HomeMy WebLinkAbout041492 CC Agenda ~'~.
AGENDA
,,= TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
,~~ A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER -28816 PUJOL
APRIL 14, 1992 - 7:00 PM STREE
EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:30 PM - Pursuant to GC Section 54956.9(a) Pulte Homes vs
City of Temecula and 54956.9(b) & (c) to discuss potential litigation.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-05
Resolution: No. 92-22
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Patticia H. Birdsall presiding
Invocation
Pastor Sean Oliver, Rancho Christian Church
Flag Salute
Councilmember Parks
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
The Week of the Young Child
Victims of Pornography Week- 1992
PUBLIC FORUM
This is a portion of the City Council meeting unique to the City of Temecula. At the
meeting held on the second Tuesday of each month, the City Council will devote a
period of time (not to exceed 30 minutes) for the purpose of providing the public with
an opportunity to discuss topics of interest with the Council. The members of the City
Council will respond to questions and may give direction to City staff. The Council is
prohibited, by the provisions of the Brown Act, from taking any official action on any
matter which is not on the agenda. If you desire to speak on any matter which is not
listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with
the City Clerk.
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.
21,Oend~/0414112
04~B~2
NOTICE TO THI: PUBLIC
All matters listed under Cqnsent 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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2
3
4
Standard Ordinance AdoDti,on Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of March 24, 1992.
2.2 Approve the minutes of March 25, 1992.
2.3 Approve the minutes of March 31, 1992.
Resolution AoDrovina List (2f Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
City Treasurers Reoort for Period Ending January 31. 1992
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of January 31, 1992.
2/igendN041492
04~9~2
5
City Treasurers Report for :Period Endina February 29. 1992
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1
Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of February 29, 1992.
7
8
Award of Contract for the Construction of Traffic Signals, Ramp Widening, Median
Modifications. Lane Recqnfiguration. and Landscaping Improvements at the I-
15/Rancho California Road: Interchanae (Proiect No. PW 91-04)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Award a contract for construction of traffic signals, ramp widening,
median modifications, lane reconfiguration, and landscaping
improvements at the I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange (Project
No. PW 91-04) to Oliver Brothers for $526,681.36, and authorize the
Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said contract.
6.2
Appropriate $579,349.50 (bid amount plus 10% to allow for possible
change orders) from the Development Impact Fee Fund to Capital
Projects Fund and appropriate $579,350.00 to Capital Projects Account
No. 021-165-622-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
Maraarita Road Assessment District Reimbursement of City Start-uo Costs
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DECLARING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING CITY EXPENDITURES IN
CONNECTION WITH ESTABLISHMENT OF MARGARITA ROAD ASSESSMENTS
AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
REGULATIONS (SECTION 1.103-18)
Award of Contract - Senior Center Construction Documents
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Award contract to W. Dean Davidson, A.I.A. and Associates to provide
construction documents for the Senior Center Project.
2/Igendl/041492 3 O4/0g/~2
9
10
11
12
Resoh rtion OppOSing Reauirement to Perform Policing Duties of the State DePartment
of Industrial Relations
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Adopt a resdution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
OPPOSING THE REQUIREMENT THAT LOCAL AGENCIES PERFORM THE
POLICING DUTIES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Purchase of Accounting SOftware
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Approve the purchase of the Eden Systems Inc., accounting software.
10.2
Approve the transfer of $62,000 from the unreserved general fund
balance.
Award of Professional Sen(ices Contract to Leighton & Associates for Geotechnical
Services on the Rancho California Road Benefit District Project (PW 91-03)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $7,293.00 to
Leighton & Associates for gagtechnical services on the Rancho
California Road Benefit District Project (No. PW 91-03), and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
11.2
Appropriate $7,293.00 from the Development Impact Fee Fund to
Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $7,293.00 to Capital Projects
Account No. 021-165-605-44-5804.
Award of Professional Services Contract to NBS/Lowrv for Land Survevinq Services
on the Street and Sidewalk, Improvements at Various Schools Project (PW 92-01 )
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1
Award a Professional Services contract in the amount of $6,440.00 to
NBS/Lowry for land surveying services on the Street and Sidewalk
Improvements at Various Schools Project (PW 92-01 ), and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
12.2
Appropriate $6,440.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital
Projects Fund and appropriate $6,440.00 to Capital Projects Account
No. 021-165-607-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
2/egenda/041482 4 04/08/82
13
14
15
Award of Professional ~;ervices Contract to Law/Crandall, Incoroorated for
Geotechnical Soils Testin~l Services on the Street and Sidewalk Imorovements at
Various Schools Project (Project No, PW 92-01)
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $4,400.00 to
Law/Crandall, Incorporated for geotechnical soils testing services on the
Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various Schools Project (Project
No. PW 92-01), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said
Contract.
13.2
Approve a transfer of $4,400.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $4,400.00 to Capital Projects
Account No. 021-165-607-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
Two-Party Flood Control Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Approve the attached two-party flood control agreement for
construction of storm drain facilities between Rancho California Road
and Long Valley Wash, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to
sign said Agreement.
14.2
Approve an advance of $9,000.00 from Development Impact Fund to
the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $9,000.00 to Capital Projects
Account No. 021-165-605-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
Rancho California Road/I-15 Overoass (Proiect No. PW 91-04) Award of Construction
Management Contract to NBS/Lowrv
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1
Award a Construction Management Contract for an amount not-to-
exceed $181,727.00 to NBS/Lowry for construction management and
coordination with Caltrans on the Rancho California Road/I-15 over-
crossing project (Project No. PW 91-04), and authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to sign said Contract.
15.2
Appropriate $181,727.00 from the Development Impact Fee Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $181,727.00 to the Capital
Project Account No. 021-165-622-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund
Balance (monies to be reimbursed to the City by developers of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan.)
21agendN041412 6 - 04/08/82
16
17
Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for
Desiqn of Interim Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1
Approve a PrOfessional Services Agreement for design services (interim
width roadway) on the Margarita Road Extension with Robert Bein,
Williiim Frost end Associates ("RBF") in the amount of 931,000.00, and
authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said Agreement.
16.2
Approve a transfer of 931,000.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund and appropriate 931,000.00 to Capital Projects
Account No. 021-165-607-44-5802 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for
Desion of Maroarita Road from Solana Wav to Winchester Road (Southern Portion)
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1
Approve a Professional Services Agreement for design services
(ultimate width and grade) on the Margarita Road extension with Robert
Bein, William Frost and Associates ("RBF") in the amount of
944,200.00, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said
Agreement.
17.2
Approve a transfer of 944,200.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the
Capital ProjeCts Fund and appropriate 944,200.00 to Capital Projects
Account No. 021-165-607-44-5802 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
18
Release Faithful Performance Warranty and Subdivision Monumentation Bonds in Parcel
MaD No. 23430
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1
Authorize the release of streets and drainage, and sewer and water
systems Faithful Performance Warranty Bond and Subdivision
Monumentation Bond in Parcel Map No. 23430;
18.2
Direct the City Clerk to process the release of the bonds.
19
AOOrOval Of Final Parcel MaD No. 26766
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 26766, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
2/agenda/O41482 8 04/08/12
20
Purchase of Regulatory an(I Advanced Warnino Sions
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Authorize Staff to purchase regulatory and advanced warning signs from
Central City Signs as the lowest responsible bidder.
21
Pulte Home Coro. vs. Rivertide County Local Agency Formation Commission and City
of Temecula - Aooroval of Settlement
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1
Approve and authorize the City Attorney to execute the Stipulation for
Entry of Judgment, which would settle the CEQA litigation brought by
Pulte Home Corp. challenging the City's sphere of influence, subject to
the approval of the City Manager and City Attorney as to the final form
of the Stipulation.
22
Uodate on Temecula Valley Unified School District Efforts to Select Location for School
Bus Facility
(Continued from the meeting of 3/24/92)
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1
Receive and file report.
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
d~livered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing.
23
Change of Zone 5631 - Tentative Tract 25320 - Bedford Properties
(Continued from the meeting of 3/10/92)
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Continue Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320 to May 12, 1992.
21agenda/041482 7 04/08/82
24
25
26
Change of Zone No, 13 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 26828, and consideration of
the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission's Determination
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1
24.2
.Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 13 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R 2 112 TO R-1 ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RITA WAY AND
SERAPHINA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-260-039,
040,041,042, 043, 044, 045, AND 046
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26828 TO SUBDIVIDE 35.5 ACRES INTO 130
RESIDENTIAL LOTS. GENERAL LOCATION OF SAID MAP BEING THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF RITA WAY AND SERAPHINA ROAD
Outdoor Disolav and Advertising Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
25.1 Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS
Ordinance Granting AoDroVal Authority for Subdivision and Land Use ADDliCati0n
Decisions
RECOMMENDATION:
26.1 Adopt an urgency ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY FOR
SUBDIVISION AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS
21~gendd041482 8 04/0~/92
COUNCIL BUSINESS
27
28
29
30
31
21~nda/041492
Evaluation of Temoorarv Street Closure of Avenida De La Reina at Corte Arroyo
Vista/Corte Alhambra
(Continued from the meeting of 1/28/92)
RECOMMENDATION:
27.1
Consider the alternative proposal (time-limit closure) for Avenida de la
Reina as formulated by the Ad Hoc Committee, and direct Staff to
maintain the temporary closure until a permanent closure can be
constructed.
28.1 Introduce an Ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY QF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF
ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18 CHANGING
THE ZONE FROM R-A 2 112 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 2-112 ACRE LOT
SIZE MINIMUM) TO S-P (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE PORTOLA ROAD
Temoorarv Pavina of Parkina Lot at 6th Street and Front Street
RECOMMENDATION:
29.1 Direct staff regarding its interest in the temporary paving of the vacant
lot at 6th and Front Streets; and appropriate funds as necessary.
Maintenance of Streets Nqt Within the Maintained Road System
RECOMMENDATION:
30.1 Receive and provide staff direction.
Consideration of Promotionpl OoDortunitv - Volvo World CuD Team Penning Committee
(Requested by Mayor Birdsall)
RECOMMENDATION:
31.1 Consider appropriating ~1,500 for City participation and promotion at
the 1992 Volvo World Cup Team Penning Competition.
Ordinance ADDrOving Chargie of 7one No. 18 - Specific Plan 219
RECOMMENDATION:
32
Temoorarv Political Sic3ns
RECOMMENDATION:
32.1 Receive and file.
33
Resolution To Aoorove An Advance From The Rev01vinq Fund To the Temecula
RedeveloDment Agencv
RECOMMENDATION:
33.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING AN ADVANCE FROM THE REVOLVING FUND TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR ACQUISITION
OF PROPERTY WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHERRY STREET
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: April 28, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol
Street, Temecula, California
21agend,/041492 10 04/Oa/g2
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00)
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
President Ronald J. Parks
DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mur~oz
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
your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of March 24, 1992.
Parks and Recreation Masl;er Ran
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and file report.
3 Status Reoort on Sports Park Imorovements
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file report.
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:
Next regular meeting April 28, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21egenda,Q41492 11 O4/Ogl92
TE~ECU~ ~ ~EgEVELOP~ENT AS~NCY M~L~!'IN~
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson J. Sol Mur~oz presiding
AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Murtoz, 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.
AGENCY BUSINESS
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of March 24, 1992.
2
Appointments to Redevelo,i)ment Aoencv Old Town Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Select seven members to serve as members of the Redevelopment Old
Town Advisory Committee.
3
Report on Redevelooment Aaencv Old Town Advisorv Committee Responsibilities
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file report.
21egendN041412 12 04/08/82
4 Purchase of Drooertv -Weit of Diaz. South of Cherry Street
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Authorize the opening of escrow on property west of Diaz Road and
south of Cherry Street and authorize the purchase of 40 acres of
property with a right of first refusal on an additional 17 acres. The total
purchase price is $3,484,800 which is $2 per square foot;
4.2
Authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to handle and finalize the
transaction and acquisition;
4.3
Appropriate $3,484,800 for RDA land acquisition;
4.4
Authorize an advance of $3,484,000 from the General Fund revolving
fund which will be repaid from RDA bond proceeds.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting April 6, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
2/ageride/041492 13 04/08/92
ITEM
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Award of Professional Services Contract to NBS/Lowry for Land
Surveying Services on the Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various
Schools Project (PW92-01)
PREPARED BY:
Michael D. Wolff, Senior Public Works Inspector
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Award a Professional Services contract in the-amount of $6,440.00 to NBS/Lowry for
land surveying services on the Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various Schools
Project (PW92-01), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
Approve a transfer of $6,440.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund and appropriate $6,440.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-
5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
DISCUSSION:
In January, 1992, the Department of Public Works solicited qualifications from interested
engineering firms to provide the City with land surveying services (construction staking) for
various Capital Improvement Projects throughout the year of 1992. Eleven (11) firms
responded to the Request for Qualifications No. 004, and the responses were evaluated by
Public Works Staff. The top four firms were interviewed and ranked one through four (1 - 4).
All four firms have the necessary qualifications to perform the desired construction staking
for the projects. Thus, the one through four (1 - 4) ranking was necessary to establish a
rotation basis for project award. The ranking is as follows:
-1-
pwOl\agdrpt\92~0414~pw92-Ol.ls 0408a
2.
3.
4.
J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc.·
NBS/Lowry
Rick Engineering, Inc.
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. was awarded construction staking for Rancho California Road
Benefit District Project (PW91-03, first project). Therefore, NBS/Lowry was selected for the
Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various Schools Project (PW92-01, second project).
A contract with a defined scope of work and an hourly budget not to exceed $6,440.00 has
been negotiated.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is necessary to transfer $6,440.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects Fund
and appropriate $6,440.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-5804 from
Unreserved Fund Balance.
-2-
pwOl%egdrpt%92%O414%pw92-Ol.ls 0408e
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19 ,
between the City of Temecula, a munidpal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "C~"
and NBS/Lowry, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as 'Consultant'.
e
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SERVICES. Consultant shell perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached
her·to. Consultant shall complete the ~-_=ks according to the schedule set forth
in Exhibit A.
PERFORMANCF. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best
of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described her·in.
PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set
forth in Exhibit B attached her·to, based upon actual time spent on the above
tasks. This amount will not exceed $6,440 for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved by the City Coundl; provided that the City
Manager may approve additional payments not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
Agreement, but in no event more than $10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
SUSPF:NSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City
may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this Agreement, or any portion
hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice.
Upon receipt of said notice, the COnsultant shall immediately cease all work under
this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. W't, hin thirty-five (35) days
after receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant for
work done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement
such suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
BRF~,CH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause
under the terms of this Agreement, the City. shall have no obligation or duty to
continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of
-1-
defaulL Default shall include not pedorming the ~:eks described heroin to the
standard of care of the Industry. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in
the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his
control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered
adefaulL
ifthe City Manager or his d~le;~te deeTnines that the ConsLdtant defaults
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it
shall serve the ConSultant with written notice of the defaulL The Consultant
shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory pedorrnance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of tim, the City shall
have the dght, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to
terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any
other rernedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this
Agreement.
TERM. This Agreernem shall commence on , 19 , and shall
remain and continue in effect until ~-_eks described herein are completed, but in no
evem later than ,19_..
Any disputes rogercling performance, default or other matters in dispute
between .the City and the Consultant adsing out of this Agreernem or breech
thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's derision shall be
final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judidal Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The
arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of CMI
Procedure Section 1280, ~sea. City and Consultant shall share the cost
OWNFRSHIP OF DOCUMFNTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event.
of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all instruments of
service, including original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the
course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise
disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain
as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its
officers, employees or agents shall have control.over the conduct of the Consultant
or any of the Consultent's officers, employees or agents, except as herein sat
forth. The Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or
-2-
10.
11.
12,
any of its ufficus, employees or agents ere in any manner officers, employees or
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreemere, City
shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing amyiCes hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for
compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness adsing
out of performing services hereunder.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or
in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the
other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail,
postage prepaid, ratum. receipt requested, addressed to the City Manager of the
City of Temecule, located at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
92590 and the Consultant at 40925 County Center Drive, Suite 120, Temecula,
California 92591 unless and until different eddrasses may be furnished in writing
by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-
two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal
Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purposes.
ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the pdor
written consent of the City.
Upon termination. of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall
be the value to the City of the services rendered.
I IARII ITY INSURANCI:. The Consultant shall maintain insurance' acceptable to the
City in full force an effect throughout the term of this contract, against claims for
injudes to persons or damages to property which may adse from or in connection
with the pedormance of the work hersunder by the Consultant, his agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the Consultant's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
D$
Minirn~Jm Scooe of InEuranoe. ~ ~hall be at least as broad as:
Insurance Services ~ form Number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/72) covedng
number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General
coverage ('occurrence" form C,G 0001).
Insurance Services Office form no. CA 0(X)I (Ed. 1/78) covedng
Automobile Uability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
Workers' C, on~ insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of CalifOrnia an Employer's Uability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance
no less than:
General Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage.
mobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident
for bodily injury and property damage.
Workers' C, ornpensmion and Empioyer's Uability: Worker's
compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Uability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance. $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibies and $elf-lr-~sured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of
$1 ,000 must be declared .to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract
sh&q contain or be endomed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed tO state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days' pdor writtan notice to the City via United States First
Class Mall.
Ce
de
~ I.is!~lil~ end Aut~le !i~hil~ Coversges. The Ci~ of
Temeculs, i1~ officers, officials, employees ~nd volunteers are to be
covered es insureds es respect: liabilib7 arising ou~ of acliviUes
performed 1~7 or on beh~ of the Consultam; product~ ~nd
complelsd ol~erslions of ~ Consull~m~ premises owned, occupied
or used b~ the Consull~nt~ or I~ owned, leesed, hired or
borrowed by the Consurmnt. ~ coverage shall contain no special
limittick~s on the scope of ~ afforded to the City, its officers,
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of
the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of
Ternscuba, its officers, officials, employs and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Consultant's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, offdais,
employees or volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The
insurer shall agree to waive ail dghts of subrogation against the City
of Temecula, its officers, offidals, employees and volumesrs for
losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City.
Verticalton Of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance affecting coverage required by this clause.
The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.
The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to
be received and approved by the City before work commences. The
City reserves the dght to require complete, certified copies of all
required insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its
polides or shall furnish separate certfficates for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
13.
Any deductible or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approveci by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self insured retentions
as respects. the City, its officers, offidals and employees; or the
Consultant Shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and
related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
INDFMNIFICATInN. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Temecula, its officers, offrile, employees and volunteers from and against
any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature
which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which
may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent performance under the terms of this
Agreement, excepting only liability adsing out of the sole negligence of the City.
