Menlo Park, Morro Bay and Madera AB 1600 engagements. Dav~l M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. 2 4 City of Ternecula PROJECT STAFF The following staff is available for assignment as necessary: · WILLIA~M B. HENDERSON, C.P.A. Mr. Henderson is a Senior Project Manager with DMG. He has extensive experience in finance, accounting and budgeting in the governmental sector. He has spent six years as the Finance Director for the 5 billion dollar Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs mortgage loan program. Mr. Henderson has developed a computer model for allocating project costs in the calculation of impact fees. He has served as Project Manager for several AB 1600 engagements, including Thousand Oaks, Fontaria, I-Iawthome and Santa Maria. · CANDACE BONNEY Ms. Bormey is a Consultant in DMG's cost analysis group. She is a graduate of the University of California at Davis in Agricultural'Economics and has an M.B.A. from San Francisco State University. Prior to joining DMG, she worked in the County Executive's office in Yolo County. At DMG, Ms. Bonney has staffed cost and fee studies. JEFF WAKEFIELD Mr. Wakefield is a Consultant in the Sacramento office of DMG. He has been with DMG for over two years. He $pecialiTe~ in user fee analyses and central service cost allocation plans. Clients include the cities of tompoe, Rancho Cucaraonga, Irvine and Costa Mesa. Mr. Wakefield is an accounting graduate from the University of Redlands. Resumes for the above listed staff are provided following this page. David M. Gt~ffith & Associates, Lta. 2 5 City of Temecula J. BRADLEY WILKES Mr. Wilkes is Vice President in charge of David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. Western fee consulting practice. He has been with DMG for over nine years. During this time he has been involved in all phases of DMG's consulting services. He has worked with state and county government entities in the development of computer charge back systems, development of mandated cost claims (SB 90), cost allocation plan development, implementing genera] financial accounting systems, and has been responsible for numerous user-fee and revenue enhancement studies. Representative Engagements Include: Revenue/Cost User Fee Studies -- Mr. Wilkes has managed specialized accounting projects for cities and counties. These projects include: 1) city-wide user fee studies; 2) depreciation/amortization studies; 3) enterprise fund rate calculations; and 4) water rate studies. Central Service Cost Allocation Plans -- Mr. Wilkes has prepared and negotiated numerous cost allocation plans for our California office clients. These have included plans for both cities, counties, and a special districts. These projects have included "Revenue/Cost" reports to management and the development of rates used to charge outside users of government services. Data Collection. Analysis and Computerized Data Bases -- The responsibility for the computerization of all DMG West Coast cost allocation plans is assumed by Mr. Wilkes. He also has conducted the development, collection and computerization of several data bases used by California counties statewide. Computer-Data Processing -- Mr. Wilkes has been project manager for a number of data processing related projects. Such projects required the analysis of total cost (direct and indirect), the development of depreciation schedules, the creation of cost pools with corresponding cost pool rate schedules, and the development of full cost and OMB A-87 approved department wide usage rates. Most recen~y he was responsible for a complete data center rate analysis for the States of Utah and Arizona. These projects focused on, 1) full-cost rate development, 2) cost/benefit analysis for merging satellite data center functions with the State Data Center, and, 3) projecting budgets for data center customers. Education and other Experience: Mr. Wilkes earned an MBA from California State University of Sacramento. He is currently completing the final requirements for an M.S. in Accounting. His B.S. is from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Before joining DMG, he was a staff member of a large municipal electric company. 26 JOSEPH M. COLGAN, AICP Mr. Colgan is a Project Manager in the Sacramento office of DMG. He is a professional urban planner with more than ten years experience in city and county government planning agencies. Mr. Colgan has an extensive background in both land use and capital facilities planning. He has directed the programming, planning and design of medical facilities as well as court, jail, police, fire department and community center facilities. He also has worked extensively with civil and traffic engineers both as a project planner and in comprehensive planning and development review. Specific experience related to this assignment includes the following: Served as Project Manager for impact fee studies for Yuba County and the cities of Livermore, Madera, Morro Bay, Dana Point, Menlo Park, San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles. Conducted a study of fees and permitting procedures for the Alameda County Public Works Agency. Developed a Lotus l-2-3-based impact fee calculation model capable of using unique service areas and