14.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned
herein or inddental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect
to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND IEXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and
after the date is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be
executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
· By:
ent Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
· APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
EXHIBIT 'A"
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT NO. PW92-01
STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT AT VARIOUS SCHOOLS
SCOPE OF WORK
ROUGH GRADE
* Paint sawcut lines and limits of A.C. pavement removals.
Provide offset and/or slope stakes at 50-foot intervals for rough grading of
Moraga and Margarita Roads.
Set stakes at 100-foot intervals on cuff face, or right-of-way, with grade to
top of curb for mlocation/adJuat to grade of power poles, fire hydrants,
irTigation systems, etc.
FINE GRADE
* Provide offset stakes at 25-foot intervals for installation of concrate curb and
gutter.
* Stake center line of driveways.
* Provide offsat stakes at 25-foot intervals for installation of A.C. dike.
STORM DRAIN
Provide offset stakes at 25-foot intervals for installation of 18-inch, 30-inch
and 36-inch storm drain pipelines. Includes offsat stakes catch basin and
headwall installation.
Note:
No time has been included for staking for additive bid or installation of
sidewalks, handicap access ramps, signalization of striping.
EXHIBIT "B"
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT NO. PWg2-01
STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT AT VARIOUS SCHOOLS
ROUGH GRADE
Pdndpal Surveyor
Survey Technician
Survey Crew (2 Persons)
TOTAL EST. HOURLY TOTAL EST.
HOURS RATE DOLLARS
3 $ 95.00 $ 285.00
3 $45.00 $ 135.00
22 $130.00 $2.860.00
TOTAL FOR
ROUGH GRADE
$3,280.00
FINE GRADE
Pdndpal Surveyor
Survey Technician
Survey Crew (2 Persons)
2 $ 95.00
2 $ 45.00
12 $130.00
TOTAL FOR FINE GRADE
$ 90.00
$1.560.00
$1,840,00
STORM DRAIN
Principal Surveyor
Survey Technician
Survey Crew (2 Persons)
2 $ 95.00
2 $ 45.00
8 $130.00
TOTAL FOR STORM DRAIN
$ 190.00
$ 90.00
$1.040.00
$1,320.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE
Matt\PW92-01 .Snt ----,,
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,19
between the City of Ternecula, a munidpal corporation, hereinefter referred to as "C~"'
and NB$/Lowry, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as 'Consultant'.
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth
in Exhibit A.
PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best
of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set
forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above
tasks. This mount will not exceed $6,440 for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City
Manager may approve additional payments not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
Agreement, but in no event more than $10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City
may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this Agreement, or any portion
hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice.
Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under
this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. Within thirty-five (35) days'
after receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant for
work done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement
such suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause
under the terms of this Agreement, the City Shall have no obligation or duty to
continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of
-1-
default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described heroin to the
standard of care of the Industry. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in
the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his
control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered
a default.
If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant defaults
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it
shall serve the Consult. ant with written notice of the default. The Consultant
shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall
have the dght, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to
terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any
other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this
Agreement.
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on , 19 , and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no
event later than ,19__.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Consultant adsing out of this Agreement or breech
thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be
final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The
arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1280, et sea. City and Consultant shall share the cost
of the arbitration equally.
OWNFRSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event
of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all instruments of
service, including original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the
course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise
disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain
as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its
officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant
or any of the Consultant's officers, employees or agems, except as herain set
forth. The Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or
-2-
10.
11.
12.
any of its officers, employees or agents ere in any manner officers, employees or
agents of the City.
No employee benefmt shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City
shall'not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hemunder for City, City shall not be liable for
compensation or indemnffication to Consultant for injury or sickness arising
out of performing services hemunder.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or
in any way affect the pedormance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations.
The .City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section,
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the
other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail,
pestage prepaid, return receipt requested, addresseS to the City Manager of the
City of Temecula, located st 43174 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California
92590 and the Consultant st 40925 County Center Drive, Suite 120, Temecula,
California 92591 unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing
by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-
two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal
Services. This shall be valid and suffident service of notice for all purposes.
ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior
written consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall
be the value to the City of the services rendered.
I IARILITY INSURANCF. The Consultant shall maintain insurance' acceptable to the
City in full force an effect throughout the term of this contract, against claims for
injudes to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection
with the performance Of the work hemunder by the Consultant, his agems,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the Consultant's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
-3-
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
®
Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/72) covering
corm General Liabity and Insurance Services Office form
number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General
Liability; or 'Insurance Services Office ~ General Liability
coverage ('Occurrence' form C,G 0001 ).
Insurance Services Office form no. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Uability, code I "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of California an Employers Uability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Umits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance
no less than:
General Uability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage.
Automobile Uability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident
for bodily injury and property damage.
Workers' Compensation and Employer's Uability: Worker's
compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
Calrfomia and Employers Uability limits of $1,00O,000 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance. $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Serf-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of
$1,0(X) mum be declared to and aiDproved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract
shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to mate that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City via United States First
Class Mail.
General Liability and Automobile Liability Coveraaes. The City of
Ternecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability adsing out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed oper~ons of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no spedal
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of
the work described in this corm'act, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be pdmary insurance as respects the City of
Ternecula, its officers, offida.s, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Consultant's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The
insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City
of Temecula, its officers, offidals, employees and volunteers for
losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall fumish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause.
The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.
The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to
be received and approved by the City before work commences. The
City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all
required insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certfficates for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
Any deduCtibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approvecl by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self insured retentions
as respects the City, its officers, offdais and employees; or the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and
related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
13.
INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Temecula, its officers, offidais, employees and volunteers from and against
any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature
which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which
may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property adsing out of Consultant's negligent performance under the terms of this
Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
14.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned
herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect
to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such doCument or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND ;EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and
after the date is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be
executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above writtan.
:yO..:~~~._._ CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
· as J. Stear PreSident Patdcla H. Birdsall, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
A'I'rEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk -6-
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT NO. PW92-01
STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT AT VARIOUS SCHOOLS
SCOPE OF WORK
ROUGH GRADE
Paint sawcut lines and limits of A.C. pavement removals.
Provide offset and/or slope stakes at 50-foot intervals for rough grading of
Moraga and Margarita Roads.
Set stake at 100.foot intervals on curb face, or right-of-way, with grade to
top of curb for relocation/adjust to grade of power poles, fire hydrants,
irrigation systems, etc.
FINE GRADE
* Provide offset stakes at 25-foot intervals for installation of concrete curb and
gutter.
* Stake center line of driveways.
* Provide offset stakes at 25-foot intervals for installation of A.C. dike.
STORM DRAIN
Provide offset stakes at 25-foot intervals for installation of 18-inch, 30-inch
and 36-inch storm drain pipelines. Includes offset stakes catch basin and
headwall installation.
Note:
No time has been included for staking for additive bid or installation of
sidewalks, handicap access ramps, signalization of striping.
EXHIBIT 'B"
=CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT NO. PW92..01
STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT AT VARIOUS SCHOOLS
FEE ESTIMATE
ROUGH GRADE
Principal Surveyor
Survey Technician
Survey Crew (2 Persons)
TOTAL EST. HOURLY TOTAL EST.
HOURS RATE DOLLARS
3 $ 95.00 $ 285.00
3 $45.00 $ 135.00
22 $130.00 $2.860.00
TOTAL FOR
ROUGH GRADE
$3,280.00
FINE GRADE
Principal Surveyor
Survey Technician
Survey Crew (2 Persons)
95.00
45.00
$13o.oo
TOTAL FOR FINE GRADE
$ 90.00
$1,560.00
$1,840.00
STORM DRAIN
Principal Surveyor
Survey Technidan
Survey Crew (2 Persons)
2 $95.00 $ 190.00
2 $ 45.00 $ 9o.oo
8 $130.00 $1,040.00
TOTAL FOR STORM DRAIN
$1,320.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE
$6,440.00
Matt\PW92-01 .Srv ~
ITEM 13
APPROVAT.
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Award of Professional Services Contract to Law/Crandall, Incorporated
for Geotechnical Soils Testing Services on the Street and Sidewalk
Improvements at Various Schools Project (Project No. PW92-01)
PREPARED BY:
Michael D. Wolff, Senior Public Works Inspector
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $4,400.00 to Law/Crandall,
Incorporated for geotechnical soils testing' services on the Street and Sidewalk
Improvements at Various Schools Project (Project No. PW92-01 ), and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to sign said ~ontract.
Approve a transfer of $4,400.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund and appropriate $4,400.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-
5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
DISCUSSION:
In January, 1992, the Department of Public Works solicited qualifications from interested
engineering firms to provide the City with geotechnical soils testing services for various
Capital Improvement Projects throughout the year of 1992. Three firms responded to the
Request for Qualifications No. 003, and the responses were evaluated by Public Works Staff.
The three firms were interviewed and ranked one through three (1 - 3). All three firms have
the necessary qualifications to perform the desired geotechnical testing services for the
-1-
pw01 ~egdrpt~,92~0414~p w92-01 .geo 0408a
projects. Thus, the one through three (1 - 3) ranking was necessary to establish a rotation
basis for project award. The ranking is as follows:
Leighton and Associates
Law/Cranda!l, Incorporated
California Geo Tek, Incorporated
Leighton and Associates was awarded the contract for geotechnical testing services for the
Rancho California Road Benefit District Project (Project No. PW91-03, first project).
Therefore, Law/Crandall, Incorporated was selected for the Street and Sidewalk Improvements
at Various Schools Project (Project No. PW92-01, second project). A contract with a defined
scope of work and an hourly budget not to exceed $4,400.00 has been negotiated.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is necessary to transfer $4,400.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects Fund
and appropriate $4,400.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-5804 from
Unreserved Fund Balance.
-2- pwO1~egdrpt~92\0414~ow92-01.geo 0408a
ITEM
14
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Two-Party Flood Control Agreement
PRE=ARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve the attached two-party flood control agreement for construction of storm
drain facilities between Rancho California Road and Long Valley Wash, and authorize
the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said Agreement·
Approve an advance of $9,000.00 from Development Impact Fund to the Capital
Projects Fund and appropriate $9,000.00 to 'Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-
605-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is an agreement between Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District CFCD") and the City for construction of a 54" underground storm drain to carry storm
flows from Rancho California Road into Long Valley Wash through TR-23307 (Club Valencia
Apartments). This construction will be performed as part of Project No. PW91-03, the
Rancho California Road Benefit District, awarded by City Council to Oliver Brothers on
March 10, 1992.
The agreement provides for the City to:
A. Prepare plans and specifications for the project;
B. Pay the FCD inspection costs of $5,800.00;
-1- pwOl~gdrpt~92~414~egvly.sgt 040~a
. /
~ ..c DE
VIGNITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT A
D,
E,
F,
a.
H,
Pay FCD one-time maintenance costs of $3,200.00;
Construct the project;
Grant FCD the right to inspect, operate and maintain the project;
Adjust all manhole grade rings to ultimate paving height;
Convey easement to FCD;
Provide FCD with a title report and title insurance in an amount not less than $25,000
guaranteeing clear title to easement;
Accept ownership and maintenance of all inlets and connector pipes; and
Provide FCD with final mylar plans.
This agreement provides for the FCD to:
A. Review and approve the plans;
B. Inspect construction of the project;
C. Accept ownership, responsibility, maintenance of operation, and maintenance of the
project; and
D. Furnish the City with final "as-built" plans for the project.
This agreement is a standard agreement between the FCD and cities desiring to have the FCD
own, operate, and maintain storm drain facilities constructed by the cities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is necessary to advance $9,000.00 from the Development Impact Fee Fund to the Capital
Projects Fund and appropriate $9;000.00 from Unreserved Fund Balance to Capital Projects
Account No. 021-165-605-44-5804. These funds are all reimbursable under the Margarita
Village Development Reimbursement Agreement with the City.
Attachment:
Two-Party Flood Control Agreement
-2- i~Ol~agd~t~92~O414~mgvly.~t 0408a
S;-11
S1-19
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE COLLAR PER R.C.F.C. AND W.C.D.
rID. # MIM
1 EA. 150.00 150.00
SI-20
SI-21
SI-22
SI-23
SD-1
SD-2
SD-3
SD--4
SO-5
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE COLLAR PER R.C.F,C, AND W,C,D,
$TD, # 308 MODtFIED
CONSTRUCT BROW DITCH PER DETAIL
CONSTRUCT DOWN DRAIN PER DETAIL
RELOCATE EXISTING WATER METER PER R.C.W.D. STD,
# RC 377,42-.48
STORM DRAIN .
!FURNISH AND INSTALL 54-1NCH RCP, D-1000
FURNISH AND INSTALL 41-INCH RCP, D-1100
FURNISH AND INSTALL 4S-INCH RCP, D-1000
FURNISH AND INSTALL 30-INCH RCP, D-1500
CONSTRUCT TRANSITION STRUCTURE NO, 3
4 F,.A, 1,000,00 4,000,00
1350 L,F, 10,00 13,500,00
75 LF, 12,00
I EA. 500,00 ~00,00
I '
500 L.F, 130.00 65,000.00
128 LF, 117.00 14,976,00
279 LF. 227,00 63,333,00
520 LF. 85.00 44,200,50
1 ~ LF, 2,700,00 2,700,00
SN CONSTRUCT TRANSITION STRUCTURE NO, 6
I EA. S ,500.00 1,500.00
SD-7
CONSTRUCT MANHOLE NO, 1
ICONSTRUCT MANHOLE NO, 2
I EA, 3,300,00 3,300,00
2 EA, 3,300,00 6,500,00
SD-9 CONSTRUCT 21-FOOT CATCH BASIN WITH LOCAL I EA, 400,00 400,00
DEPRESSION
SD-IO FURNISH AND INSTALL PRECAST CONCRETE FLARED END I EA, 500,00 500.00
SECTION, TYPE 'B'
TSS-1 1 LS, 40,000,00 40,000,00
MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT RANCHO -.
CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MORAGA ROAD AND MODIFY
HIGHWAY LIGHTING
TSS-2 ~R=_MOVE TRAFF1C STRIPES AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS 17387 LF.
TSS-3 IREMOVE ROADSIDE SIGNS 11 EA,
TSS-4 t~;LOCATE ROADSIDE SIGNS 3 [ EA.
TSS-S 1FURNISH AND INSTALL ROADSIDE SIGNS 8 EA.
TSN tFURNISH AND INSTALL THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPES 16190
1.50 26,050,50
50.00
100.00 300.00
250.00 2.000.50
1.50 25,335.50
TSS-7 FURNISH AND INSTALL THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT 850 S,F,
MARKINGS
JFURNISH AND INSTALL PAVEMENT MARKERS
TSS-8
:2/~2/ ~i (~!'f
3.50 2,r/S.OO
ESTIMATED COST
+ lo~ CONTINGENCY
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
4.00 ~ 1,872.00
1
MEMO TO FILE
File No
TIMF
-/.~-,~
-- / '
T~ T~ 4
1/-/, ~, ?,~
/
2~ v~
R~'~
Pg,,f ~='//~./,,/
'illdan Associates
1
3
4
6
9
10
11
~2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AG~M~nqT
The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ANDWATERCONSERVATION
DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", and the CITY OF
TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", hereby agree as follows:
~RCTTAT.R
A. CITY has budgeted for and plans to construct a portion
of the Rancho California Storm Drain in the Temecula area of
western Riverside County, hereinafter called "PROJECT", from
DISTRICT'S existing Long Canyon Wash Channel facility, south to
Rancho California Road, and easterly approximately 380 lineal
feet, as shown in red on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof; and
B. CITY desires DISTRICT to assume ownership and
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and
specifications and subsequently inspect the construction of
PROJECT; and
C. DISTRICT is willing to review and approve plans and
specifications prepared by CIT.Y for PROJECT, and is willing to
inspect the construction of PROJECT; and
D. DISTRICT is willing to assume ownership and
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT,
excluding PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights
of way, provided (i) CITY deposits with DISTRICT the amount
specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S construction inspection
costs for PROJECT, (ii) CITY pays*DISTRICT the amount as
specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S operation and maintenance
1
Ronald .L Parks
Mayor
Patrlcla H. BIKISall
Mayor Pro Tern
Karel R Unclemarts
CouncilmemOer
Peg Moore
CouncilmemOer
J. Sal Mu~oz
Councilmeml:er
David R DIxon
City Manager
(7141 694.-198~
F,&3C (714) 694-1999
of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
DATE:
TO FAX #:
ATTENTION:
FIRM NAME:
ADDRESS/PHONE:
NUMBER OF PAGES
(Including cover):
NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF
DOCUMENT BEING SENT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
43174; Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
PHONE: (714) 694-6411
OPERATOR:
TIME SENT:
NOTE: Please Deliver Immediately!
Please call (714) 694-6411 if complications in receiving.
THANK YOU!
pwO2\forms%cover.fax 011592
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9. At the time of recordation of the conveyancing
document(s) set forth in Section 1.8., furnish DISTRICT with
policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less than
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for each parcel to be
conveyed to DISTRICT, guaranteeing DISTRICT'S interest in said
property as being free and clear of all liens, encumbrances,
assessments, easements, taxes and leases, and except those which,
in the sole discretion of DISTRICT, are acceptable.
10. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation
and maintenance of PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY
rights of way, upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being
complete.
11. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for PROJECT
and assign their ownership to DISTRICT.
SRCTTON TT
DISTRICT shall:
1. Review and approve plans and specifications for
PROJECT, prior to CITY advertising for PROJECT construction
contract bids.
2. Inspect the construction of PROJECT.
3. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation
and maintenance of PROJECT, excluding inlets and connector pipes
within CITY street rights of way, upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of
PROJECT construction as being complete, and (ii) acceptance by
CITY of all necessary rights of way as deemed necessary by
DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
costs for PRO~ECT, (iii) PRO~ECT is constructed in accordance
with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT, and (iv) C~m~
obtains and conveys all necessary rights of way for the operation
and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein; and
F. CITY is willing (i) to grant DISTRICT the right to
operate and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights of way, and (ii)
to accept responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of way.
G. It is in the best interest of the public to proceed
with construction of PROJECT at the earliest possible date.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as
follows:
S~CTION T
CITY shall:
1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in ~
accordance with DISTRICT and CITY standards, and submit the plans
and specifications for DISTRICT review and approval prior to CITY
advertising for PROJECT construction contract bids.
2. Pay DISTRICT, or cause to be paid, for DISTRICT'S costs
in providing construction-inspection for PROJECT, an amount equal
to three (3) percent of the estimated cost of construction of
PROJECT facilities to be inspected, operated and maintained by
DISTRICT as determined and approved by DISTRICT, prior to the
start of construction.