demand variables to allocate costs of individual projects. Employed as Planning Manager in charge of physical planning and project scheduling for a $200 Million expansion program at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center. Employed as Planning Director of Sparks, Nevada. Also served as project manager for a variety of public building projects in Sparks, including the headquarters fire station, a community center, a police headquarters and municipal court building and a City Hall expansion. Employed as Chief of Comprehensive Planning for Prince William County, Virginia. Served as project manager for the programming and design of a new Prince William County Jail. Appointed to a Citizen's Blue Ribbon Committee advising on the future of the Washoe County, Nevada, library system. Mr. Colgan earned his Master of City Planning degree at the University of Pennsylvania and his Bachelor of Architecture degree at the University of Nebraska. He is a charter member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and became registered as an architect in California in 1972. 27 WILLIAM B. HENDERSON Mr. Henderson is a Senior Project Manager in the Sacramento Office of David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG). He has extensive experience in finance, accounting, and budgeting in the governmental sector. These skills have allowed him to serve DMG clients on both "cost allocation plan" and "user fee" projects. Mr. Henderson was also instrumental in the formation of the DMG product and team serving clients on new development impact fees. Prior to joining DMG, he spent 6 years as the Finance Director for the 5 billion dollar Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs mortgage loan program. He was responsible for asset/liability management and restructured and issued over 1.5 billion dollars of tax exempt debt. He also spent 5 years as the Accounting Manager for the Oregon State Treasury where he worked with statewide accounting and cash flow systems. His private sector experience includes audit work with Ernst & Whinney, C.P.A. 's and Controller of the Investment Division of Peoples Bank of Washington. Representative Engagements Include: Cost Allocation Plans -- Mr. Henderson has prepared numerous cost allocation plans for cities including Santa Clara, Thousand Oaks, Palo Alto, Fontaria and Solvang. User Fees -- Mr. Henderson also worked with the above cities to determine the relationship between their user fees and the associated city department costs. Impact Fees -- Mr. Henderson is the Senior Project Manager in charge of DMG's new development impact fee program. He developed a DMG model to identify projects and calculate impact fees. Impact fee engagements include the cities of Thousand Oaks, Santa Maria, Norco and Fairfield, Hawthorne, Fontaria, Martinez, Pen'is, and others. This expertise will also support the Oregon fee project. Revenue/Expense Analysis -- Mr. Henderson's background in governmental finance and accounting has also lead to engagements with the cities of Burbank, Pen'is, Fontaria, and others where an analysis of accounting coding structures and expenditure classifications along with potential funding sources were of primary concern. Education and Other Experience Mr. Henderson received his B.S. in Accounting from Brigham Young University. While working with Ernst & Whinney, C.P.A.'s, he received his C.P.A. certification from the State of Washington. He has taught accounting at several junior colleges and has been responsible for several successful accounting system's projects at the statewide level. 28 CANDACE BONNEY Ms. Bonney is a Senior Consultant in our Government Cost Accounting Group in the Sacramento office. Prior to workjng for DMG, she worked as an Administrative Analyst for Yolo County - County Executive's Office. She had experience with the operations of local government agencies and is familiar with their needs. Her primary responsibilities included budget preparation, project cost analysis, legislation review, and departmental support. At DMG she has worked primarily in the cost allocation plan and user fee study area for a number of cities and counties. She has also worked extensively on the development of indirect cost rate percentages for the calculation of full cost hou~y rates. Representative Engagements Include: Central Service Cost Allocations Plans -- Ms. Bonney has prepared and assisted in the preparation of numerous cost allocation plans. Projects include plans for Fairff..~.ld, South San Francisco, Culver City, Burbank, Ontario, Alameda Hercules, city of Sacramento and Sacramento County. Revenue/Cost User Fee Studies -- Ms. Bonney has participated in the preparation of user fee studies for a number of cities and counties. These include the city of Norco, Burbank, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Vallejo, Alameda, Mountain View, and Tacoma, Washington. Indirect Cost Rate Proposals -- Ms. Bonney assisted in the preparation of over 60 indirect cost rate percentages for the city of Sacramento. She has also developed ICRP's for several departments within DMG's user fee cities and counties. Education and Other Experience: Ms. Bonney has a Bachelor's degree in Managerial & Agricultural Economics from the University of California at Davis and a Master of Business Administration from San Francisco State University. Prior to joining DMG, she worked as a Controller for a San Francisco law firm and, as mentioned above, as an Analyst for the Chief Administrative OfficPr of Yolo County. 