3. Pay DISTRICT, or cause to be paid, upon execution of
this agreement (Zone 7 Maintenance Trust Fund No. 732-64-950-
3211), the one time cash sum of $3,200.00, the agreed upon
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28~
directly or indirectly by any of them. Such
insurance shall name DISTRICT and the County of
Riverside as additional insureds with respect to
this agreement and the obligations of CITY
hereunder. Such insurance shall provide for
limits of not less than two million dollars
($2,000,000.00) per occurrence.
b. Cause its insurance carrier(s) to furnish
DISTRICT, with certificate(s) of insurance,
showing that such insurance is in full force and
effect, and that DISTRICT and the County of
Riverside are named as additional insureds with
respect to this agreement and the obligations of
CITY hereunder. Further, said certificate(s)
shall contain the covenant of the insurance
carrier(s) that sixty (60) days written notice
shall be given to DISTRICT prior to modification,
cancellation or reduction in coverage of said
insurance. A certification of legal self-insured
status, either alone or in combination with a
certification of other acceptable insurance
coverage, which provides the types and amount of
coverage required by this section, as determined
and approved by DISTRICT, shall be considered as
being in compliance herewith.
4. CITY and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily, waive the
provisions of Government Code Section 65913.8, relating to fees
6
1
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Furnish CITY with final reproducible "as-built" mylar
plans for all PROJECT facilities constructed within CITY rights~
of way, upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete.
RRCTTON TTT
It is further mutually agreed:
1. All construction work involved with PROJECT shall be
inspected by DISTRICT and shall not be deemed complete until
approved and accepted as complete by DISTRICT.
2. DISTRiCT personnel will inspect all PROJECT
construction work for quality control, and shall be responsible
for all PROJECT quality control communication with the
contractor, but shall provide all comments affecting cost or
contractual relationships to CITY, who as the contract
administrator shall be responsible for such official
communication with the contractor during the construction of
PROJECT.
3. CITY shall require its contractor, during the term of
construction of PROJECT,
ae
Provide and maintain comprehensive liability
insurance coverage which shall protect CITY from
claim from damages for personal injury, including
accidental and wrongful death, as well as from
claims for property damage which may arise from
CITY'S construction of PROJECT or the performance
of its obligations hereunder, whether such
construction or performance be by CITY, by its
contractor or subcontractor, or by. anyone employed!
5
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
obligations hereunder undertaken or by the operations conducted
by DISTRICT with regard to the construction, inspection,
operation and maintenance of PROJECT located within CITY rights
of way and CITY use of DISTRICT property or rights of way, save
and except claims or litigation arising through the sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct of DISTRICT.
Further, CITY shall defend, at its expense, including
attorneys' fees, DISTRICT and the County of Riverside, their
respective officers, agents, employees and independent
contractors in any claim or legal action based upon such alleged
acts or omissions and will make good to and reimburse DISTRICT
and the County of Riverside for any expenditures, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, DISTRICT and the County of Riverside
may make by reason of such matters.
8. Any notices sent or required to be sent to either party
shall be mailed to the following addresses:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Post Office Box 1033
Riverside, CA 92502
CITY OF TEMECULA
Post Office Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92589
9. This agreement.is the result of negotiations between
the parties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their
respective counsel. The fact that this agreement was prepared as
a matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or
significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this agreement
shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared
this agreement in its final form.
8
1
3
4
5
6
8
9i
10
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27~
and charges. Such waiver is accomplished with the understanding
that DISTRICT is voluntarily undertaking the obligation to acce~c
ownership and responsibility for the operation. and maintenance of
PROJECT, and CITY is not required by DISTRICT to enter into this
agreement.
5. DISTRICT' shall assume no responsibility whatsoever, for
any surface drainage within the rights of way shown cross-hatched
in blue on Exhibit!"B".
6. DISTRICT. shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers,
agents and employees free and harmless from any liability
whatsoever, based or asserted upon any action or omission of
DISTRICT, its officers, agents, employees and independent
contractors of any kind or nature relating to or arising from the
construction of PROJECT within its property or rights of way,
save and except claims or litigation arising through the ~'
negligence or willful misconduct of CITY or CITY use of DISTRICT
property or rights of way.
Further, DISTRICT shall defend, at its expense,
including attorneys' fees, CITY, its officers, agents and
employees in any claim or legal action based or asserted upon
such acts or omissions.
7. CITY shall indemnify and hold DISTRICT and the County
of Riverside, their respective officers, agents, employees and
independent contractors free and harmless from any liability,
claims, judgments or demands for property damage, bodily injury
or death (CITY employees included) or any other element of damage
of any kind or nature, arising directly or indirectly out of the
7
1
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
written, in connection therewith. This agreement may be changed
or modified only upon the written consent of the parties hereto.
//
//
10
10. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach by the
other of any one or more of the terms of this agreement shall n~t
be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of
3
the same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of
4
DISTRICT or of CITY to require exact, full and complete
compliance with any term of this agreement shall not be construed
6
as in any manner changing the terms hereof, or estopping
DISTRICT, or CITY from enforcement hereof.
8
11. If any provision in this agreement (with the exception
9
of Section III.4.) is held by a court of competent jurisdiction
10
to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions
11
will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired
12
or invalidated in any way. Should it be held by a court or
13
14 competent jurisdiction that any portion of Section III.4. is
15 invalid, void or unenforceable, the provisions of Government C~e
65913.S(b) shall apply. In such event, the parties hereto
16
17 specifically find and determine that the maintenance and
18 operation fee authorized under the provisions of Government Code
Section 65913.8 (b) shall be considered required through and
19
20 including the date of DeSember 31, 1998, and the duration of the
21 period for which such operation and maintenance fee is required
is hereby extended through and including said date.
12. This agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a
final expression of their understanding with respect to the
24
25 subject matter hereof and as complete and exclusive statement of
the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior
26
and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or
28 9
VICINITY MAP
~IOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT A
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
3
agreement on
(to be filled in by Clerk of the Board)
4 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
6 Chief Engineer
7 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
8 WILLI C. KATZENSTEIN
9 un o ns
10 D~puty
11 Dated ~"~' ~-
12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
aND WATn CONBnVATZON DIBTRICT
By
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
GERALD A. MALONEY
Clerk of the Board
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
Dated
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By ~
City Attorney
CITY OF TEMECULA
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
By
City Clerk
(SEAL)
21
22
23
AGRMT640
JMB:seb:slj:pln
04/02/92
24
25
26
27
28
11
1
2
4
5
6
'F
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AG~~T
The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", and the CITY OF
TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", hereby agree as follows:
~CTTAra
A. CITY has budgeted for and plans to construct a portion
of the Rancho California Storm Drain in the Temecula area of
western Riverside County, hereinafter called "PROJECT", from
DISTRICT'S existing Long Canyon Wash Channel facility, south to
Rancho California Road, and easterly approximately 380 lineal
feet, as shown in red on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof; and
B. CITY desires DISTRICT to assume ownership and
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and
specifications and subsequently inspect the construction of
PROJECT; and
C. DISTRICT is willing to review and approve plans and
specifications prepared by CITY-.for PROJECT, and is willing to
inspect the construction.of PROJECT; and
D. DISTRICT is willing to assume ownership and
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT,
excluding PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights
of way, provided (i) CITY deposits with DISTRICT the amount
specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S construction inspection
costs for PROJECT, (ii) CITY pays DISTRICT the amount as
specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S operation and maintenance
1
EXHIBIT B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DISTRICT estimated cost for operation and maintenance of PROJECT
through the year 1998.
4. Not permit any change to, or modification of, the plans
and specifications for PROJECT, without the prior written
permission and consent of DISTRICT.
5. Construct, or cause to be constructed, PROJECT,
pursuant to a CITY administered public works contract, in
accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT.
6. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this agreement, the
right to inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights
of way as set forth herein.
7. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete,
accept sole responsibility for the adjustment of all PROJECT
manhole rings and covers located within CITY streets and right of
way, at no cost to DISTRICT, which must be performed at such time
that the finished grade along and above the underground portions
of PROJECT is improved, repaired, replaced or changed.
8. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, and upon
acceptance of all "on-site" street rights of way by CITY as
deemed necessary by DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and
maintenance of PROJECT, but prior to DISTRICT acceptance of
PROJECT for operation and maintenance, convey or cause to be
conveyed to DISTRICT, flood control easement(s), including
ingress and egress, in a form approved by DISTRICT, for the
rights of way shown in concept cross-hatched in blue on Exhibit
"B", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
costs for PRO~ECT, (iii) PRO~ECT is constructed in accordance
with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT, and (iv)
obtains and conveys all necessary rights of way for the operation
and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein; and
F. CITY is wi:lling (i) to grant DISTRICT the right to
operate and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights of way, and
to accept responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY rights of way.
G. It is in the best interest of the public to proceed
with construction of' PROJECT at the earliest possible date.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as
follows:
CITY shall:
SRCTTON T
1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in ~
accordance with DISTRICT and CITY standards, and submit the plans
and specifications for DISTRICT review and approval prior to CITY
advertising for PROJECT construction contract bids.
2. Pay DISTRICT, or cause-to be paid, for DISTRICT'S costs
in providing construction 'inspection for PROJECT, an amount equal
to three (3) percent! of the estimated cost of construction of
PROJECT facilities to be inspected, operated and maintained by
DISTRICT as determined and approved by DISTRICT, prior to the
start of construction.
3. Pay DISTRICT, or cause to be paid, upon execution of
this agreement (Zone 7 Maintenance Trust Fund No. 732-64-950-
3211), the one time cash sum of $3,200.00, the agreed upon
2
1
4
8
9
10
ll
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
24
25
26
27
28
4. Furnish CITY with final reproducible "as-built" mylar
plans for all PROJECT facilities constructed within CITY rights
of way, upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete.
~RCTTONTTT
It is further mutually agreed:
1. All construction work involved with PROJECT shall be
inspected by DISTRICT and shall not be deemed complete until
approved and accepted as complete by DISTRICT.
2. DISTRICT personnel will inspect all PROJECT
construction work for quality control, and shall be responsible
for all PROJECT quality control communication with the
contractor, but shall provide all comments affecting cost or
contractual relationships to CITY, who as the contract
administrator shall be responsible for such official
communication with the contractor during the construction of
PROJECT.
3. CITY shall require its contractor, during the term of
construction of PROJECT, to:
a. Provide and maintain comprehensive liability
insurance coverage which shall protect CITY from
claim from damages for personal injury, including
accidental and wrongful death, as well as from
claims for property damage which may arise from
CITY'S construction of PROJECT or the performance
of its obligations hereunder, whether such
construction or performance be by CITY, by its
contractor or subcontractor, or by anyone employed
5
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
24
25
26
27
28
9. At the time of recordation of the conveyancing
document(s) set forth in Section 1.8., furnish DISTRICT with -~
policies of title insurance, each in the amount of not less than
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for each parcel to be
conveyed to DISTRICT, guaranteeing DISTRICT'S interest in said
property as being free and clear of all liens, encumbrances,
assessments, easements, taxes and leases, and except those which,
in the sole discretion of DISTRICT, are acceptable.
10. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation
and maintenance of PROJECT inlets and connector pipes within CITY
rights of way, upon !DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being
complete.
11. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for PROJECT
and assign their ownership to DISTRICT.
MRCTTON TT ~
DISTRICT shall:
1. Review and approve plans and specifications for
PROJECT, prior to CITY advertising for PROJECT construction
contract bids.
2. Inspect the construction of PROJECT.
3. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation
and maintenance of PROJECT, excluding inlets and connector pipes
within CITY street rights of way, upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of
PROJECT construction as being complete, and (ii) acceptance by
CITY of all necessary rights of way as deemed necessary by
DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
4
1
2
3
4
6
8
9i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and charges. Such waiver is accomplished with the understanding
that DISTRICT is voluntarily undertaking the obligation to accept
ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
PROJECT, and CITY is not required by DISTRICT to enter into this
agreement.
5. DISTRICT shall assume no responsibility whatsoever, for
any surface drainage within the rights of way shown cross-hatched
in blue on Exhibit
6. DISTRICT shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers,
agents and employees free and harmless from any liability
whatsoever, based or asserted upon any action or omission of
DISTRICT, its officers, agents, employees and independent
contractors of any kind or nature relating to or arising from the
construction of PROJECT within its property or rights of way,
save and except claims or litigation arising through the
negligence or willful misconduct of CITY or CITY use of DISTRICT
property or rights of way.
Further, DISTRICT shall defend, at its expense,
including attorneys' fees, CITY~' its officers, agents and
employees in any claim or'legal action based or asserted upon
such acts or omissions.
7. CITY shall indemnify and hold DISTRICT and the County
of Riverside, their respective officers, agents, employees and
independent contractors free and harmless from any liability,
claims, judgments or demands for property damage, bodily injury
or death (CITY employees included) or any other element of damage
of any kind or nature, arising directly or indirectly out of the
7
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
directly or indirectly by any of them. Such
insurance shall name DISTRICT and~he County of ~
Riverside as additional insurede with respect to
this agreement and the obligations of CITY
hereunder. Such insurance shall provide for
limits of not less than two million dollars
($2,000,000.00) per occurrence.
b. Cause its insurance carrier(s) to furnish
DISTRICT, with certificate(s) of insurance,
showing that such insurance is in full force and
effect, and that DISTRICT and the County of
Riverside are named as additional insureds with
respect to this agreement and the obligations of
CITY hereunder. Further, said certificate(s)
shall contain the covenant of the insurance
carrier(s) that sixty (60) days written notice
shall be given to DISTRICT prior to modification,
cancellation or reduction in coverage of said
insurance. A certification of legal self-insured
status, either alone or in combination with a
certification of other acceptable insurance
coverage, which provides the types and amount of
coverage required by this section, as determined
and approved by DISTRICT, shall be considered as
being in compliance herewith.
4. CITY and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily, waive the
provisions of Government Code Section 65913.8, relating to fees
1
3
4
5
7
8
9i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. .Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach by the
other of any one or more of the terms of this agreement shall not
be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of
the same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of
DISTRICT or of CITY to require exact, full and complete
compliance with any term of this agreement shall not be construed
as in any manner changing the terms hereof, or estopping
DISTRICT, or CITY from enforcement hereof.
11. If any provision in this agreement (with the exception
of Section III.4.) is held by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions
will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired
or invalidated in any way. Should it be held by a court or
competent jurisdiction that any portion of Section III.4. is
invalid, void or unenforceable, the provisions of Government Code
65913.8(b) shall apply. In such event, the parties hereto
specifically find and determine that the maintenance and
operation fee authorized under the provisions of Government Code
Section 65913.8 (b) shall be considered required through and
including the date of December 31, 1998, and the duration of the
period for which such operation and maintenance fee is required
is hereby extended through and including said date.
12. This agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a
final expression of their understanding with respect to the
subject matter hereof and as complete and exclusive statement of
the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior
and contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or
9
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
14
15
16
18
19
21
24
25
28
obligations hereunder undertaken or by the operations conducted
by DISTRICT with regard to the construction, inspection, _`
operation and maintenance of PROJECT located within CITY rights
of way and CITY use' of DISTRICT property or rights of way, save
and except claims or litigation arising through the sole active
negligence or sole Willful misconduct of DISTRICT.
Further, CITY shall defend, at its expense, including
attorneys' fees, DISTRICT and the County of Riverside, their
respective officers~ agents, employees and independent
contractors in any claim or legal action based upon such alleged
acts or omissions and will make good to and reimburse DISTRICT
and the County of Riverside for any expenditures, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, DISTRICT and the County of Riverside
may make by reason of such matters.
8. Any notices sent or required to be sent to either par"
shall be mailed to the following addresses:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Post Office Box 1033
Riverside, CA 92502
CITY OF TEMECULA
Post Office Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92589
9. This agreement is the result of negotiations between
the parties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their
respective counsel. The fact that this agreement was prepared as
a matter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or
significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this agreement
shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared
this agreement in its final form.
1
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
agreement on · (to be filled in by Clerk of the Board)
RIVeaSIDE C~;MTY ~LOOD CONTROL
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: aMDWXT~R~ONBIVa&TZON DZBTRICT
5
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
6 Chief Engineer
7 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
8 WILLI C. KATZENSTEIN
un o ns
10 By
11 Dated ~--al- ~Z~
12
By
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
GERALD A. MALONEY
Clerk of the Board
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
ity Engine~
Dated ~~Z
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By -~~ ~
City Attorney
CITY OF T~MaC~LA
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
By
City Clerk
(SEAL)
21
22
23
AGRMT640
JMB:seb:slj:pln
04/02/92
24
25
26
27
28 11
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
15
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
24
26
written, in connection therewith. This agreement may be changed
or modified only upon the written consent of the parties hereto~
//
//
lO
EXHIBIT B
VICINITY M~P
HOT TO SCALt
EXHIBIT A
ITEM
15
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
/l/¢)~Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Rancho California Road/I-15 Overpass (Project No. PW91-04)
Award of Construction Management Contract to NBS/Lowry
PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Award a Construction Management Contract for an amount not-to-exceed
$181,727.00 to NBS/Lowry for construction management and coordination with
Caltrans on the Rancho California Road/I-15 over-crossing project (Project No. PW91 -
04), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
Approve an advance of $181,727.00 from the Development Impact Fee Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $181,727.00 to the Capital Project Account No.
021-165-622-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance (monies to be reimbursed to the
City by developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan.)
BACKGROUND:
On December 17, 1991, the City Council authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit
bids for the construction of off-ramp widenings, traffic signals, median changes, and
landscaping on the Rancho California Road/I-15 over-crossing. Public bids were opened on
February 20, 1992. A Staff Report for the award of a contract for construction to the low
bidder is being presented to the Council simultaneously.
The Contract with NBS/Lowry is for construction management services for the project. These
services entail the following:
-1-
pwOl~agdrpt~92~414~rfqOOS.awd 0408a
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
19 , between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to
as "City" a. nd NBSILowry, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"·
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth
in Exhibit "A".
PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the
best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
0
PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set
forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above
tasks. This amount will not exceed ~181,727.00 for the total term of the
Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided
that the City Manager may approve additional payments not to exceed ten
percent (10%) of the Agreement, but in no event more than $10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each
month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made
within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City
may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this Agreement, or any
portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior
written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately
cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
Within thirty-five (35) days after receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the
City shall pay Consultant for work done through the date that work is to be
ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement such
suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause
under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to
continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of
2/fonnVARG-(M Rev 1/'22/92
-1-
lmmOl~91-O4~atstmgLagt
Pre-construction coordination
Contract administration/management
Construction surveying
Geotechnical and materials ,testing
Project close-out
Coordination with state and Federal agencies
The proposed budget for these services is an amount not-to-exceed $181,727.00 based on
time and materials. This budget iS based on a full 90-day construction schedule including
overtime. It is expected that the effort required to complete the project may be significantly
less.
City Staff is recommending the use of a consultant to perform this work for the following
reasons:
A)
During the same time period as this project is being constructed, the Public Works
Department will also be constructing:
1. The Rancho California Road improvements east to Margarita (PW91-03);
2. The sidewalk/street widening projects at various schools (PW92-01);
3. The extension of Margarita Rd. south of Winchester Rd. to Solana Way;
4. The Ynez Corridor (CFD88-12) improvements;
5. Sixth Street improvements;
6. All private development inspections within the City.
The Department of Public Works currently has two (2) full-time inspectors. Since this
project is being constructed in State right-of-way, and partially with Federal funding,
all applicable State and Federal contracting and construction reporting requirements
must be adhered to. This will add significantly to the time and cost of performing this
work over a standard City project.
Caltrans has required a minimum of 50% time availability of the Resident Engineer on
this project. Without the use of a consultant, the Deputy City Engineer will be required
to perform this function.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the contract will be reimbursed to the City by developers of the Margarita Village
Specific Plan. The funding for th~s work is included in the reimbursement ceiling in the
Margarita Village Reimbursement Agreement and will be performed at no eventual cost to the
City. It is necessary to advance $181,727.00 from the Development Impact Fee Fund to the
Capital Projects Fund, and appropriate $181,727.00 to the Capital Project Account No.
021-165-622-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance (monies to be reimbursed to the City
by developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan.)
10.
11.
12.
any of its officers, employees .or agents are in any manner officers, employees or
agents of the City.
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City
shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for
compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness adsing
out of parforming services hereunder.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or
in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the
other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certffied mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the City Manager of the
City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California
92590 and the Consultant at 40925 County Center Drive, Suite 120, Temecula,
California 92591 unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing
by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-
two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal
Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purposes.
ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior
written consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall
be the value to the City of the services rendered.
LIABILITY INSURANCE. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the
City in full force an effect throughout the term of this contract, against claims for
injudes to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection
with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, his agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the ConSultant's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
-3-
m
default. Default shall include not performing the tasks describef:! herein to the
standard of care of the Industry. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in
the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his
control, and without fault or neg~gence of the Consultant, shall not be considered
a default.
,.
If the C, ity Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant defaults
in the performanCe of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it
shall serve the COnsultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant
shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails tO cure its default within such period of time, the City shall
have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to
terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any
other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this
Agreement.
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on , 19 , and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no
event later than ,19__.
Any disputes regarding performan.ce, default or other matters in dispute
between the Cityland the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech
thereof, shall be:resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be
final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The
arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1280, et sea. City and Consultant shall share the cost
of the arbitration equally.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event
of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all instruments of
service, including original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the
course of providing the, services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise
disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain
as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its
officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant
or any of the Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as herein set
forth. The Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or
-2-
be
Ce
de
. General Uabi!tty and Automobile Uability Coveraoes.. The City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
W'rth regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of
the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance
coverage. shall be primary insurance as respects the City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Consuitant's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
The Consuitant's insurance ~hall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Worker's iCompensation and Employers Uability Coveraoe. The
insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City
of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for
losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City.
VerificatioD of Coveraqe.- Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause.
The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.
The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to
be received and approved by the City before work commences. The
City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all
required insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
-5-
Minimum Scope gf Insurance.
Coverage shall'be at least as broad as:
f
Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/7.2) covedng
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form
number GL 0404 covedng Broad Form Comprehensive General
Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001).
Insurance Services Office form no. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of Califomia an Employer's Uability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Umits Of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance
no less than:
General Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage.
Automobile Uability: $1,000,{500 combined single limit per accident
for bodily injury and property damage.
Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's
compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liability limits of $1 ,OOO,OO0 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance. $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and, Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of
$1,000 must be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance !Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract
shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All PolicieS. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City via United States First
Class Mail.
EXHIBIT 'A'
CITY OF TEMECULA
SCOPE OF WORK
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
PRE-CONSTRUCTION
* Develop and implement procedures to achieve coordinated efforts of the Design Team, City
of Temecula, Construction Management Team, Construction Surveyors, Soils/Materials
Testers and the Construction Contractor(s).
* Plan, conduct and documem pre-construction meetings with all imerested parties to
establish and clearly define lines of authority, responsibility, communication and to outline
procedures for the successful execution of ell project tasks.
* Establish and implement procedures to avoid and/or minimize the impact of claims,
including maintenance of thorough project records and document control.
* Establish and maintain a system for receMng, tracking and processing of submittals and
request for inforrnation/darificatlon.
* Establish a regular reporting system to keep the City of Temecula staff informed on the
status of the project.
* Review construction schedule, erosion control plans and traffic control plans.
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
,
Provide coreract administration services as required.
Monitor individual project for conformance with established/approveq budgets. - '
Provide cost control through progress payment review and approval with recommendations
to the City.
Assist the City staff in negotiating time extensions and change orders with the contractor(s).
Monitor overall project conformance with established/approved and available funding.
-1-
Any dedUctibkm. or self-inSured retentions must be declared to and
approvedi by the City. At the option of 'the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self insured retentions
as respects the City, its officers, offdais and employees; or the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses' and
related inVestigations, claim administration end defense expenses.
13.
INDEMNIFICATION. The'Consultant agrees to indemnify end save harmless the
City of Temecula, its officers, offidals, employees end volunteers from and against
any end all claims, demends, losses, defense cost, or liability of eny kind or nature
which the City, its officers, agents end employees may sustain or incur or which
may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultent's negligent performance under the terms of this
Agreement, excepting Only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
14.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms end conditions mentioned
herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect
to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of confliCt between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement end any such document or instrurn. ent, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from end
after the date is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be
executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day end year first above written.
CONSULTANT
.V P
Michael J. Stearns, · ~esident
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Reid, City Attorney .
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk -6-
Finish Grade
,
,
Stake median islands curb and gutter (1,250 LF +/-) at 50 foot intervals (includes additional
widening at east end).
Stake median islands curb and gutter at 25-foot interrals.
Stake curb and gutter (120 LF +/-).
Stake catch basin and storm drain extension.
SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING
* Provide field and laboratory work necessary for soil, aggregate, A.C. pavement and
concrete testing.
* Laboratory work will include Proctor Tests, R-value determination and sieve analysis.
* Field work will include density testing for soil and A.C. pavement.
PROJECT CLOSE-OUT
* Coordinate efforts of the design engineer for completion and submittal of final 'Record
Drawings". ~
* Conduct final inspections with the City staff.
* Coordinate and conduct post-construction activities including project dose-out, guarantees
and final acceptance of the project.
Matt\RCRamp.Tem
Provide construction management services as required.
Maintain daly records of consUuction activities.
Conduct and document weekly construction meetings.
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
Northbound Off-I:lamD (1.100 LF +/4)
Rouah Grade
Finish Grade
tr
Paint saw cut lines for removals.
Stake edge of pavement, A.C. dike and curb and gutter for rough grade at 50-foot imervals.
Stake edge of pavement and A.C. dike at 25-foot intervals.
Stake overside drain (Caltrans Type A).
Stake curb and gutter (120 LF +/-).
Stake traffic signal bases. ~
Southbound 0ff-FlamD (1.100 LF +/-)
Rouah Grade
Finish Grade
~r
lit
Paint saw cut lines for removals.
Stake edge of pavement, A.C. dike and curb and gutter for rough grade at 50-foot intervals.
Stake edge of pavement and. A.C. dike at 25-foot intervals.
Stake overside drain (Caltrans Type A).
Stake curb and gutter (140 LF +/-).
Stake traffic signal bases.
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (EAST AND WEST)
Rouah Grade
Paint saw cut lines for removals and limits of pavement oveday.
-2-
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
19 , between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and NBSILowry, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant".
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth
in Exhibit "A".
PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the
best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set
forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above
tasks. This amount will not exceed $181,727.00 for the total term of the
Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided
that the City Manager may approve additional payments not to exceed ten
percent (10%) of the Agreement, but in no event more than $10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each
month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made
within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION. TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City
may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this Agreement, or any
portion hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior
written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately
cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.
Within thirty-five (35) days after receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the
City shall pay Consultant for work done through the date that work is to be
ceased pursuant to this section·
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement such
suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement·
BREACH OF CONTRACT. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause
under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to
continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of
2/formslARC.-04 Rev 1/22/92 -1 - pw01~Ngl-04~conslmgt.agt 040692
EXHIBIT 'B"
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RAMP WIDENING PROJECT
COSTS FOR ESTIMATED ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION EFFORT
TOTAL EST. HOURLY
HOURS RATE
Principal-in Charge 88 $135.00
Project Manager/RE 408 $ 95.00
Inspector 1,080 $ 65.00
Secretary/C ertc 104: $ 40.60
Inspector 216 $ 76.60
TOTAL COST FOR ESTIMATED EFFORT
COSTS FOR ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING EFFORT
TOTAL EST. HOURLY
HOURS RATE
TOTAL EST.
DOLLARS
$11.880
$ 38,760
$ 70,200
$ 4,160
$16.546
$141,546
TOTAL EST.
DOLLARS
Supervising Surveyor 30 $ 65.00 $ 2,550
Survey Technician 24 $ ~0.00 $ 1,680
Survey Crew 146 $190.00 $ 27,740
TOTAL COST FOR ESTIMATED EFFORT $ 31,970
COSTS FOR ESTIMATED SOILS/MATERIALS TESTING EFFORT
TOH~U/~R~ST. HOURLY
RATE
Project Manager 8
Inspector/Technician 104
Laboratory Tests (Estimated)
$ 85.00
$ 52.00
NBS;/LOWRY SURCHARGE (15%)
TOTAL COST FOR ESTIMATED EFFORT
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR PROJECT
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR NBS/LOWRY SERVICES
TOTAL EST.
DOLLARS
$ 680
$ 5,408
$ 1.000
$ 7,088
$ 1.123
$ 8,211
$181,727
$182,000
Rev. 3/4/92
Ma~\RCRamp.Tem
ESTIMATED ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION STAFFING EFFORT
10.
11.
12.
any of its officers, employees 9r agents are in any manner ~ficers, employees or
agents of the City.
No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City
shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for
compensation or indemnffication to Consultant for injury or sickness arising
out of performing services hereunder.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or
in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the
other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the City Manager of the
City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California
92590 and the Consultant at 40925 County Center Drive, Suite 120, Temecula,
California 92591 unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing
by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-
two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal
Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purposes.
ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the pdor
written consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall
be the value to the City of the services rendered.
LIABILITY INSURANCE. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the
City in full force an effect throughout the term of this contract, against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection
with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, his agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the Consultant's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
-3-
defaulL Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the
standard of care of the Industry. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in
the performance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of cadses beyond his
corm'oi, and without fault for negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered
a default.
ff the City Manager or his dalegate datermines that the Consultant defaults
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it
shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant
shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails toi cure its default within such pedod of time, the City shall
have the dght, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to
terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any
offer remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this
Agreement.
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on , 19 , and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are comple~'~d, but in no
event later than ,19__.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute
between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech
thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be
final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The
arbitration hearing:shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1280, et sea. City and Consultant shall share the cost
of the arbitration equally.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event
of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all instruments of
service, including original idocuments, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the
course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise
disposed of by the City Without the permission of the Consultant.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain
as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its
officers, employees or agents Shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant
or any of the Consuitant's officers, employees or agents, except as herein set
forth. The Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or
be
de
General Liability and Automobile Uabillty Coverages.. The City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
complied operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
W'~h regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of
the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be pdmary insurance as respects the City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or serf-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Consultant's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coveraqe. The
insurer shall agree to waive all dghts of subrogation against the City
of Temecula, its officers, offidals, employees and volunteers for
losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause.
The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.
The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to
be received and approved by the City before work commences. The
City reserves the right to require complete, certffied copies of all
required insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certfficates for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
Minimum 8col;}e of Insurance.
III ·
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Insurance 8ervice~ Office form Number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/7.2) covedng
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form
number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General
Liability; or 'Insurance Services Office Corninertial General Liability
Insurance Services Office form no. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of California an Employers Liability insurance·
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Limits ofilnsurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance
no less than:
General Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage.
5
Automobile ;Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident
for bodily injury and property damage.
Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's
compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance. $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductiblas and $elf-lnsured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of
$1,000 mum be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract
shall contain or be! endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed tO state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City via United States First
Class Mail.
~,,,,%.
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF TEMECULA
FIANCHO CALIFORNIA RAMP WIDENING
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
PRE-CONSTRUCTION
Devdop and implement procedures to achieve coordinated efforts ofthe Design Teem, City
of Ternecula, Construction Management Team, Construction Surveyors, Soils/Materials
Testers and the ConsUuction Contractor(s).
Plan, conduct and document pre-construction meetings with all interested parties to
establish and cleedy define lines of authority, responsibility, communication and to outline
procedures for the successful execution of all project tasks.
Establish and implement procedures to avoid end/or minimize the impact of claims,
including maintenance of thorough project records and document control.
Establish and maintain a system for receiving, tracking and processing of submittals and
request for information/dariltcation.
Establish a regular reporting system to keep the City of Temecula staff informed on the
status of the project.
Review construction schedule, erosion control plans and traffic control plans.
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION/CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
* Provide contract administration services as required.
* Monitor individual project for conformance with established/approvad budgets.
* Provide cost control through progress payment review and approval with recommendations
to the City.
* Assist the City staff in negotiating time extensions and change orders wtth the coreractor(s).
* Monitor overall project conformance with established/approved and available funding.
the City, its officers, o~mia~ and employees; or the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and
related irainstigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
13.
INDFMNIFICATION. The'Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against
any and all claims, demands, losses, defense: coat, or liability of any kind or nature
which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which
may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property adsing out of Consultanrs negligent performance under the terms of this
Agreement, excepting only liability adsing out of the sole negligence of the City.
14.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned
herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect
to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the termS, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and
after the date is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be
executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
Michael J. Stearns, ~e PreSident
CITY oF~ TEMECULA
By:
Patricia H. Birdsail, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk -6-
Finish Grade
,
,
Stake median Islands Curb and gutter (1250 LF +/-) at 50 foot Intervals (includes additional
widening at east end).
Stake median islands curb and gutter at 254oot inteP, tals.
Slake curb and gutter (120 LF +/-).
Stake catch basin and storm drain extension.
SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING
* Provide field and laboratory work necessary for soil, aggregate, A.C. pavement and
concrete testing.
, Laboratory work will include Proctor Tests, R-value determination and sieve analysis.
* F~id work wll include density testing for sol and A.C. pavement.
PROJECT CLOSE-OUT
* Coordinate efforts of the design engineer for completion and submittal of final 'Record
Drawings'.
* Conduct final inspections with the City staff.
* Coordinate and conduct post-construction activities including project dose-out, guarantees
and final acceptance of the project.
Matt\RCRamp.Tem
* Provide ~ management mmdce as required.
* Maintain daly records of construction activities.
* Conduct and document weekly constmcUon meetings.
CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
Nelhbound 0ff-RBmD (1.100 LF +/~
Rouah Grade
Finish Grade
Paint saw cut lines for removals.
Stake edge of pavement, A.C. dike and curb and gutter for rough grade at 50-foot imervais.
Stake edge of pavemere and A.C. dike at 25-foot Intervals.
Stake overside drain (Caltrans Type A).
Stake curb and gutter (120 LF +/-).
Stake traffic signal bases.
Southbound Off-Pane (1.100 LF
Rcuah Grade
Finish Grade
4r
Paint saw cut lines for removals.
Stake edge of pavement, A.C. dike and curb and gutter for rough grade at 50-foot imervals.
Stake edge of pavement and A.C. dike at 25-foot intervals.
Stake overside drain (C, altrans Type A).
Stake curb and gutter (140 LF +/-).
Stake traffic signal bases.
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (EAST AND WEST)
Rou0h Grade
Paint saw cut lines for removals and limits of pavement overlay.
-2-
ITEM
16
EXHIBIT 'B'
RANCHO CAMFORNIA RAMP WIDENING PROJECT
COSTS FOR ESTIMATED ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION EFFORT
TOTAL EST. HOURLY TOTAL EST.
HOURS RATE DOLLARS
Pdncipal-in Charge 88 $135.00
Project Manager/RE 408 $ 95.00
Inspector 1,080 $ 65.00
Secrstary/Clerical 104 $ 40.00
Inspector 216 $ 76.60
TOTAL COST FOR ESTIMATED EFFORT
$11,880
$ 38,760
$ 70,2O0
$ 4,160
$16.546
$141,546
COSTS FOR ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING EFFORT
TOTAL EST. HOURLY
HOURS RATE
Supervising Suweyor 30 $ 65.00
Survey Technician 24 $ 70.00
Survey Crew 146 $190.00
TOTAL COST FOR ESTIMATED EFFORT
TOTAL EST.
DOLLARS
2.55O
1,65o
27.740
$ 31,970
COSTS FOR ESTIMATED SOILS/MATERIALS TESTING EFFORT
Project Manage
Inspector/Technician
Laboratory Tests (Estimated)
TOTAL EST. HOURLY
HOURS RATE
8 $e5.oo
104 $ 52.00
NBS/LOWRY SURCHARGE (15%)
TOTAL COST FOR ESTIMATED EFFORT
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR PROJECT
RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR NBS/LOWRY SERVICES
TOTAL EST.
DOLLARS
68O
5,408
1.000
7,088
1.123
$ 8,211
$181,727
$182,000
Rev. 3/4/92
ESTIMATED ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION STAFFING EFFORT
Matt\RCRm, np.Tem
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost
and Associates for Design of Interim Margarita Road from Solana
Way to Winchester Road
PREPARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve a Professional Services Agreement for design services (interim width
roadway) on the Margarita Road Extension with Robert Bein, William Frost and
Associates ("RBF") in the amount of $31,000.00, and authorize the Mayor and the
City Clerk to sign said Agreement.
Approve a transfer of $31,000.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund and appropriate $31,000.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-
5802 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
BACKGROUND:
On November 12, 1991 the City Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a
Professional Services Agreement between the City and RBF for design services on the
extension of Margarita Road between Winchester Road and North General Kearney Road. At
the same time,Council directed Staff to bring back a second agreement to extend that design
southerly to Solana Way. Both of these agreements were for the design of a full width
(88'/110') street at ultimate line and grade.
At that time, Bedford Properties was discussing with City staff the terms of an agreement to
reimburse the City for costs of design and construction of this street through property owned
by Bedford, essentially the extension from North General Kearney Road to Winchester Road.
-1- pwO1~agdrpt\92~0414~mergsol.win 0408a
EXHIB~ "A"
J.N. 400385, Revision No. 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant agrees to perform the following Scope of Services:
EXI-HBff A-1
EARTHWORK OUANTITY ~-~zTIMA'I'E
Consultant shah prepare an Estimate of Earthwork Quantities based upon the Interim Grading Phn
approved by the CHeat. Allowances for shrinkage and subsidence and quantities for corrective
grading work shah be accounted for based upon the Client's Soils Engineer's Report, unless
otherwise specified.