29 JEFF S. WAKEFIELD Mr. Wakefield is a Consultant in our Government Cost Accounting Group in the Sacramento office. He has been with David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG) for over two years. During that time he has specialized in cost allocation plans, jail rate studies, and user fee studies. Representative Engagements Include: Central Service Cost Allocation Plans -- Mr. Wakefield has been involved in the preparation of many cost allocation plans. Projects include plans for Santa Maria, Costa Mesa, and Lorepoe, as well as several non-California municipal- ities. Revenue/Cost User Fee Studies -- Mr. Wakefield has prepared or assis,.~ in the preparation of user fee studies for many cities and counties. Representative clients include: Costa Mesa, Pismo Beach, Lompoc, Livermore and Santa Barbara County. Random Moment Sampling (RMS) Systems -- Mr. Wakefield was instrumental in the development, implementation, and maintenance of an ongoing RaMS system for the County Supervisors Association of Arizona. The system allowed for recovery of overhead for state run health care programs and eliminated the need for costly time card systems. Education and Other Experience: Mr. Wakefield received his Bachelor's degree in Accounting from the University of Redlands, California. Mr. Wakefield has extensive experience with our cost plan program in terms of installation, training, and client relations. 30 SECTION VI PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT COST As noted in the RFP addendure, the cost proposal is attached in separate envelopes. TEX4E LINE DMG can complete the work described herein in two and a half months. is as follows: Our tentative schedule · October 25 · November 15 · Nov. 4- Dec. I · December 20 · January 02 * · January 10 * · January 24 * · February 11 * Begin Work Draft Cost Allocation Plan Impact Fee & User Fee Interviews Draft Data Submitted for City Review City Comments Completed Draft Report to City J~nal Report Council Hearing The above schedule is ambitious. We will set out to structure the project, define data needs, obtain dam, process dam, prepare reports for review, etc. in keeping with the above schedule. DMG has the expertise and staff available to make this commitment. The schedule is dependent on the cooperation of deparunenta~ staff and the condition of basic dam. For example, the City's C.I.P. budget, the Stanley ltoffman dam, the level and number of reviews of draft calculations ~ by the City, etc. all phy an important role in the projects progress. The areas which axe starred indicate where the schedule is ~dent upon city review and turnaround to DMG data requests. David M. GHffittl & ~iates, Ltcl. 3 1 City of Temecula APPENDIX A CALIFORNIA CLIENT LIST DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Listing of California City Clients AGOURA HILLS ALBANY ALHAMBRA ANAHEIM ALAMEDA ANTIOCH ARCADIA ARROYO GRANDE ARVIN ATASCADERO AUBURN AVALON AZUSA BANNING BAKERSFIELD BALDWIN PARK BELMONT BELL GARDENS BELVEDERE BENICIA BERKELEY BEVERLY HILLS BIG BEAR BREA BRISBANE BURBANK BURLINGAME CALEXICO CAMARILLO CAMPBELL CARLSBAD CARMEL BY THE SEA CHOWCHILLA COALINGA CONCORD CORONADO CORTE MADERA COSTA 1VIF~A CULVER CITY CLYPERTINO GONZALES GROVER CITY HALF MOON BAY HAWTHORNE HAYWARD HEALDSBURG HOLLISTER HOLTVILLE HUGHSON HUNTINGTON BEACH HURON IMPERIAL BEACH INDUSTRY INDIO INGLEWOOD KERMAN KINGSBURG LA HABRA LANCASTER LAGUNA BEACH LA PALMA LARKSPUR LINDSAY LIVE OAK LIVERMORE LODI LOMA LINDA LONG BEACH LOS ANGELES LOS GATOS LYNWOOD MAD ERA MARTINEZ MENLO PARK MO~Y MONTEREY PARK MILLBRAE MONROVIA MORGAN HILL MORRO BAY DAVID M. GRJFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Listing of California City Clients (Cont.) DANVILLE DELANO DIXON DORRIS DUARTE EL MONTE EL SEGUNDO ESCONDIDO EUREKA EXETER FAIRFAX OR.LAND OXNARD PACIFIC GROVE PALM DESERT PALM SPRINGS PALO ALTO PASADENA PASA ROBLES PATYERSON PERRIS PETALUMA PLACENTIA PLACERVILLE PLYMOUTH POMONA PORT HUENEME PORTOLA POWAY RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDDING REDLANDS REDONDO BEACH REDWOOD CITY RIALTO RICHMOND RIDGECREST RIPON RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE MOUNTAIN VIEW NATIONAL CITY NEVADA CITY NEVADA CITY NEWARK NEWPORT BEACH NORCO NOVATO OAKLAND OCEANSIDE ONTARIO SAN JOSE SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN MATEO SANGER SANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SANTA MARIA SANTA MONICA SANTA PAULA SANTA ROSA SANTEE SCOTFS VALLEY SEAL BEACH SHAFTER SOLEDAD SOLVANG SOUTH GATE SOUTH PASADENA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STOCKTON SUISUN CITY SUNNYVALE TAFT THOUSAND OAKS TIBURON TORRANCE TRACY TUSTI~ DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Listing of California City Clients (Cont.) ROSS SACRAMENTO SAN ANSELMO SAN BRUNO SAN CARLOS SAN CLEMENTE SAN FERNANDO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JUAN BAUTISTA VACAVILLE VALLEIO VENTURA VERNON VISTA WEST HOLLYWOOD WHITTIER