EXHIBIT A-2
STREET IMPROVEMENT/GRADING pl ANS
Consultant shah prepare one set of Interim Street Improvement Plans in accordance with the
standard requirements of the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency for Margarita Road
from Highway 79 (Winchester) south to Solana Way.
The alignment, grade and street cross-sections shah conform to the alignment, grade and sections
on the circulation element of the General Plan, the existing road easement alignment recorded April
7, 1988, and the design criteria set forth by the appropriate jurisdictional agency.
The street improvement plans will also include the grading required for the proposed improvement.
Grading plans shah be in accordance with the soils and grading report provided by Consultant and
the City of Temecuia's Grading Ordinance.
The Rough Grading Plans shah indicate elevations, banks, berms, drainage devices, rough sweet
grades, possible corrective grading area as outlined in the Preliminary Soils Report provided by
Consultant, and erosion control measures necessary for obtaining a rough grading permit, and
construction of the rough grading portion of the project.
EXHIBIT A-3
TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
Consultant shah provide engineering services to prepare one set of traffic signing and striping plans
in accordance with the standards implemented by the City of Temecula. The traffic signing and
striping plans shah cover the proposed interim improvements for Margarita Road.
2/forms/ARG-04 Rev. 1/22/92
l~,01/agmts/masters/04 012292
Recent actions by Bedford indicate their unwillingness to finalize that agreement, therefore,
The project currently involves the design of a 34' wide two-lane interim street from North
General Kearney Road to WincheSter Road. Under the interim design, ultimate width grading
of the street will be performed with only the west half of the street being paved.
Several design constraints encountered from North General Kearney southerly to Solana Way
-have also leVI Staff to recommend a change to an interim two-lane design in this section, as
well. In order to design the south section of the Margarita Extension to a design speed of 55
mph, a GTE Fiber Optic Cable (main trunk telephone for Meadowview) and an RCWD 24"
water line would need to be lowered 12 feet. In addition, the existing box culvert crossing
North General Kearney Road resides in a "blue-line stream" requiring Federal 404 and State
1601 permits for widening of the box. All of these opportunities can be shunted to the
ultimate width design for the street. Staff is proposing to proceed with the design of the
ultimate width street (subject of a different Staff Report and contract) at a different pace than
this design and condition development along the corridor to build it.
The proposed interim street from Solana Way to the future intersection with North General
Kearney Road will be designed and constructed as a two-lane street with an approximate ten-
year life span. The entire southern section of the street will require replacement when the
ultimate grading and street section are constructed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is necessary to approve a transfer of $31,000.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital
Projects Fund and appropriate $31i,000.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-
5802 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
-2-
pwO1%agdrpt%92%O414\mergsol.win 0408a
EXHIRIT A-9 POTHOt 1~. IOCATION SURVEY
Consultant shall provide one set of stakes to indicate the position for pothole investigation of the '
existing GTE conduit and 12" waterline within Margarita Road in the location of the proposed
culvert crossing just north of the existing R.C,B, The stake shall be set on an offset agreed upon
by the Contractor and Consultant. It shah be marked with an approximate cut to the plan grade
(if available) of the underground object of investigation.
After exposure of the object by the Contractor, Consultant shah provide a field survey to determine
the horizontal and vertical location of the object.
Survey field notes shah be prepared by the Consultant and provided to the Client upon request.
The fee for this survey is based on one visit to the site to set location stakes and one visit to the
site to survey the objects. Any additional visits will be under a separate contract for an additional
fee.
EXII]Brr A-10
Consultant shah prepare a Final Quantity and Cost Estimate based upon the final grading and
improvement plans for the interim Margarita Road project.
Quantities shah be compiled using scaled and planimeter measurements from the grading and
improvement plans approved by Client.
Grading quantities for buttress and stability slopes, alluvial and coUuvial removals, and other
corrective geological requirements shah be based upon the data reported in the preliminary soils
and geologic report provided by the Client.
Consultant makes no representation concerning the estimated quantities and cost figures made in
connection with maps, plans, specifications, or drawings other than that all such figures are
estimates only, and Consultant shah not be responsible .for fluctuations in cost factors.
2/forms/ARO-04 Rev. 1/22/92 9 p,,O~/a~mts/mmen/04 012292
EXHIBIT A-4
HYDROI D(~Y ,~ND STORM !'H~IN HYnRAUt otCS RRPORT
Consultant shall prepare a Hydrolo and Storm Drain Hydraulics Report for the Project Site in
accordance with the requirements o~Ythe appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency, based on
the Interim Grading Plan prepared by Consultant, for submittal to the jurisdictional agency along
with the completed Storm Drain Plans for the Project Site.
EXHIBIT A-S
STORIV[ nRAIN pl ANS
Consultant shall design and prepare interim Storm Drain Improvement Plans as required to
perpetuate the existing drainage paRems along the proposed alignment of Margarita Road in
accordance with the requirements and criteria of the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency.
Storm drain improvement plans will be incorporated into the street improvement and grading plan
set.
Any engineering services related to preparation of improvement plans for offsite storm drain
extensions, pump stations, or other major facilities required by the appropriate governmental
jurisdictional agency, will be completed under separate contract for an additional fee.
EXHIBIT A-6 UTrl .1TY COORDINATION
Consultant shah coordinate with the appropriate utility service agencies to determine their
relocation requirements due to the interim street improvements proposed for Margarita Road.
EXHIBIT A-7
FIELD TOPOGRAPI-HC SURVEY
Consultant shah prepare a Field Topographic Survey of the project site necessary to facilitate the
interim design of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road. Field topography shah reflect
the revised topography due to the borrow site operation conducted by AD 161/Bedford Properties
for the development of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Winchester Meadows specific to North General
Kearny Road and portions of Margarita Road.
EXHIBIT A-8
RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATION STAKES
Consultant shah provide location stakes for the easterly right-of-way of Margarita Road from North
General Kearny northerly 12,000 feet and for the northerly right-of-way of North General Kearny
855 feet easterly of the intersection of Margarita Road.
2/forms/ARG4M Rev. 1/22/92 8 pwO1/aWt~/muter~/04 012292
Any work relating to, but not limited to, governmental processing, retaining walls, any additional
topographic mapping, traffic signal, environmental documentation, sound studies or acoustical
engineering, underground utility planning, design or coordination, design for relocation of
underground irrigation facilities, detour plan, property title services, preparation of legal
descriptions and exhibits (except as provided herein), staking of joint trench utilities, construction
surveying for grading cross-sections or removal of unsuitable material and any additional staking
(except as provided herein), if required, shall be covered under a separate agreement.
2/forms/ARG-04 Rev. 1/=/92 11 p,,0X/sSmts/mmm/04 ox22~2
EXHIBIT "B"
J.N. 400385, Revision No. 1
COMPENSATION
Client agrees to compensate Consultant for such services as follows:
Consultant shall complete the work outlined above in accordance with the fee schedule
identified below and shall invoice Client on a monthly basis based on the percentage of
completion.
ITEM WORK TASK FEE
A-1 Earthwork Quantity Estimate $1,300
A-2 Street Improvement/Grading Plans 13,500
A-3 Traffic Signing and Striping Plans 700
A-4 Hydrology and Storm Drain Hydraulics Report 3,500
A-5 'Storm Drain Plans 3,200
A-6 Utility Coordination 900
A-7 Field Topographic Survey 2,200
A-8 Right-of-Way Location Stakes 1,400
A-9 Pothole Location Survey 600
A-10 Final Cost Estimate 1.500
SUBTOTAL $28.800
Blueprints and Reproductions 2.200
TOTAL $31.000
The fees proposed herein shall apply until August 1, 1992. Due to ever-changing costs, Consultant
may increase those portions of the contract fee for which work must still be completed after August
1, 1992 by ten percent (10%).
2/fom~/~Ro-o~ ,~v. 1/22N2 10 !x~Ol/-~mts/muters/04 012292
ITEM
12
·
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Award of Professional Services Contract to NBS/Lowry for Land
Surveying Services on the Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various
Schools Project (PW92-01)
PREPARED BY:
Michael D. Wolff, Senior Public Works Inspector
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Award a Professional ServiCes contract in the-amount of $6,440.00 to NBS/Lowry for
land surveying services on the Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various Schools
Project (PW92-01), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
Approve a transfer of $6,440.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund and appropriate $6,440.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-
5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
DISCUSSION:
In January, 1992, the Department of Public Works solicited qualifications from interested
engineering firms to provide the City with land surveying services (construction staking) for
various Capital Improvement Projects throughout the year of 1992. Eleven (11) firms
responded to the Request for Qualifications No. 004, and the responses were evaluated by
Public Works Staff. The top four firms were interviewed and ranked one through four (1 - 4).
All four firms have the necessary qualifications to perform the desired construction staking
for the projects· Thus, the one through four (1 - 4) ranking was necessary to establish a
rotation basis for project award. The ranking is as follows:
-1-
pw01%agdrpt~92~,O414~pw92-01.1s 0408a
2.
3.
4.
J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc..
NBS/Lowry
Rick Engineering, Inc.
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. was awarded construction staking for Rancho California Road
Benefit District Project (PW91-03, first project). Therefore, NBS/Lowry was selected for the
Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various Schools Project (PW92-01, second project).
A contract with a defined scope of work and an hourly budget not to exceed $6,440.00 has
been negotiated.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is necessary to transfer $6,440.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects Fund
and appropriate $6,440.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-5804 from
Unreserved Fund Balance.
°2-
pw01%agd rpt%92%0414~pw92-01 .Is 0408a
ITEM
17
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Counciil/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost
and Associates for Design of Margarita Road from Solana Way to
Winchester Road (Southern Portion)
PREPARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve a Professional Services Agreement for design services (ultimate width and
grade) on the Margarita Road extension with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
("RBF") in the amount of $44,200.00, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to
sign said Agreement.
Approve a transfer of $44,200.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects
Fund and appropriate $44,200.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-
5802 from Unreserved Fund Balance.
BACKGROUND:
On November 12, 1991 the City Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a
Professional Services Agreement between the City and RBF for design services on the
extension of Margarita Road between Winchester Road and North General Kearney Road in
the amount of $62,950.00. This design was for a full width road at ultimate line and grade.
At that same time, the Council directed Staff to bring back a second agreement to complete
the design of the extension of Margarita Road to Solana Way. This agreement fulfills that
direction and brings the total cost of design for the full width street to $107,150.00.
-1- pwO1~,agdrpt~92\O414~margext.so 0408a
EXHIBIT "A"
J.N. 400297, Addendure No. 1, Revision No. 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant agrees to perform the following Scope of Services:
FARTHWOILK OUANTITY
Consultant shall prepare an Estimate of Earthwork Quantities based upon the Final Grading Plan
approved by the Client. Allowances for shrinkage and subsidence and quantities for corrective
grading work shall be accounted for based upon the Client's Soils Engineer's Report, unless
otherwise specified.
EXHIBIT A-2
Consultant shall prepare an Aerial Topographic Map of the project site, at a scale of 1" = 40',
plotted in ink on mylar with one foot contour intervals. The work shall include field surveying
services to set ground control, aerial photogrammetric services, compilation of digital data from the
stereo pair photographs, archiving of the data to digital tape medium, plotting of the final
topographic maps on mylar, and completion of field survey check prof~es.
EXHIBIT A-3
AS-BUILT STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Consultant shall revise the existing ultimate set of street improvement plans prepared for Margarita
Road from Winchester Road southerly to the existing box culvert (Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10) to reflect
the proposed interim Margarita Road design improvements as existing.
EXHIBIT A-4
STREET nV pROVEME rr/GRADn G Pt,A s
Consultant shall prepare one set of Street Improvement Hans in accordance with the standard
requirements of the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency extending Margarita Road
(formerly North General Kearny Road) from the existing box culvert south to Solana Way.
The alignment shall conform to the existing alignment. The grade and cross-sections will be in
accordance with the standard requirement for a 55 MPH design speed as approved by the City of
Temecula.
The street improvement plans will also include the grading required for the proposed improvement.
Grading plans shah be in accordance with the soils and grading report provided by Consultant and
the City of Temecula's Grading Ordinance.
2/torras/ARG-04 Rev. ~/22/92
p~01/agmts/masters/04 012292
The key point in both agreements is that RBF is agreeing to front the entire cost of the design
and geotechnical investigations until June 1,1992, or until the bonds for the CFD 88-12 sub-
zone are sold, whichever occurs first. If work' on the design extends beyond June 1, 1992
(and Staff does not anticipate this), then monthly payments will be made to RBF up to the
cost of the services provided, not to exceed 844,200.00.
The staff of Rancho California Water District (RCWD) approached City Staff regarding two
water lines that RCWD is proposing to install from Winchester Road to North General Kearney
Road this year; one potable water and one reclaimed water. The two staffs are endeavoring
to coordinate the efforts on both the design and construction phases.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the design of this project of Margarita Road between Winchester Road and Solana
Way, the southern portion, is limited in this Agreement to $44,200.00. It is necessary to
approve a transfer of $44,200.00 from the Measure "A" Fund to the Capital Projects Fund
and appropriate $44,200.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-5802 from
Unreserved Fund Balance.
-2-
pw01\agdrpt\92~O414\margext,so 0408a
Included are to be Instructions to Bidders, General Conditions, Special Provisions applicable to the
specific job, Proposal Forms, Special C, rading Specifications supplied by the soils engineer, the
Grading Plan, a Cut and Fill Map, and the Improvement Plans.
Consultant will be available during the Client's bidding phase of the Project to answer questions and
provide guidance to the bidders; however, the Client shall schedule a meeting for this purpose with
all of the prospective bidders and shall give Consultant five (5) days advance notice of the meeting.
EXHIBIT A-10
t m.~Al- r~-~"'RIFIION$ ,I~ND EXT41'RIT3
Consultant shall prepare six Legal Descriptions and Exh'bits to be used for the dedication of
additional right-of-way along Margarita Road (formerly North General Kearny Road) increasing
the street width from 88' to 110'.
EXHIBIT A-11 (31~-OTECHNICAt- INV~-~I'ICjATION (CONVERS~ CONSUI-T.~,NTS)
Consultant shall provide the n~ry personnel, equipment and materials to explore the site,
perform laboratory testing, and provide site grading and pavement design recommendations. The
following scope of work is proposed:
· Subsurface Exploration: A program of subsurface exploration will be conducted to
determine general soil profiles at the site, and to obtain representative soil samples for
laboratory testing..
Six to seven test pits are planned to explore subsurface conditions. Test pits will be
excavated with a backhoe to' maximum depths of about 5 feet below ground surface.
· Laboratory Testing: Soil samples obtained during the exploratory field work will be tested
in the laboratory to determine their engineering properties. Laboratory testing may include,
but not necessarily be limited to the following: R-value, and compaction tests.
· Engineering Analyses and Report: Data obtained from the exploratory excavations and the
laboratory testing program will be evaluated. Engineering analyses will be performed to
present pavement design and site grading recommendations in a report. The report will
address the following items:
· A description of the field and laboratory procedures used in the investigation.
· A discussion of the materials encountered in the test pits and their engineering
properties.
· Logs of the exploratory excavations summarizing the soil conditions encountered and
the results of laboratory testing, and a plan 'indicating the location of subsurface
excavations.
2/forai/ArO-04 IL-v. 1/22/92
9
p~l/agmts/mas,ets/04 012292
The Rough Grading Plans shall indicate elevations, banks, her ms, drainage devices, rough street
grades, poss~le corrective grading area as outlined in the Preliminary Soils Report provided by
Consultant, and erosion control measures necessary for obtaining a rough grading permit, and
construction of the rough grading portion of the project.
EXHIBIT A-5
TRAFFIC SION~NG ,ANn STB~ P~ ANS
Consultant shah provide engineering services to prepare one set of traffic signing and striping plans
in accordance with the standards implemented by the City of Temecula. The traffic signing and
striping plans shah cover the proposed improvements for Margarita Road.
EXI41BIT A-6
HYDROI-OGY AND STORM DRAIN HYDRAUliCS R!~-PORT
Consultant shah prepare a Hydroloff and Storm Drain Hydraulics Report for the Project Site in
accordance with the requirements of !the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency, based on
the Final Grading Plan prepared by Consultant, for submittal to the jurisdictional agency along with
the completed Storm Drain Phns for the Project Site.
EXI-HB1T A-7
Consultant shah design and prepare Storm Drain Improvement Plans as required to perpetuate the
existing drainage patterns along the proposed alignment of Margarita Road in accordance with the
requirements and criteria of the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency.
Storm drain improvement plans will be incorporated into the street improvement and grading phn
set.
Any engineering services rehted to preparation of improvement plans for offsite storm drain
extensions, pump stations, or other major facilities required by the appropriate governmental
jurisdictional agency, will be completed under separate contract for an additional fee.
BXHIBIY A-8
U'I~:ITY COORDINATION
Consultant shah consult with the appropriate utility service agency to determine the relocation
requirements of the existing telephone poles adjacent to North General Kearny Road due to the
realignment of North General Kearny Road and Margarita Road and the relocation requirements
of GTE and Rancho California Water District facilities.
EXHIBIT A-9 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACTF IX)C1/M~-N'I~
Consultant shah prepare Specifications and Contract Documents for bidding, awarding the contracts,
and supervision of the improvements to be constructed within the Project.
2/form$/ARG..04 ik-.v. 1/'22/92 8 lmw01/agm~s/e~ts/04 012292
EXI-fm~ A-16 BLURPI~tNT~ ,~fl) Iz~PROnUCIION Ccs~t R,"41pest)
Consultant has included an allowance for blueline and reproduction work specifically requested by
the Client. All reproduction work required by Consultant for performance of the various work tasks'
described above is included in the fee amounts as shown on Exhibit "B".
2/forms/ARG-04 Rt, v. 1/22/92 11 nw0~/agmts/masters/04 0~2292
Recommendations for general site grading, including excavations, fill placement, and
utility backfill and site drainage.
Recommended structural pavement section and guidelines for preparation of
subgrade soils.
Rx]-~!Rrr A-l?
GRADING 0RSRRVATIONS AND T~STING (CONVI~-RSE
CONSULTANTS)
Our technicians will be on site during grading to observe and test the earthwork. We anticipate full-
time observations will be required. Laboratory tests, consisting of confLrmatory R-value vesting on
the exposed subgrade soils and maximum density tests, will be performed.
POTHOI ~- LOCATION SURVEY
Consultant shall provide one set of stakes to indicate the position for pothole investigation. The
stake shah be set on an offset agreed upon by the Contractor and Consultant. It shah be marked
with an approximate cut to the plan grade (ff available) of the underground object of investigation.