WOODLAND YORBA LINDA DAVID M. GRIFFITH AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. Listing of California County Clients ALAMEDA ALPINE AMADOR BUTrE CALAVERAS COLUSA CONTRA COSTA DEL NORTE EL DORADO FRESNO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES MADERA MARIN MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC MONO MONTEREY NAPA NEVADA ORANGE PLACER PLUMAS RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN BENITO SAN BERNARDINO SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOAQUIN SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN MATlEO SANTA BARBARA SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU SOLANO SONOMA STANISLAUS SUTrER TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE VENTURA YOLO YUBA DAVID M. GRIFFITH AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. Listing of Other California Clients APTOS/LA SELVA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES JOINT POWERS ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES INSURANCE AUTHORITY BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT BIG BEAR CITY COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT CALAVERAS COUNTY - 23 SPECIAL DISTRICTS CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND JUNIOR COLLEGE ASSOCIATION CAMERON PARK COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CARMEL VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT ELK GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT EVERGREEN SCHOOL DISTRICT FRESNO HOUSING AUTHORITY GOLD GATE BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT HOUSING AUTHORITY OF LOS ANGELES HUMBOLDT NO 1. FIRE PRpTECTION DISTRICT KAWEAH DELTA HOSPITAL DISTRICT KENTFIELD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LAKESIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LINDSAY LOCAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARIN CITIES WORKERS' COMPENSATION JPA MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT MID VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NORTH CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY OMNITRANS PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL PRECOM JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY RIVERSIDE 1VH::I}ICAL LABORATORY RUBIDOUX FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SACRAMENTO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SAN BERNARDINO SCHOOL DISTRICT SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Listing of Other California Clients (Con't) SAN MIGUEL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SCHOOLS COMMIT'FEE FOR REDUCING UTILITY BILLS SELMA HOSPITAL DISTRICT SIERRA SKI AREAS ASSOCIATION SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT DAVID M. GRIFFITH AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT SPRING VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY TERRANCE E. LOWELL AND ASSOCIATES THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA VENTURA REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WESTERN CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT WESTERN MOBILEHOME ASSOCIATION WESTSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT APPENDIX B SELECTED "USER FEE PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS" APPENDIX B USER FEE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS In the following pages a number of individual user fee projects are summarized in highlight format. Each of the projects described was performed by staff of the Sacramento office of DMG. The highlights were selected to underscore the variety of issues that may be encompassed in a user fee study. In each of DMG's studies our staff finds interesting challenges. DMG hopes that these "Highlights" will provide added insight into the experience DMG's staff can bring to the City of Temecula's project. The following projects are summarized: City of Ontario City of Tacoma City of Alameda Co. of Stanislaus City of Fresno City of Palo Alto "Working with City Council and the Development Community" "Interrelationships of Departments in a Large City" "Review Differing Billing systems" "Modeling Various Assumptions" "Fee Recovery Maximization" "Unusual Fee Areas" TIlE CITY OF ONTARIO · WORKING WITH ~ CITY COUNCIL AND TIlE BUILDING COMMUNITY' PR OI~CT BACKGROUND: The City of Ontario is a Southern California city with a population of 100,000-I20,000. The DMG fee study was approached in three phases. The City of Ontario has been a cost plan client for a number of years and this allowed DMG to minimize the "start-up" usually required when starting new projects. The cost plan process folded neatly into the user fee study. PRO. rECT RES UL TS : Thus far (as of lune 1990 the project is not enn~ely complete), t~re departmet.:' fees which will represent nearly $500,000 of increased annual revenue have been reviewed and accepted by the City Council. Planning revenue is anticipated to increase $I.5 million as a result of fee increases that have been reviewed and accepted by Council and importantly by the development community. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS: Increased revenue generation was a obvious highlight; however, the Ontan'o project was extremely successful in terms of working for a smooth impIementadon between DMG, staff, council, and the Building Industry Association (B.LA.). DMG methodology was accepted by the BIA and our work was made available to them throughout the project This allowed DMG and city staff to solve problems before the council was involved. DMG modeled the data numerous times for staff, given many differing cost and time assumptions. DMG worked with Council in a number of workshops to insure understanch~vg and to get direction. The City is Ioola~g forward to a successful implementation of higher fees with Council support from the bullcling community. TtH~ was no accident, the success is directly related to a well thoughtout plan implemented by the City and supported by DMG. dm8 project lu~Mights - ~ f~ TIlE CITY OF TACOMA 'UNDERSTANDING iNTER~ ~,r,A TIONSHIPS OF DEPARTMENTS IN A LARGE CITY' PROJECT BACKGROUND: The City of Tacoma is the State of Washington's second largest city. DMG conducted a user fee study for the City in the Fall of 1989 and Winter of I990. City was concerned about potential budget short falls and a concern for a more "businesslike" approach to pricing its user fee services. PROJECT RESULTS: The project identified over $5 million in user fee and generM fund subsidies. Fire department fees were developed for the frst time, police services (some supplied jointly by the County and the City) were costed out, and development activities were reviewed. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS: The "large city" environment of Tacoma provided many chMIenges. In particular the chMlenge of understanding the interrelations of the development related departments, and the combining (for costing purposes) of common activities among severM different budget units, was of speciM note. In Tacoma it is not uncommon to share responsibility for a user fee activity among severM budget units. In some instances each department is responsible for a separate plan check, inspection or review. Using DMG's methodology and user fee computer system, common fee titles were developed, time estimates grouped, support/administration was identified, costs were applied and corresponding revenue was brought back to a "home department". Where separate work, fees and accounting systems existed, an organized MI encompassing analysis was develped. At completion, the DMG data showed costs and revenues by inds'viduM budget units, as well as a summary by "home department" or by fee title. drng project hs~hlighta - user f~ THE CFFY OF ALANIE. DA 'RE ~G DIFFERING METHODS OF B IT. L KIVG SYSTEMS' PR OIECT BA CKGR OUND : The City of Alameda is a Bay area city located near Oakland, DMG's user fee study included a review of all current and potential general fund user fee activities, The City charges user fees using 1) per unit charges, 2) sliding scale charges (based on size of project) and 3) actual hourly charges. PROJECT RF~ UL 75': The DMG study identified large subsidies in many departments and confirmed current fee levels in some departments which were already covezing costs. As a result the City has the basic cost data to increase fees where appropriate and has the confidence to continue charging certain fees winch in some cases seemed high to city officials before the study. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS: The City uses various methods of charging for user fee services. For example, the planning department has InStozically charged on a time and materials basis. The administration of this method was too cumbersome and the department desired to change to a 'per unit' method of billing. The engineezing department also charged on a time and materials basis but this department was very pleased with this method. The building department charged for services based on UBC cedes and schedules. The other departments also used a vaziety of methods for charging user fee services. DMG's system and methodology calculated I) per unit fee where desired, 2) calculated full hourly rates (salary, benefits, all levels of overhead) for hourly billings, and 3) compared costs to revenues for the 'sliding scale' billing systems. TIns flexibility was of great help to the City. drag project tu~Mights - user f~ COUNTY OF STANISLA US 'DMG'S COMPU'IER BASED SYSTEM AND TIlE REQUIREMENT TO MODEL DIFFERING ASSUMPTIONS' PROJECT BACKGROUND: The County of Stanislaus is a California County located in the Central Valley. The County contracted with DMG to conduct a user fee cost/revenue analysis for its major departments. The project was completed in the Fall of 1989. PROJECT RESULTS: The project identified large subsidies in most departments. Once the data was reviewed by staff, a presentation to the Board of Supervisors outlining the project was made by DMG. As a result fees were raised, resuln~g in a projected annual increase of $800,000. PROJECT FUGHLIGHTS: The County required that a number of different assumptions be modeled before fee recommendations could be formulated. DMG's user-fee computer system (known as PASTR) accommodated this requirement with ease. The system begins with base data such as individual staff members, sala.6es, beneats, supplies and services, departmental overhead (supervision, clerical support, etc.), as well as agency (County or City) wide overhead (allocations from a