After exposure of the object by the Client's Contractor, Consultant shall provide a field survey to
determine the horizontal and vertical location of the object.
Survey field notes shah be prepared by the Consultant and provided to the Client upon request.
EXHIBIT A-14
Consultant shah prepare a Final Cost Estimate based upon the final grading and improvement
plans.
Consultant makes no representation concerning the estimated quantities and cost figures made in
connection with maps, plans, specifications, or drawings other than that all such figures are
estimates only, and Consultant shah not be responsible for fluctuations in cost factors.
EXHIBIT A-15
PRO~"I' MEETING ATTENDANCE & CONSULTATION
Consultant shah attend regularly scheduled meetings with CHent to review the progress of the work
included within this contract and to provide consulting services. A maximum of 70 hours are
included within this Scope of Work. Additional meetings and consulting services will be performed,
if required, on an hourly basis for an additional fee.
2/forms/A. RG-04 Rk.v. 1/22/92 10 p.,o~/~../m..../o4 012292
Any work relating to, but not limited to, governmental processing retaining w:~!ls, topographic
mapping, traffic signal, environmental documentation, sound studies or acoustical engineering,
underground utility planning, design or coordination, design for relocation of underground irrigation
facilities, detour phn, property title services, preparation of legal descriptions and exhibits (except
as provided herein), staking of joint trench utilities, construction surveying for grading cross-sections
or removal of unsuitable material and any additional staking (except as provided herein), if
required, shall be covered under a separate agreement.
2/forms/AaG-04 Rev. 1/22/92 13 t,*01/g, nts/mmen/04 01229'2
EXHIBIT "B"
J.N. 4002971 Addendure No. 1, Revision No. 1
(X)MPENSATION
CHent agrees to compensate Consultant for such services as follows:
Consultant shall complete the work outlined above in accordance with the fee schedule
identified below and shall invoice Client on a monthly basis based on the percentage of
completion.
ITEM WORK TASK FEE
A-1 Earthwork Quantity Estimate $1,000
A-2 Aerial Topographic Map 7,000
A-3 As-Built Street Improvement Plans 4,$00
A-4 Street Improvement/Grading Plans 9,000
A-5 Traffic Signing and Striping Plans 700
A-6 Hydrology and Storm Drain Hydraulics Report 2,500
A-7 Storm Drain Plans 2,500
A-8 Utility Coordination 1,300
A-9 Specifications and Contract Documents Included
A-10 Legal Descriptions and Exh~its 4,400
A-11 Oeotechnical Investigation (Converse Consultants) 1,100
A-12 Grading Observations & Testing Included
(Converse Consultants)
A-13 Pothole Location Survey 1,200
A-14 Final Cost Estimate 2,000
A-15 Project Meetings and Attendance 5.000
A-16 Blueprints and Reproductions 2.000
TOTAL $~.~.,200
The fees proposed herein shah apply until August 1, 1992. Due to ever-changing costs, Consultant
may increase those portions of the contract fee for which work must still be completed after August
1, 1992 by ten percent (10%).
2/forms/ARG-04 Rev. 1/22/92
12
p,~}l/aWm/mutm/04 mz292
ITEM NO. 18
APPROVAL%%~
CITY ATTORNEY A _
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
/(17/S Depa.~_of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Release Faithful Performance Warranty and
Monumentation Bonds in Parcel Map No. 23430
Subdivision
PREPARED BY:
Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of streets and drainage, and sewer and
water systems Faithful Performance Warranty Bond and Subdivision Monumentation
Bond in Parcel Map No. 23430, and DIRECT the City Clerk to process the release of
the bonds.
BACKGROUND:
On December 18, 1990, the City Council entered into a subdivision agreements with:
Bedford Development Co.
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92590
for the one-year warranty period for streets and drainage, and sewer and water
systems improvements and subdivision monumentation installations. Accompanying
the subdivision agreements, were' Surety Bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual
Casualty Co. as follows:
Bond No. 3S 743 673 00 in the amount of $90,000.00 to cover Faithful
Performance Warranty requirements.
-1 - pw01 \agdrpt\92\0414\23430 040392
~_GeL. , , ,.
# I
e 3 I ,
I /"i [:-OT . ly.,~.,
=,,,~~.:..
"~
mAP
/
79413'"""" I '
'.- ; f" - j I~ · .'
· ~ ..t · ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-tRACT 3334
I,OT e
VICINITY
IVOT TO ~fCZ
MAP
II
Bond No. 3S 743 670 O0 in the amount of $9,636.00 to cover Subdivision
Monumentation.
The required public streets, drainage, sewer, and water improvements were
satisfactorily completed prior to City Council approval of the Parcel Map. A Faithful
Performance Warranty Bond for the completed work was posted and accepted by the
City Council on December 18, 1990.
The one-year warranty period has passed with no maintenance required. Therefore,
it is appropriate to release the Faithful Performance Warranty Bond. The affected
street is a portion of Ynez Road.
The Subdivision Monumentation has been completed to the satisfaction of City staff,
and the Department of Public Works recommends the release of the Subdivision
Monumentation Bond.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
-2-
pwO1~agdrpt~92\0414\23430 040392
ITEM
19
APPROVAL
iITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
/1/~De ar Public: Works
Parcel Map No. 26766
Kris Winchak
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council APPROVE Parcel Map No. 26766 subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
DISCUSSION:
On January 26, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Tentative
Tract Nos. 22715 and 22716, within the boundaries of Specific Plan No. 199
( Margarita Village).
On April 17, 1991, the applicant filed Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 along with
Substantial Conforrrmnce No. 17, in order to process the requests
concurrently. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 proposes to subdivide the subject 10. 81
acre site into one ( 1 ) single family residential parcel containing approximately 8,276
square feet (0.19 acres) and one (1) open space parcel containing 10.62 acres. The
subject 10. 81 acre site had been previously designated as an open space lot for Tract
No. 22715 within Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 199. Through Planning
approval of Substantial Conformance No. 17, this allowed the exchange of one (1)
dwelling of density from Planning Area 14 to Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No.
199.
1
ATTACHMENT 1
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
On May 9, 1991, Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 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. In
addition, the DRC determined that, combined with Substantial Conformance No. 17,
the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199· The DRC had forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to conditions. The City Planning Commission
approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 on May 20, 1991.
The following fees have been paid (or deferred) for Parcel Map No. 26766:
* Area Drainage Fees
* Fire Mitigation Fees
* Traffic Signal Mitigation
* Stephen's K-Rat Fees- |Must be paid)
$ 1,980.81
$ 400.00
$ 150.00
$ 21,079.50
The following bonds have been posted for Parcel Map No. 26766:
Faithful Other Labor and
Performance Bonds Materials
Streets and Drainage $ -0- '0-
Water -0- '0-
Sewer -0- '0-
Survey Monuments -0-
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that City Council APPROVE Parcel Map No. 26766, subject to the
Conditions of Approval.
AC:mph
Attachments:
2.
3.
5.
6.
Development Fee Checklist
Location Map
Copy of Map
Planning Commission Staff Report
Conditions of Approval
Fees and Securities Report
2
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Parcel NImp No. 26766
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
I K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
[ Quimby )
Public Facility
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 11 a.
NIA
Condition No. 28
Traffic Signal Mitigation
Condition No. 30
Fire Mitigation
Riverside County Fire Dept.
Letter Dated 9-1-87
Flood Control
{ADP)
Public Library Mitigation
Regional Statistical Area
(RSA)
Staff Findings:
Condition No. ~1
'. Condition No. 20a.
NIA
Staff finds that the project will be consistant with the Cityis General Plan once
adopted.
The project is a part of Specific Plan 199.
ATTACHMENT 2
LOCATION MAP
'PROJECT
Location Map
ATTACHMENT 3
COPY OF FINAL MAP
li
ATTACHMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 20, 1991
Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766
Prepared By: Oilvet Mujica
Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SWAP DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZON I NG:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
Bedford Properties
Robert Be/n, William Frost S Associates
Subdivide 10.81 acres into one (1) single family
residential parcel and one (1) open space parcel.
South side of Rancho California Road, between
Butterfield Stage Road and Vintage Hills Drive.
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village)
Specific Plan
North: SP 199
South: SP 199
East: SP 199
West: SP 199
Not applicable;
Model Home Parking Lot/Open Space
North: Single Family Residential
South: Single Family Residential
East: Single Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
On January 26, 1988. the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors approved Tentative Tract Map Nos.
22715 and 22716. within the boundaries of Specific
Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village).
Tentat/ve Tract Map No. 22715 created 109
residential lots, with a minimum lot size of 7,200
A: PM26766 I ~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
square feet, and 3 open space lots totaling lq.3
acres. Tentative Tract Map No. 22716 created 175
residential lots, with a minimum lot size of ~.900
square feet, and 2 open space lots totaling 1.6
acres.
On April 17, 1991, the applicant filed Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26766 along with Substantial
Conformance No. 17, in order to process the
requests concurrently.
On May 9, 1991, Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 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. In addition, the DRC
determined that, combined with Substantial
Conformance No. 17. the project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 199. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to conditions.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 proposes to
subdivide the subject 10.81 acre site into one (1)
single family residential parcel containing
approximately 8,276 square feet (0.19 acres) and
one (1) open space parcel containing 10.62 acres.
The proposed subdivision has been designed in
accordance with the standards of the proposed R-1
(One-Family Dwelling) zone, as well as Ordinance
Nos. 3~8 and ~60.
The subject 10.81 acre site has been previously
designated as an open space lot for Tract No. 22715,
within Planning Area 13 of Specific Plan No. 199.
As mentioned in the Staff Report for Substantial
Conformance No. 17, the applicant is proposing to
exchange one (1) dwelling unit of density from
Planning Area 1~ to Planning Area 13 of Specific
Plan No. 199. Consequently, the applicant has
submitted Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766.
Planning Area 1~ encompasses Tract 22716 which is
comprised of five phases all of which are recorded
maps. The Specific Plan allows for 175 dwelling
units within Planning Area 14. Planning Area 13
encompasses Tract 22715 in which all phases have
also been recorded. The Specific Plan allows for 109
dwelling units within Planning Area 13. The
dwelling unit count for these two planning areas
totals 284.
-- A: PM26766 2
SPECIFIC PLAN/.
GENERAL PLAN
CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMI NAT ION:
FINDINGS:
As a part of the Comprehensive Landscape Plan for
Vintage Hills, Lot No. I (an approved buildable lot)
was extensively landscaped and dedicated to the
Homeowners Association as a community entry area
and is now designated as an unbuiidable lot. This
lot will remain as an open space/landscape feature of
the Vintage Hills community. The new dwelling unit
total for Planning Area 13will be 110 units, and 17q
units for Planning Area lq. The combined total for
the two areas has not changed. Therefore, Staff
has determined that the request exchange of one lot
between Planning Areas 13 and 1~ is in substantial
conformance with Specific Plan No. 199.
Combined with an approval of Substantial
Conformance No. 17, the proposed project is
consistent with the density and Land Use
designations of Planning Areas 13 and 1~ of Specific
Plan No. 199. In addition, Staff finds it probable
that this project will be consistent with the new
General Plan when it is adopted.
This project is categorically exempt from
environmental review under Section 15315 of the
California Environmental Quality Act, which
includes minor land divisions.
The proposed Parcel Map. will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, due to the fact that the project
involves only a minor division of land and is
Class 15 Categorically Exempt.
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 the
surroundingcurrentresidentiaidevelopment-
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 development.
A: PM26766 3
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. q60,
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.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially 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 due to
the fact that the lot is large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic, access is provided from Ca!le Reseca.
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.
10.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's.
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
11.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
-- A: PM26766 ~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91'
Parcel Map No, 26766.
albproving Tentative
OM:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
conditions of Approval
Exhibits
Large Scale Plan
A: PM26766 5 '~
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
MAP NO, 26766 TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.81 ACRE PARCEL
INTO TWO (2) PARCELS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND BUTTERFIELD
STAGE ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL
NOS, 9q.6-170-017 AND 020,
WHEREAS, Tayco filed Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said iParcel 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
approved said Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,. DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin{is. 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 ;:ity 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: PM26766 6
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.
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 sat 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
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
c)
Thereis 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 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: PM26766 7 "
b)
c)
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
physical ly suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
The proposed Parcel Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, due to the fact that the project
involves only a minor division of land and is
Class 15 Categorically Exempt.
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 the
surroundingcurrentresidential development o
A: PM26766
8
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i')
j)
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 development.
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. ~60,
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.
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat o
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 lot is large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to. and are useable by. vehicular
traffic, access is provided from Calle Reseca.
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.
A: PM26766 9 '~
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.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby finds that
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 is categorically exempt .from environmental review
under Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 3. COnditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26766 for the subdivision of a 10.81 acre parcel into two ( 2 )
parcels located on the Southwest corner of Rancho California and Butterfield Stage
Roads subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHA I RMAN
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:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANN IN(:; COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: PM26766 10
ATTACHMENT 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
,CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No:
Project Description:
Assessor~s Parcel No.:
26766
Subdivide 10.81 acres
into two (2) parcels.
946-170-017,020
Plannincl Del~artment
1.
5:
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.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordat(on of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 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.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
a. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
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.
- A: PM26766 11
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
Prior to recordalien 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 130) miles of Mount Palernat
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palemar Observatory recommendations.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a 9reding 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 subdlvider 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. 26766, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. 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,'-~ewer, 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.
Pf~er-t~: ~.-o, duti~fr-;ef-the-Fh~aI-Map~-the-defetePrer'hi~ as~i~, ,~-
cord;orm-~rthe-~: J~tt ict -~tl~lby.-(3rd~e~te~,-tlnl&ss fewifed
i-~suaf~ce~~i,,v H-, ,,,~t. ( Deleted by Planning Commission May 20, 1991 )
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
A: PM26766 12
16.
18.
19.
2b.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR~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.
No lot in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association,
property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed wit.l? 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 CCSR's which shall include compulsory membership of all
owners of lots and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of
maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CCSR~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 lot shall own as an appurtenance to such 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 CCSR's.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be
s at i sfi ed:
a. 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
Iot/unlt shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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,
A: PM26766 ' 13
21.
Building separation between all buildings excluding fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
Front yard shall be provided with landscaping and manually operated
underground irrigation system.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such tim as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
22. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
23. The applicant shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as set forth in
Specific Plan 199 and Tract Map No. 22715 as they relate to Tentative Parcel
Map No. 26766 and the development of Planning Area 13.
Enc~ineerincl DelDartment
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.
I;~ is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, travelec'
ways. and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
2~. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
25. 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. ~60.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
26. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer of his representative, the
developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
m
m
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;
A: PM26766 lq
- CATV Franchise; and
- Parks and Recreation Department.
27. 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 City Engineer.
28. The developer, or the developerJs successor, shall execute a current Public
Facilities Agreement' with the City of Temecula which provides for the payment
of the sum of money per residential unit then established by Resolution of the
City Council, prior to the issuance of any building permits for any individual
lots.
29. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
30. 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.
31. 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 ~00 and qO1 | curb sidewalk ).
32. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two {2) feet from the property
line.
33. 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 Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
35. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
36. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e. , concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
37. 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: PM26766 15
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
38.
39,
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and in encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office.
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.
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales
independent of any other lot.
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
q.2.
TO BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compactlon and site conditions.
43. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough
grading plan· -
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF.OCCUPANCY:
q~4. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
45. 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 EIRINagative Declaration for the
If an interim
project, in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee.
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 proteat
such increase.
A: PM26766 16
DATE: :;arc,~ 'i,
': CEP/Eb
A." ? ._,. 1988
RE:
TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO, 22715 CX
E, A, NI/dBER: 31;..-47
REGIONAL TEAH NO, !
Dear Applicant:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the following action m the above
referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of januaCy 26, 198j ·
XX APPROVED tentative mp subject to the attached conditions.
DENIED tentative map based on attached findings.
APPROVED withdrawal of tentative rap.
The tract map has been found to be cmsistent with all pertinent elements of the
Riverside County General Plan and is in cempliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970. ne p, uj.-t will not have a significant effect on the environment
and a Negative Declara ion has te dopted.
A conditionally ~ppr ' d tentat~e"~"{ract map shall expire months after the approval at
~ r~it'Prior to the expiration d-': '"v~f]~iyJ"~pl~..~_~i '~" f
yfor an extensi er. '
time. Application shall . ~e Plan~l ':s~ (30) days prior to the
expiration date of the ten .... "]~rlBi~rr~ ~)'~a~ extend the period for
one year and upon further ap atien'a sccond and a thiPd yoar.'
__.._,truly yours,
Very
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RogeF S. Streeter, Planning Director
3_!~_.'.,'
FILE- WHITE
Mch~'r,": J.~.~.~c;:ott, Supervising Planner
APPLICANT - CANARY
ENGINEER - PINK
295-39 fitmr. loll3)
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
PINKS
.4JBI~TTAL TO 1HE BOARD OF SUPER'~.
COUNTY OF RIVERSmE, STATE OF CAMFORNL~
FROM:The Plahntng Depart;Bent SUBMITTALDATE~ December 16, 1987
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE N0. 4982, TENTATZVE TRACT N0'S 22715 and
22716 - Robert Beth, Mtlltam Frost & Associates - First Supervisoria]
District - Rancho California Area - 121.8 Acres - 289 Lots - Schedule A -
RECOMMENDED NOTION: Zonfng Request: Change of Zone from R-R to R-l,
'R-2, and C-1/C-P.
The Planntng Comtsston and Staff recamend:
ADOPTION of the N~gattVe Beclaratton for Environmental Assessment
No. 31847 based on the findings Incorporated tn the environmental
assessment and the conclusion that the .proposed project u111 not
have a s_tgntftcant effect on the environment; and
DENIAL of Change of Zone No. 4982 from R-R to R-l, R-2, and C-1/C-P
in accordance with Exhtbtt 2, based upon the flndtngs and conclusions
Incorporated tn the Planntng Cemisston mtnutes dated November 18, 1987;
and, ~.
APPROVAL of Change of Zone No. 4982 from R-R to R-l, R-2, R-5, and
C-1/C-P tn accordance.With Exhtbtt 4, based upon the findings and
conclusions incorporated tn the P]anntng Comtsston mtnutes dated
Noveeber 18, 1987; and,,
APPROVAL of Tentative Tract No. 22715 sub~iect to the attached
conditions° base on the findings and conclusions Incorporated
tn the Planning Cemtsston mtnutes dated November 18, 1987; and,
APPROVAL of Tentative Tract No. 22716 subject to the attached
conditions, based on the findings and conclusions Incorporated
in the Planning ConBisston minutes dated November 18o.1987.
LL:me
12-16-87
Rog e~tree ter; P1 anni n~ relekcx't~Fr '
Prey. Agn. ref. Depts. Comments Dist.