cost plan). These are applied to individual time estimates for each fee activity and a resulting detailed cost description is produced. DMG was able to model differing time estimates for each fee or group of fees, staff levels, budget estimates, volume estimates, etc. DMG's compiled computer system accommodated such requests and provided valuable data for the County decision makers. drag proffer ~n~Mi~t~ - ~ f~ THE CITY OF FRESNO RECOVERY A~QLIM~ZA TION' PROIECT BACKGROUND: The City of Fresno is a 275, 000 population full service CalzYornia city. DMG performed a cost allocation plan/user fee study for the City covering the following departments: community development, police, are, recreation, and public works. The principal desire of the City was to identify and implement fee increases to bolster needed City revenues. PR OIECT RESULTS: The study idendHed a user fee subsidy of $7,272,715 (63 ~) in the departments analyzed. Recommendations were made to management and the City Council to increase fees $3,977,218. Based upon the analysis the City Council adopted fee increases totaling about $3,000,000. This level of Fee increase was accepted and actually endorsed by the local builclz~g associations. PROIECT HIGHLIGHTS: The Fresno project identified the largest user fee subsidy of any DMG study. Adopted fee increases were also the largest. The majority of the fee increases came from the development departments (planning and buildz~g & safety). The City had not increased fees for several years and this required signiHcant immeclz~te increases to recover "lost ground". DMG made presentations to industry groups to explain the cost analysis. Since the original study ('I987/88) DMG has been asked to update the fee structure to keep pace with inflation and changing organizational structures. ~ CITY OF PALO AL TO 'UNUSUAL FE~ AREAS' PROJECT BACKGROUND: The City of Palo Alto is a 60,000 population full service San Francisco Bay area City. DMG performed a cost allocation plan/user fee study for the City in I989-90. PROJECT RF_.,SUL TS: The study iden titied a user fee subsidy of $5,43 7, 996 (49. 6 ~). Recommenda lions were made to management and the City Council to increase fees $858,674 (I5.5~). Recommendations were accepted by the City Council on the consent agenda. PROTECT HIGHLIGHTS: The City of Palo Alto study incorporated a wide range of user fee activities. In addition to the usual planning, police, are, engineering, and recreation, the study included arts and culture (theater and visual arts), open space, transportation, animal control, and vazious library services. New revenue in these 'hard to increase' services totaled $59,520. The fee revenue increases in the City resulted from City staff worla37g closely with all groups involved. This worla~g relationship was supported by the hard data supplied by DMG. drag prop higtdights - user [~ APPENDIX C DEVELOPMENT FEE STUDY HIGHLIGHTS 1MPA CT FEE PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS In the Following pages a number of individual impact Fee projects are summarized in highlight format. Each project described is/was managed and staffed by DMG's California AB 1600 team. The projects were selected to underscore the variety of issues that may be encompassed in a developer t~e study. Even though AB 1600 did not become effective until January i, 1989, DMG has amassed considerable experience. As of June 1990, DMG has contracted with 12 cities to develop comprehensive AB 1600 plans. Most of these projects required original thinla~g and analysis for the majority of cities had no or very few impact fees in p/ace. This required DMG to produce original nexus statements, assist city staff in compiling capital projects, and educate and introduce the concepts oF AB 1600 to sta~?~ management, and governing boards. TlTe projects selected for inclusion herein were idendfed as providing unique issues. Many of these projects listed are sdll in progress. drag loroJ~ct highlights - impact fe~ THE CITY OF HA WTI-IORNE 'DEVELOPING NEW IMPACT FEF_3' PROJECT BA CKGR OUND: The City of Hawthorne is a southern California city of approximately 75,000 population. The City had effectively reached its original buildout scenario but was experiencing a surge of new growth. The new growth was coming from the construction of multi-family dwellings in areas formerly used for single family dwellings. The City had used impact fees on a limited basis and wanted to reassess its policy. PROJECT RESULTS: The project reviewed fees for Police, Fire, Streets, Parks and Recreation, Airport General Government and Water. Existing fees were tbund to be low and several components were not addressed by existing fees. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS: In addition to reviewing current fees, DA,IG focused on the creation of new fees in a number of areas. This process required worla>,g with and "educating" city stair and the Council in the process and requirements of AB 1600, as wet as developing new fees from the 'ground up'. With experience gained in previous projects DMG was able to direct and assist in the gathering of base dam, develop original nexus statements, and create the necessary calculations to develop sound fees. The City's water and airport functions did not have impact fees to help pay for growth. DMG worked with City management and staff to, 1) compile an initial list of water and airport capital projects, 2) model differing schedules for the construction of these projects, 3) develop agreed upon 'charging' factors, 4) and to key in factors like meter sizes, and consumption patterns. From tta~ process the City now has a new source for linancing the growth of these capital areas. dmg project higMights - AB 1600 THE CITY OF LIVERMORE "iNCORPORATING A TRAb'FIC FEE INTO A JfELLO-ROOS DISTRICT" AGENCY DESCRIPTION: The City of Livermore is located along 1-580 on the FT~nge of the San Francisco Bay area in Alameda County. Livermore has experienced very strong demand tbr housing and has established limits on the rate of residential development. Industrial development is also occurring at a healthy rate, but retail commercial development is lagging. The estimated 1990 population is approximately 60,000. PROJECT PROFILE: Livermore established some types of impact fees as early as i956. Fees currently imposed include a Storm Drainage Fee, a Sanit,~ry Sewer Connection Fee, a Water Storage Fee and a TrafHc Impact Fee. The City of Livermore also has adopted a Park Dedication or Fee-in-Lieu requirement under the Quimby Act, and an In-Lieu Low-Income Housing Fee. Livermore also collects a County Storm Drainage Fee and a Water Connection Fee on behalf of Alameda County. The City engaged DMG to review the City's existing impact fee structure for compliance with AB 1600 (Government Code Sections 66ooo, et seq.), to prepare an updated Capital Improvements Program, to identify potential new t~es, to calculate maximum fees based on the CIP. and to prepare an impact tee implementation program. PROJECT I-HGI-tL IGHT: One interesting aspect of this engagement was the City's desire that the Traft~c Impact Fee be designed to allow for eventual incorporation into a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. To accomplish this DMG is using I) experience gained in previous AB 1600 projects to construct and document the trafHc fee, and 2) DMG's computer systems to model "what it"' scenarios. By leaving the City the DMG software (LOTUS based), the City will have the tlexibla'ty to convert ttu's fee into a Mello-Roos District at a later date. drag prqiect higMights - ~b 1600 TI~ CITY OF MADERA 'USING DMG'S MODF. J., TO DEVELOP iNTE~ FEF. S~ AGENCY DESCRIPTION: The City of Madera is located along Highway 99 approximately 25 miles north of Fresno, and is the county seat of Madera County. Madera is experiencing steady, balanced growth. This City of 2&000 is located in the heart of an agricultural County, bring many rural issues to bear in tlTe development of fees. PR OJ'H CT PR OFIL H : Madera currenHy imposes several types of impact fees including a Drainage Fee, a Sewer Capacity Fee, a Parks Fee (which was not established pursuant to the Quimby AcO and a Development Fee which is based on the cost of providing new are stations to meet the demands of new development. The City of Madera engaged DMG to review the existing fee structure tbr compliance with AB 1600 (Government Code Sections 66000, et seq.), to prepare a Capital Improvements Program, to identify potential new fees and to calculate maximum tbes based on the Capital Improvements Program. PRO. rHCT HIGHLIGHTS: The City is requiring a "good" estimate of fees before the project is complete. DMG's LOTUS based computer model is able to forecast these interim fees, by department, assuming a preliminary fist of capital projects, and given certain growth and usage factors. Onced the fees are produced the City can use these estimates for charging current development - thus capturing revenue wln'ch would have been lost during the the project period. drng pro. lect tu~Mights - AB 1600 THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA "SPECIAL FOCUS ON FiRE DEPARTMENF FEFS" PROJECT BACKGROUND: The City OF Santa Maria is a coastal Calilbrnia city OF approximately 54,000. New growth over the next ten years will take it dose to build out OF 75, 000. The City uses a variety of funding sources and wished to review and update its approach to development impact fees. PROJECT RESULTS: The project reviewed fees for Streets, BLu'Idings, City Hall, Recreation and Parks, Police, Fire, Library, Water and Wastewater. All fees were adjusted upward to some degree. Additionally, a city-wide approach to allocating costs was determined to be the acceptable methodology. PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS: An extensive review of Fire Department needs was conducted by DMG, the city's Finance Department, City Manager's Office and the Fire Department. Locations OF new stations and training centers were considered with respect to response drnes to residential, commercial and industrial areas. These factors, along with equipment needs, nexus statements, varing growth assumptions, etc. were modelled for City decision makers. drag project highlights - ab 1600 THE CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS 'CITYWIDE FE, F-S OR AREA OF BENEFIT FE, F,S" PROJECT BACKGROUND: The City of Thousand Oaks is a southern California city of approximately 1 I0,000 population. Although the City has used