AGENDA NO.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CO!~ISSI~ HINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 1987'*
(AGENDA ITEM 7'9 - REEL 961 - SiDE I - 2616-End; SIDE 2 - 000-200)
CHANGE OF ZONE 4982 - EA 31847 - Beth/Frost and Associates - Rancho California
Area - First Supervisortel District - 121.8~ acres, south of Pancho California
Rd, between Kaiser Parkway and Butterfield Stage IM - R-R to R-l, R-2 and
C-l/C-P, etc.
TRACT 22715 - EA 31847 - liein/Frost and Associates - Pancho California Area -
First Supervisortel District - south of Rancho california Rd, between Kaiser
Parkway and Butterfield Stage Pal - 109 residential lots/3 open space lots -
61.5s acres - Schedule A
TRACT 22716 - EA 31847 - !~tn/Frost and Associates - Rancho California Area -
First Supervisortel D~strtct - south of Rancho California Rd, between Kaiser
Parkway and Butterfield Stage Rd - 175 residential lots/2 open space lots -
48,5~ acres - Schedule A ,
The hearings were opened at 3:15 p.m. and closed at 3:30 p.m.
STAFF REC(II4ENDATION: Adoption oft he negattve declaration for EA 31847,
P
dental of Change of Zone Case 4982 from R-R to R-l, R-2 and C-l/C- , but
approval of Change of Zone Case 4982 from R-Rte R-l, R-2, R-5 and C-1/C-P tn
accordance rich Exhibit 4, and approval of Tentathe Tract leaps 22715 and
22716 subject to the proposed conditions. The project site was located w4thin
Planning Area 13 of Specific Plaan 199, which calTed for low density family
oriented housing. Staff felt the-proposed project ms consistent.with the
spectftc plan and compatible wtth the surrounding area, which contained single
family residences, a horse ranch, a substation, a vineyard, and vacant lands.
Although staff supperted the proposed zone change, they felt the open space
areas should be zoned R-5.
Its. Mktns recomended the following changes to the conditions
Tract 22715: '
19(a} - Amend to read "Prior to the issuance of building permits" instead
of "Prior to the issuance of grading permits". .
20(g) - Amend to read "All front.yards shall be provided with landscaping
and mnually operated permanent underground irrigation."
Tract 22716: % "
Add Condition 17(f) to read: M1 lots shall be graded so as to dra~n to a
coneon drainage swale located between the non-entry side of adjacent lots,
If drainage to both sides of a lot is proposed, each lot so graded shall be
provided with side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot.
Drainage ptpes may be utilized as approved by the Director of Building and
Safety.
- Amend to read "Prior to the issuance of building permits" (not
prior to the issuance of grading pemtts).
21(g) - All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and manually
operated permanent underground irrigation.
40
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANN]:NG COte4ZSSXON IqZNUTES
NOVEHBER 18, 1987--.
Cemissioner Purvtance requested that consideration be given to a posstble
review of Ordinance 348 as tt related to the R-2 zone. He ms particularly
concerned about the density &lloed under this zone, and pointed out that
allowed these very small lots vithout the controls Drovtded under the R-6
zone. Even vith the prtce control available to the County to make these homes
affordable to worktrig people, the mintmum lot stze allowed under the R-6 zone
tn the Horeno Valley had been Increased from 3600 to 5000 square feet. The
subject project proposed 4900 square foot lots and there ms ,o prtce control
even though homes were needed by worktrig people In the Rancho California
area. Comtsstoner Purvtance ms very concerned about the dens?ties which had
been approved for these specific plans, although he realtzed they appeared to
represent a coen~tment by the County.
Cmmtsstoner Purvtance recommended that the areas proposed for C-1/C-P be
zoned C-P-S tnstead~ although not officially designated as an eltgtble scenic
htghway, Rancho California ,ets currontly a very scenic road which he felt
should he protected w~th the .C-P-S zone. Zt ms Co~tsstoner Bresson's
understendtng that the protection of scentc ht hways was 1tatted to the
freeways. Coffntsstoner Purrlance agreed that ~ncho California Road would
probably never be designated as a scenic highway. but he st111 felt tt should
be protected-because of the extsttng scentc values.
Commtss?oner Bresson referred to Co,~tsStoner Purvtance's co,~ents rogardtng
the R-2 and R-6 zones. and stated. he felt the selling price of the R-2 home
reflected the stze of the lot; the R-1 lots would he prtced higher than
lots. He felt the R-2 homes would help Riverside County to meet the State
on the selling prices of these homes.
Ken Cook, representing the applicant, advised they had not as yet estebl~shed
prices for these homes, but there would !~ a significant d~fference betNeen
the selling prices for the Rol and R-2 homes. He thought ~n their current
sales program for an identical pro~4ect, the homes ware sell(rig for
approximately $85,000. Commissioner Purrlance did not feel this price was
affordable for ~orktng people.
!qr. Cook requested that Condition tB(a) for Tract 22716 be amended to read
· All dwellings shall be provided with roof gutters and downspouts where
necessary, to discharge runoff onto the d~elling's underlying property. He
thought this would address staff's concerns, but not require the downspouts
and gutters for all houses.. Nr, Streeter referred to the field trip made by
the Cognisston the previous wek, which he felt clearly demonstrated that
~ater running of the caves needed to be controlled on the smaller lots the
water running off the caves. Commissioner Bresson stated he thought the
condition should not he changed.
Lee Johnson requested that the Road Department conditions be amended by adding
the requirement for street lights ~n accordance with Ordinances 460 and 461.
41
RIVERSIDE COUNTY P!.N~NING COHHISSTON MIlt~S
NOVEIqBER 18, 1987~-
There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed at 3:30 p.m.
FXNDZNGS AND CONCLUSZONS: Change of Zone4g8Z ts an application to change the
zontng on 121.8 acres from R-R to R-1 on 61.5 acres, R-2 on 48.5 acres, and
.C-1/C-P on 11,8 acres; TontattVe Tract 22715 ts an application to subdivide
61,5 acres tnto 112 lots (109 residential and 3 open space lots) for a density
of 2.47 dwelllng untts per acre; Tentative Tract22716 ts an application to
subdivide 48.5 acres into 177 lots (175 residential and 2 open space lots) for
a denstry of 3.73 dwelltrig units per acre; the subject stte ts vacant, with
surrounding land uses being single famtly residences, a horse ranch, a
substation, a vtneyard and vacant land; the subject stte and a vast amount of
the surrounding area are currLmtly zoned R-R; other zoning designations tn
proximity to the stte include R-I, A-1-10, A-2-10, R-A, R-A-2~and R-A-5; the
project site falls within the Wlargartta Village $pectfic Plan (Specific Plan
199); and Tentative Tract 22715 ts located withtn Planntng Area 13 designated-
as low density family oriented: housing (2-3 dwelltn units per acre vrith 106
· target" dwelltrig units); Tentative Tract 22716 ts Vocated t in
wi h Planntng
Area 14 designated as medium to lo~ denstry ~amily oriented housing (3-8
d~elltng units per acre with 17% "target" d~elltng units); R-5 zoning ts
recoeeended on Lots 110, 111, and 112 within Tentative Tract 22715 and Lots
176 and 177 within Tentative Tract 22716 to reflect Intended open space use;
and the 11.8 acre parcel in the northwest corner of the project site ts
located within Planning Area 19 designated as comerctal. Conditions of
appreval can adequately mitigate envtromentml concerns; the tentative tracts
are designed in conformance with specific plan standards and Ordinances 460
and 348; the reco,mended zoning is consistent with the specific plan; and the
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson. seconded by Coenisstoner
Beadling and duly carried. the Commission recomended to the hard of
Supervisors adoption of the ne ative declaration for EA 31847, denial of
Change of Zone Case 4982 from ~R to R-I,*R-2 and C-l/C-P, but'approval of
Change of Zone Case 4982 from R-R to R-l, R-2, R-5 and C-1/C-P in accordance
wi~h Exhibtt 4, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps22715 and 22716 subject
to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings
and conclust6ns and the recomnendations of staff.
Tract 22715: %
19(a) - Amend to read "Pr!or to the tssuance of'building permits" instead
of "Prior to the issuance of grading permits".
20(g) - Amend to read "All front yards shall be provided with landscaping
and manually operated permanent underground irrigation."
Tract 22716:
Add Condition 17(f) to read= All lots shall be graded so as to drain to a
coenon drainage swale located between the non-entry side of adjacent lots.
If drainage to both sides of a lot is proposed. each lot so graded shall be
provided with side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot.
Drainage pipes my be utilized as approved by the Director of Butlding and
Safety.
42
**
't
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONHISSION NINUTES
NOVEMBER 18. 1987"-
- Amend to road · rio to
prior to the tssuance of grading permits).
21(g) - All front yards shall be provided w~th landscaping and mnually
operated pernmnent underground irrigation.
Amend the Road Department conditions for both tentat~vemps by eddtn the
roquirement for street 11ghtS tn accordance ~ith Ordinances 460 and 4~1.
ROLL CALL VOTE RESULTED AS FOLLOMS:
AYES: Comtsstoners Beadling, Denahoe, Smith and Brosson
NOES:
Commissioner Purvtance (hlt the commercial zoning should be C-P-S
instead of C-l/C-P)
ABSENT: None
43
Zoning Area: Rancho California
Superv'sorial District: First
I
E.A. Number: 31847
Regional Team No. One
OIAltEOFZIIEIIO. 4982
TE!ITATZVETRACTNO, 22715
TERTATZVETRACTRO, 22716
C:)
RIVERS]:DE :COUIT/RJilI]:IIG DI~ARlIBIT
.%'rAFFEYORT
1. Appl icant:
2, Type of Request:
3. Location:
.~-
4. Existing Land Use:
5. Surrounding Land Use:
6. Existing Zoning:
7. Surrounding Zoning:
Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
9. Land Division Data:
lO.a. Agency Recommendations
Robert Beth, Mi!111am Frost & Associates
Change -of zone flea R-R to R-l, R-2 and
.C-I/C-P, one R-1 subdivision, and one R-2
subdivision
Bordered by Rancho California Road,
Botterfleld Stage Road, Rancho Vista Road,
and Kaiser Parkway
Graded and vacant land
Single family residential, horse
substation, vineyard, and vaunt land
R-R, R-l, R-A,
A-2-10
ranch,
R-A-2as, R-A-5, A-1-10, and
Open Space/Cons: Specific Plan 199
(Nargarita Village)
Total Acreage: 121.8 Acres
Total Lots: 289 Lots
284 Residential Lots
5 Open Space Lots
CHANGE OF ZONE I10. 4982
See letter dated:
Road: 8-24-87
Heal th: 8-21-87
Flood: 9-01-87
Fire: 9-01-87
TRACT 22715
See. letter dated:
Road: 9-01-87
Health: 8-21-87
Flood: 9-15-87
Pire: 9-01-87
Nt, Palomar: 8-25-87
TRACT 22716
See letter dated:
Road: 9-01-87
Heal th: 8-21-87
Flood: 9-14-87
F. ire: 9-01-87
Mr. Palomar: 8-25-87
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4982
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22715
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22716
Staff Report
Page 2
lO.b.Tract Oata:
11. Letters:
12. Sphere ef Influence:
TRACT 22715
R-1 I reCt
61.5 Acres
112 Total Lots
109 Residential Lots
3 Open Space Lots
2.47 Du/Ac
7200 sq. ft. mtn. lot stze
TRACT 22716
K-Z '1 tact
48.5 Acres
177 Total Lots
175 Residential Lots
2 Open Space Lots
3.73 Du/ac
4900 sq. ft. mtn. lot stze
Opposing/Supporting: None as of th¶s wrtttng
Not wtthtn a ctty sphere
J~ALYSIS
Prefect Description
The applicant ts proposing a change of zone and two Schedule *A' subdhtstons
on a 121.8 acre stte tn: the Rancho California area. Bordered by Rancho
California Road*to the north, Butterfield Stage Road to the east, Rancho Vtsta
Road to the south, and Katser Parkway to the west, the enttre stte ts located
wtthtn the boundaries of Spectftc Plan 199 (Rargartta Vtlla e). Thts spectftc
plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on AUgust 26, ~986.
Change of ~Zone No. 4982 ts an application to change the zontng on the 12i.8
acre stte from R-R (Roraq-Restdenttal) to R-1 (Stngle Faintly Residential) on
61.5 acres, R-2 (!qulttple Faintly !)welltngs) on 48.5 acres, and C-1/C-P (General
Coff~erctal) on 11.8 acres. The 11:8 acre parcel proposed for comnerctal ts
located tn the northwest corner of the pro~iect stte. Thts parcel was created
through Parcel Nap 22513 - a "one-parcel" parcel map -whtch was approved at
Dtrector's Heartng on June 19, 1987.
Tentative Tract No, 22715 ts proposed for ~he 61.5 acre R-1 stte on the eastern
portton of' the project stte. The tract .ts a Schedule "A" subdlvlston, creattng
109 residential lots wlth a mtntmum lot stze of 7200 square feet. In addition,
three (3) open space lots are proposed, rangtng tn stze from 2.8 acres of open
space to 11.5 acres of open space and park.
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4982
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22715
TENTATTVE TRACT NO. 22716
Staff Report
Page 3
Tentative Tract No. 22716 ts proposed for the 48.5 acre R-2 stte located west
of Tract 22715. The tract ts a Schedule "A" subdivision, creattng 175
residential lots wlth a mtntmUm lot stze of 4900 square feet. In addition, two
(2) open lots are proposed for parks rangtng tn stze from .4 acre to 1.2 acres.
Land Use/Zo~tma
The slte ls part of the Ma'rgartta Ytllage Spectftc Plan (Specific Plan No.
199). The Spectflc Plan, which ts composed of residential and cormerctal land
uses Including recreational open space and community uses, Incorporates a large
area generally north/northeasterly of the subject property.
The subject stte ts currently vacant, as are most of the properties that
surround the site. The 1.8 acre parcel In the northwest corner of the stte has
been graded as part of th underlying Parcel Map No. 22513. Some scattered
stngle faintly res dences can I~e found outstde the Spectftc Plan boundary to the
t
northeast, southeast, and southwest. In addition, stngle family homes (Tract
No. 20879), are under construction 1fledlately north of the stte across Rancho
California Road. There ts also a lone horse ranch adjacent to the north. 'A
vineyard can be found northeasterly of the project area, also along Rancho
Ca1 tfornta Road.
The-subject stte and--adjoining properties to the south, west, north, and
northeast are zoned R-R. A-1-10 and R-A-2~ zontng can be found to the east,
along wtth R-1 zoning to the north. Other zontng designations tn proximity to
the property are R-A, R-A-5 aed A-2-10.
Wtthln Speclftc Plan 199, a total of 3,650 residential dwelltng untts are
proposed on a 1275.5 acre gtte. Already tracts and corresponding changes of
zone have been approved. On the 283 acre slte adjacent to the east, 459 R-1
lots and 327 R-2 lots are slated for development. Tentative Tracts 21672,
21673, 21674, and 21675, along wtth Change of Zone 4742, were approved by the
Board of Supervisors on March 31, 1987. The change of zone wtll change the
slte's current R-R zoning to R-l, ~-2, R-2-5000, and R-5.
Env'ironmental Analysts
Major environmental tssues were analyzed and
wtthln Envtromnental /mpact Report No. 202,
Spectfic Plan 199. Acoustical analyses were
mitigation measures proposed
prepared tn conjunction wtth
prepared for each tract tn
consequence to this report. Mitigation to reduce noise levels will be
Incorporated tn product design and conditions of approval. The tntttal study
conducted for Environmental Assessment No. 31847 found that environmental
tssues assoclated wtth the proposed tracts and change of zone were adequately
addressed tn the E.I.R. and dtd not tndtcate additional environmental impacts.
./' It
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4982
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22715
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22716
Staff Report
Page 4
TENTAtiVE TRACT e0, 22715
Tentative Tract No. 22715 Is'located wtthtn "Planning Area 13" of the Ftargartta
Vt]lage Spectflc Plan. "Planning Area 13" ts designated as low denstry famt]y
oftented houstng. Based on 47.4 net acres and an asstgned denstt range of 2
to 3 dwelllng untts per acre, "Planning Area 13" ls asslgned a to~al of 106
N
"target" dwelltrig untts, not to exceed 142 dwelltng unlts. ( ore: The total
number of "target" dwelltrig Unlts ls based 'on the medlan density.}
Tentative Tract No. 22715 ts proposing 109 "R-l" residential lots, each a
mintmum of 7200 square feet. ~tle the proposed tract exceeds the total number
of "target" dwelltrig unlts for Plannlng Area 13 by 3 lots, It ts well wtthtn
the parameters of the assigned denstry at 2.47 dwelltrig untts per acre and well
under the mxlmum number of dwelllng untts for the category of land use.
The proposed tract wtll also provtde 3 open space lots, Lot 110, wtth 3.1
acres, and Lbt 111, wtth 2.8:acres, are des1 nated as "open space", whereas Lot
112, wtth 11.5 acres, ts designated'as a par~ and open space. Lot 112 also
tncludes a 10 foot wt'de horse tretl easement, as requtred by the Spectftc Plan.
The prtvate coenon open space wtll be devoted to passtve open space use. In a
famtly oriented area, such as Planntng Area 13, thts may tnclude facilities for
ptcntctng, chlldren's play areas, and small lot sports such as volleyball and
basketball. The exact design and layout of the open space facilities for
Tentative Tract No. 22715 tsbetng requested as part of the conditions of
approval.
TENTATIYE TRACT NO. 22716
Tentative Tract No. 22716 ls located wtthtn "Planning Area 14" of the Hargartta
Vt]lage Spectftc Plan. "Planning Area 14" ts designated as medtum to low .
denstry famtly oriented h0ustng. Based on 38.1 net acres and an assigned
density ran e of 3 to 8 dwel!tng units per acre, "Planning Area 14" ts asstgned
a total o~ 171 "target" dwelllng unlts, not to exceed 305 dwelltng units.
(Note: The total number of "target" dwelltng untts ts based on medtan density.)
Tentative Tract No. 22716 ts proposing 175 "R-2" resfdenttal lots. 14htle the
proposed tract exceeds the total number of "target" dwelltng untts for Planning
units for the category of land use.
The mtntmum lot stze for the proposed tract ts 4900 square feet. The maxtmum
lot stze ts 26,510 square feet. There are 6 different floor plans, with each
plan havtng 3 e]evattons and tn some cases 4. The smallest house ts 845 square
feet; the largest ts 1636 square feet. The project ts tn conformance wtth
0rdtnance 348 as tt relates to development tn the R-2 zone.