development impact fees for many years, they desired to review their fees to ensure that new development was paying its equitable share of the cost of growth. PROJECT RESULTS: The project reviewed fees for Transportation, Storm drainage, Public Buildings and Facilities, Law Enforcement, Parks and Open Space. The analysis indicated that the fees currently charged for each component were low. The new ,'be ceilings calculated would allow a combined fee of $7,486, for single family homes. This compared with current fees of $599. Utilities had recently completed a study on water and wastewater and were not included in the project. PROJECT FIlGHL tGHTS : In addition to reviewing base volume data. the City was interested in reviewing its policy with respect to fees and geographic areas within the City. Concerns regarch~g the 'pros and cons" of Citywide verses 'area of benel~t" fees were of central importance in this city. DMG, staff, the city manager and attorney discussed these issues extensively. The increased accuracy of "area benel~t" fees were weighed against the increased accounting and administration support required. DMG's study provided data necessary for the City's decision makers to malce informed decisions regarding growth and methods to anance capital needs. drag project highlights - .4B 1600 APPENDIX D NEWSPAPER ARTICLES 'Z ~ CrTY OF ONTARIO A. RTICT.~. ZEGAY. D~G DMG '~ PLcL~G DEPAR2347;,VI' FEE STUD Y CYTY PROPOSAL TO RA,I'SE FEES 3~ Can<lysse ~1111~' Bulletin St~ff Wrfta~ .~ic~ u.~ ~e $1-$ ~ilHaE.-per. yut ~t~ :~T, eeu~ive Dir,c~r Tom Koi~L 2aye COStS/from ":Z ~ CITY OF ONTARIO ~L~27CLE F-ZGARDLNG DMG 'S FE~ D~PA~T3~-,~T FF,~. FTUD Y Fire department will start charging fees for services mrvef, ~m..~t,i. ta..~u .~,a~ :'~c=zmme=<led jtor parameolc services 8y Candyxse Miller STaff Writer [rx c~C/es inch u F.J/ler,.~cx xnd 0vsage. "Club Rasidemu o{ the Orange ?r~v~ded -*me.'~e,c7 '-e.~caL "d fee zLToedng '-hem focc tan~e 5Lib for each In .~umaheim. reside:ca '~u~mess om-ae~J my opt ~ el- ;her iM7 ~or ,~:tmec~c ~rvicts aa .~quire4 -- er,.her $1,~0 for vuad ~ sup.mr. -- or ?,~-menc "- hndled ~.tt '.he ~ and tEemand :~ave&esdupma-efundsf~ ~ "'Xa :eea7 ~mr. a' nx;;le- :nent' A=xbaim ~a~,~.z, ~ feared dM= ~ fees we~dd rasp peegie ~elepaone :~ml:~r, but Fees /from B 1 Noa-peofic organ~zacio~ rise will live fees waved. u w~ll ?eogle .%wltUring ~u for residential fire- ~ ~ o~cm~ wtac ~ Ci~ ~ memhn al- may bye app}au~ ~e fe ;~ u a :~deuc ~le ~ obj~ ~or ;a~g for eme~en- ready .~Jxm~x ,"we ,'m' Ire eatam ~cixLs have meed~xcoctzarZe~z~r. anxedic and ~ TIIE CITY OF FRF_,SNO ARTICL~ ,~GA. RDING DMG 'S ~ STUD Y Council will consider builders fees increase TI~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA ARTICI.2 R.~GARDZNG DMG 'S .FF.F. ~ y So e SM fees may skyrocket lay Lsuise Yarnall Drunken divers involved in eccidenr~ ~vouJd get slapped · with a fee ~o pey for police tact fite~ghr~rs' time ~mder a pcsal submitted ~o Ssn~ Moni- ca city officials that recom- mends fee increum olr city services.' , The dn~ken drivir~ one ot ~,7 new charles a consuRanc prot~ned along with hikes oL exiatin~ ~eet to help datray ccsU for ~vs city depart- menU. The increeaes rugs from as little as a ~taction much as. 50 f~mes the ,curm. c rate. .' $Z~ ~on tar pmenU. of planning, pclict· r~e, ructeaHcn an<L Dais 'and }T~nm ~ ~ss C,2ty's Ja/,asps', N~mumber l~m 1ti/7, · general services. The ciW currendy spends o~y $1.4 ~on ~ ~ses ~d enue~ ~t de~pen ?ho ~ ~e ~W p~ dep~en~ ~e ~ foe re~s~ ~ ~ en~n- men~ scudS, for eumpl~, · ~0 ~u~C's. s~-monCh ndy. show~ ~ ~n~ ~mpeabls ~-m ~pacc repom, gener~ p~ ~/~ Suzanne Frick, principal pia~mer, s&id ~e lee hikes, approvecL us noc ezpec~d ~a~e prospective ~evelop- e~ f~om &ppcoec~n~ ~e sdd~fioo~ revenue may be u~. she s~d, ~ ~e I new s~ member. '~ec I've been heu~f o~ left ue excepdo~ she ~d. C~ o[~ M~ ~c more ~o~ r~iden~ wo~ ~en ~vers ~volv~ ~ ~c- ~den~ To ~mpeuaCe ~e ci~ for · e ~e ~Hce ud spend ~c ~he scci~en~ ~en ~iver wo~d pay ~d~ ~e p~ C[~ ~er Jo~ J~fi said ~ac ciW's 210 accidenU ~en ~en !uc ~volv~ ~ue ~ho ~ ~e ci~. ' J, ln~ ~d ~e fee study ~ong ~verdue ~e ~e s~ ~m~f ceveaue ~m when ~e ~-~ L~8. p~k depa~enc's 'Our primary purpose ~ Co provide dmese (rec:eaffon) ser- vices co our fetidshoo tC a re- duced rac~.* he aaid. Jd M~d ~ouncil members d have co sd&ress s 'ph~lo- s~p~cai questdon' abdu%. ~hac kinds ot services taxpayers "Is it equiizble for ~e ~ui- denca ot ~ city (~o) be subei- dlzin{ ~o$s who jeerate a =eed for aperid merv~e$7* he The m~dy was conduc,Jd consult, trio Kicbs~ Puazl o~ Da- L~L, in Ctrmich~ei. end Pearl said thac since mort Lad =sore ~ ~z m ~o. bdiyiduab --~ char{as for these servicea wbac other cities cbar{e. JuAia Gri~ secAor manaSe- menC,anaAy~ s&id d~at once rompaxles, :xoC crime v~c- ~ ~'o~dd pay a proposed Co SZ~ lump Lu ',.he Fee for wTit- [nf poGce repocu on minor crimes, such el cm: and home bg:llaries, T. another recommendation, Pearl said the ci~/rite depart- ment should scoff char{Lu~ ownare ot bu~,ldin{~ '.alJer t:J:s.res s~ries 11~00 for bupectioal o( their sprinkler, sJm:m Lad es4mpe s3mtems. Cur- ten ely, such inspecr. Lonl are /tee. In sdcLitiom Pearl ruifesr~ed 21T5 ~m $&50, dependin{ on · hapaction- They now pay T~o mnauRanc a~ao