CHANGE OF ZONE NO, 4982
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22715
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22716
Staff Report
Page 5
In addition, Tentative Tract No. 22716 ts proposing 2 open space lots. Lot
176, vrith ,4 acres, and Lot 177, wtth 1.2 acres, are both designated as park
sttes. These park sites wtll be devoted to passive open space use. In a
may tnclude fact1 t es f
famtly oftented area, such as'Planning Area 14, thts t I or
ptcntctng, chtldren's play areas, and small lot'sperts such as volleyball and
basketball. A 10 foot w~de horse trat1 easement ts also betng provtded along
Rancho California Road at thereat of Lots 153, 154, 155, 156, and 157, as
required by the Spectftc Plan. The exact destgn and layout of the open space
facilities and horse trail easement for Tentative Tract No. 22716 are being
requested as part of the conditions of approval.
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4982
Change of Zone No. 4982 wtl~ provtde the appropriate zontng dest nations the
project sttes to Implement development of Tentative Tract Nos, 2~715 and ~716.
However, Staff would recommend that R-5 zoning (Open Area Combtnlng Zone -
Resldentta3 Developments) be placed on Lots 110, 111, and 112rlthtn Tentative
Tract 22715 and Lots 176 and 177 within Tentative Tract 22716 to reflect the
threaded open space use; the remainder of those tracts to be zoned as
requested.
Ftnally, therequested C-1/C-P zoning on the 11.8 acre parcel tn the northwest
corner of the project area ts consistent vrith the Spectftc Plan. The stte ts
located w~'thtn "Planning Area 19" which is designated as a commercial stte.
COtlCLUSION
Change of Zone No. 4982 wtt~ the recommended changes and Tentative Tract Nos.
22715 and 22216 are consistent wtth the tateat of the Flargartta Vtllage
Specific Plan No. 199. Those pro~ects found consistent wtth the Spectftc Plan
may be considered consistent 'with the General Plan. Zn addition, the proposed
project conforms to the applt~cable requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. The
project ts compatible wtth area development.
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4982
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22715
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22716
Staff Report
Page 6
1. Change of Zone No. 4982 ts an application to chane the zontn
acres from R-R to R-1 on 61.5 acres, R-2 on 4~,5 acres, an3
11.8 acres,
on 121.8
C-1/C-P on
Tentative-Tract No, 22715 ts an application to subdivide 61,5 acres tnto
112 Lots~"(109 residential/3 open space) for a denstry of 2,47 dwelltng
untts per acre.
Tentative Tract No. 22716 ts an application to subdivide 48.5 acres tnto
177 lots (175 residential/2 open space) for a denstry of 3.73 dwelltng
untts per acre.
The subject stte ts currrently vacant wtth surroundtn land uses betng
stngle famtly residences, a horse ranch, a substation, a vineyard, and
vacant land,
The subject stte and a vast amount of the surrounding areas are currently
zoned R-R. Other zontng designations tn proximity to the site tnclude
R-l, A-1-10, A-2-10, R-A, R~A-2~, and R-A-5,
6. The project stte falls wtthtn the Pargartta Vtllage Spectftc Plan area.
(Specific Plan No, 199).
Tentative . Tract No. 22715 ts located wtthtn "Planning Area 13" designated
as low density famtly oftented housing (2-3 Du/Ac); 106 "target" dwelltrig
units.
8. Tentarty. Tract No. 22716 ts located ~thtn "Planning Area 14" designated
as medium to low density famtly 'oriented houstng (3-8 Ou/Ac}; 171 "target"
dwelling untts.
R-5 zoning ts recommended on Lots 110, 111, and 112 wtthtn Tentatlve Tract
No. 22715 and Lots 176 and 177 wtthin Tentathe Tract No. 22716 to reflect
tntended open space use.
10. The 11.8 acre parcel in the northwest corner of project site is located
within "Planning Area 19" designated as "conrnerctal".
CONCLUSIONS
1. Conditions of approval can adequately mtttgate environmental concerns.
2. The tentatlve tracts are destgned tn conformance wtth Spectftc Plan
standards, Ordinance 460, and Ordinance 348.
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. *4982
TENTATTVE TRACT NO. 22715
TENTATTVE TRACT NO. 22716
Staff Report
Page 7
3. The recommend zontng ts consistent with the Spectftc Plan and appltcant's
request,
IECI:31~E]IMTIOlIS
ADOPTZON of the Negatlve Oeclaratton for Environmental Assessment No. 31847,
base upon the findings' tn the tnlttal study and the conclusion that the
propose project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
DENIAL of Change of Zone No. 4982 from R-R to R-l, R-2, and C-l/C-P; but,
APPROVAL of Change of Zone No. 4982 .from R-R to R-l, R-2, R-S, and C-1/C-P tn
accordance with Exhtbtt 4; and,
APPROVAL of Tentative Tract No. 22715 and 22716, sub JeSt to the attached
conditions and based upon the'findings and conclusions tn the staff report.
LBL:me
11-4-87
DATE: July 27;'1987
113: Assessor /'
Building and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Duda
\. Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control Dtstrtct
Ftsh& Game
LAFC0- Doug Vte~a
U.S. Post~l
RiV j- }iDE COURt.u
PLARRiRG DEPA ERE
Aus171987
Ii;VEFSiDE COL.':::Y ~OAD
DSPT. F'.~~. CHECK
Service - Ruth E, Davtdson
Rancho Caitf, Water
Southern Caltf, Edison
Southern Calif, Gas
General Telephone
Temecula Chamber of Cmm~rce
Nt. Plaomar
Eastern Nunicipal Water
Regional Water Quality Control Bd #9
Comissioner. Bresson
""- " .. :*' ......Nod 119 - A.P. 923-220-002 & 030
" ,," '~ !' * ' ',' ~' ~
Please review the case described above, along ~th the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for September 3, 1987. If it
clears, it will then go to publtc hearing, - ......
Your coments and recommendations are requested prior to August 20, 1987 in order that we
may include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please dm not hesitate to contact
Lesley Linkins at 787-1363
Planner
CHANGE OF ZONE 498Z/TRACT 22715/TRACT_
22716 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 31847 - Robert
Beth, Wtlltam Frost & Assoc. - Rancho~
California District - First Supervtso~ial
District - Rancho California Road between
NArgarita & Butterfield Stage Road - R-R
Zone -/21.8 Acres - (REQUEST To Chan{ e
Zone fram R-R to R-l, R-2, & C-1/C-P)*-
Concurrent Cases Tr. 22715 & Tr. 22716 -
COFINEHTS:
DATE: SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and title
4080 LEMON STREET, 9tH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
INnIn CAIIFORNIA 92201
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNIN3 DEPT.
ATTN; Lesley Likins
Jim Gie~Jois, St. Sanitarian,
F3tO MTChaJ~g 'r Zone 4982
Rix -ex side
8-21-87
Environmental Health Svcs Div
The Environmental Health Services Division has reviewed
Change of Zone 4982 and has no objections. Ss~itary sewer
and water services are available in this area.
GIrN- IrOeled ~. S/eS
AUG 2 8 i987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DSPARTMENT
KENNETH L, I:DWARDI
ellIlia INIINIIR
Illl IIAIIK&'T gIMlET
P. O. IOX
'TIk. IPNONe (714) 717-1011
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IIIVIIIIIDI, CAi..IFIDIINIA IllDe
Riverside County
Planntng Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No. / Re:
Area: ~*~
Me have revJe~ th~s case and have the following cmnts:
.~-
~cept for nuisance nature local runoff ~4ch may traverse portions of the
prope~y the project 4s considered free from o~tnary stom flood hazard.
However, a stom of unusual mgnttude could cause s~e damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable o~inances,
-,o
The topography of the area consists of yell 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
]8 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports."
This project is in the Area
drainage plao fees shall be paid in accordance Vtth the applicable r~les and
regulations.
The proposed zoning is cohststent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the
implied d~nstty.
The Dtstrtct's report dated is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
. }HN H. KASHUBA
hnior Civil Engineer
DATE: S,t t 1187
I
DATE: Jul~ 27,'1987
o°
RiVu'I iDE cOunF,u
PLAn i G DEPA Gi1EilE
TO: A.~sessor
But]dlng and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Duda
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
'*" Ftre Protection I
Rood Contrn] Dtstrtct
Ftsh& Game
LAFCO Dou Vterra
U.S. sCa~ Ruth E, IMvtdson
Po 'Service -
Rancho Callf. Mater
Southern Callf. Edison
Southern Callf. Gas
General Telephone
Temecu]a Chamber of Ceaseme
Ht. Plaomar
Eastern Nunfctpal Hater
Regtonal Hater Quality Control
Comtsstoner'Bresson
8d #9
HArgartta & Butterfield Stage Road - R-R
Zone - 121.8 Acres - (REQUEST To Change
Zone from R-R to R-l, R-2, & C-l/C-P) -
Concurrent Cases Tr. 22715 & Tr. 22716 -
Nod 119 - A.P. 923-220-002 & 030
Please revtew the case described above, along wtth the attached_case map. A Land .
Dtvtston Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled fo~.$eptembeF~3~.1987, '~f tt
clears, tt wtll then go to publlc heartng. · ..... *
:
Your comments and ;ecommendattons are requested prior to August 20, 1987 tn order that ve
may tnclude them tn the staff repprt for thts particular case,
Should you have .~ny questions regarding this ttem, please do not hesitate to contact
Lesley Ltnktns at 787-1363
Planner
C0fit4ENTS: ~
· he Fire Department.has
no commnts or conditions.
Fire protection requirements
will be addressed with the related
tract maps.
DATE: s-l-e7 SIGNATURE
PLEASE prtnt name and tttle
DZPT. C~ Fi~'_. I'r;,3FECTZON
PEI~[.;i.':, C.~.L!FORIIIA
/::;" 2 '.-; 1S,;7
RE C ""-'I \fED
I{ZCHAEL E. ~Y, Planning Officer
4080 LEMON STREET, 9v' FLOOR
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
: SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22715
DATE: JAN. 26, 1988
EXPIRES: OAN. 26, 1990
STANDARD CONDITIONS
llie subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and
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 Tract No. 22715, which action ts brought about within
the time period provided for in California Government Code Section
66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of
any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and
will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly
notify subdlvtder of any such cl i action, or proceeding or fails to
a m,
cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be
responsSble to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of
Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California
Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 46 , Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. 0
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 ftnal map shall be prepared by a ltcensed land surveyor subject to all
t
the requirements of the State of California Subdtvts on 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'~,~ If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall subnit one print of
~Z) 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,
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22715
Conditions of Approval
Page Z
GA grading pannit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety ~rior to commencement of any grading outstde of county mintained '
road ri ht of way.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the
final map. .
.TThe subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined tn the Riverside County Road Oepartment's letter dated SelFtembe,
9, tg8), November 18. 1987. a copy of which is attached. (Amended at
Planning Commission on November 18, 191)7.)
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained read.
All read 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
tb~e the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of
Road Commissioner. '
Easements, when required for readway 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 dtsposal facilities shall be installed tn accordance
i
w th the provisions set .forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated August 21, 1987, a copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control' recommendations
outlined by the RiverSide County Flood Control Dtstrlct's letter dated
September 15, 1987, a copy of which ts attached. If the land division
lies within an adopted flood conIre1 drainage area pursuant to Section
10.25 of Ordinance460, apprepriate fees for the construction of area
drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner.
The subdivider shall compl3~ with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Harshal's letter dated September 1, 1987, a
copy of which is attached.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed co~non open space area
improvement phasing, tf applicable, shall be subject to Planning
Oepartment 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.
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. ZZ,~5
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
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 Ordinance460.
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-comer and through lots.
d. Lots created by this .subdivision shall be in conromance with the
development standards of the R-1 zone.
When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the utility easement.
Graded but undevelo ed land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shalV be either planted with interim landscaping or
rovtded with other erosion control measures as approved by the
~trector of Building.and Safety.
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 quit, merits outlined in the attached approval
letter~ from the following agencies have been met.
County Fire Department
County Rood Control
County Health Department
County Planning Department
Prior to the recordatton of the final map, Change of Zone No. 4982
shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by this land division Shall be in confonnance with the
development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property.
The common open space areas shall be shown as a numbered lot on the
final map and shall be managed by a master property owners association
or other appropriate authority as identified in the Specific Plan,
If the open space lots and easements are to be maintained by a
homeowner's association, then a property owner's association with the
unqualified right to assess the owners of the Individual units for
reasonable maintenance costs shall be established and continuously
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22/15
Conditions of Approval
Page 4
maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property
of the owners who default In the pa3ment of their assessments. Such
1ten shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first
deed of trust prOvided such deed of trust ts made in good faith and
for value and ts of record prior to the lien of the association.
Prlor to recordation of the ftnal sulxlivtston map, the applicant shall
submit to the Planning Deparment the following documents for County
a proval which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department
tKat the total project wtll be developed and maintained in accordance
with the tntent and purpose of the approval,
1) The document to convey title
2) Covenants, codes and restrictions to be recorded
The approved documents shall be recorded at the same time that the
subdivision map ts recorded. Satd documents shall contatn provisions
for ownership or the irrevocable rtght to use the open space and
amentiles by the owners of the pro~ect. The approved documents shall
also contain a prevlston which prevtdes that the CC & R's may not be
terminated, or substantially amended wtthout the consent of the County
or its successor-In-Interest,
Prtor to recordatfon of the final mp, easements on Lots 1, 109 and
112 shall be created for the purpose of establishing entry statements
to the project.
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
1)
2)
Prior to recordatton of the final map the developer shall file an
application with ~he County for the formation of or annexation to
County Service Area 143 for maintenance of common open space,
parkways, and entry statements or place the maintenance
-responsibilities within the 3urtsdiction of the homeowner's.
association.
Prior to the issuance~of building pemtts, the developer shall
secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from
the County Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and
irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a
reproducible fomat suitable for permanent filing with the County
Road Department.
3)
The developer Shall post a landscape perromance bond which shall
be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, guaranteeing the viabiltty of all landscaping
-'TENTATZVIE TRACT NO. 2Z,15
Conditions of App:.oval
Page 5
he
'which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district or homeowners association.
4)
The developer, the developor's successors-in-interest or
assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping
maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the
district or homeowners association.
In the event that open space lots are managed and/or maintained by
County Service Area 143, and if County Service Area 143 is no longer
able to manage and/or maintain the open space lots due to legal and/or
other reasons, then management and/or maintenance shall become the
responsibility of the master property owner's association.
t. 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 Planntng Director.
Prior to recordatton of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be =prepared in con;Junction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shal. 1 be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and
Safety·
"The notice appearing: in Section 6.a. of Ordinance No. 625, the
Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, shall be placed on the
Environnlental Constraints Sheet, with Lots No. 52, 73.74, 75 and 76
identified therein, :in the manner provided in said Section 6.a., as
being located partly Or wholly within, or within 300 feet of, land
zoned for primarily afrtcultural purposes by the County of Riverside."
The.. following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Nount
Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighttn systems shall
t
comply with the Ca1 fonq a Institute of Technology, Palomar
Observatory recommendations dated August 25, 1987. a copy of whtch is
attached.
19. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERNITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
aT
~ieF te the issueme e~ g~ad4ag pen~i(s de(a/;ed eemmeR ,per spaee
a~ee landSlap4Mg lad 4~4gat4oe plUMS ska;1 be avbm4tted
Depawtme,t app~eva~ ~e~ the phase
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22715
Conditions of Approval
Page 6
pTans eka~; be eevtt~ted by a ~andssape aFeh~test~ and ska~ pFev~de
A;T eft;try eerv4ee eFeas and ens~esuFes eke;; be seeeeeed
vtew wttk ~endssaptn9 end deeeve~tve beeFtaPs ~ baf~e
PaFkways and ~andsseHd but;d~n9 setbasks eka~ be ~andssaped te
~ev~de v4see~ eseeente! eF · tveestt~en 4ere tke t~maFy use e~ea
e~ tke stte, kandssape e~Nnts ski;3 4ns~vde eaFtk be~n9~
meande~tng stdwa;ksv brakes end etke~ Fedes{~an aen~H ~e~e
6..kandsea;4,! p~aes eka~ 4nse~pe~ete She use e/spentmen assent
t~ees at key vteva~ ~eel~ !~tnts w4tktn the F,w,Jeett
81
kandssaF4n! plans sha~ 4nsevpeFate na,~ve and dPeugkt telewant
p~an~s where e~ve~Ftate,
She sub~eet t~reperty ska~; be skewn e~ the pre~es~s !Fading ~ans
~ed ske;~ nets these te .be Feereds ve;esaled andrew Feta~eedv
A~ teens ske~ be m4ntmum deeb~e staked.
!Fewtrig tFees ska;~ be sine; stakedr
Weaker end~eF s~ew
pFev~de deta~ ~f ~g fee~ eqees~v~an twa~ a~eng Raneke Ga~ePn~a
Readt
(Condition 19a Deleted at Planning Commission on November 18, 1987.)
TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 22715
Conditions of Approval
Page 7
be
Zf the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual gradtng plan shall be submitted to the'
Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline
for subsequent detailed gradtng plaes for individual phases of
develolaent and shall;Include the following:
a ter
ion ng and f the gredtng process.
and
proximate tim frames for grading and Identification of areas
2. v/~ich my be gr ded during the try months of
probabtl rain
higher
January through ~t;rch,
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations,
4. Areas of temporary grad¶ng outside of a particular phase.
Gradtng plans shall cOnfom to Board adopted Hillside Development
Standards: All cut and/or f111 slopes, or ¶ndividual combinations
thereof, ~htch exceed: ten feet tn vertical hetght shall be modified by
an appropriate combination of a speclal terracing (benchtng) plan,
Increase slope ratto (l.e,, 3:1), retaining yells, and/or slope
planttng combined with Irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a
ftfteen percent grade.
All cut slopes located 'ad3acent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet ¶n verttcal hetght 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.
The graded fore shall reflect
2). Angular foms sh~11 be discouraged.
the natural rou.nded terrain,
3) "the toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with
radt~ designed ~n proportion to the total height of the slopes
where drainage and stabfllty permit such rounding,
4) Mhere cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Dtrector 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.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22/35
Conditions of Approval
Page 8
Prior to the tssuance of grading pemits, a qualified paleontologist
h
s all be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the
proposed grading ~ith respect to potential paleontological impacts.
Should the paleontologist find the potential ts htgh for tmpact to
slgntficant resourceS, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontoqogist
and the excavation:and grading contractor shall be arranged. When
necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, redtract or halt grading activity to
allow recovery of fossils.
(~)Prior to the Issuance. of BUZLDING PERHZTS the lollwing conditions shall
f,,
be satis
No butlding permits shall be tssued by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/untt :wlthtn the project boundary until the developer's
successor's-In-interest provides evidence of compltance with pub1
factlity financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100)
per lot/untt shall !be deposited with the Riverside County Department
of Butlding and Safety as mitigation for publlc library development.
b. All .butldlng plans for all new structures shall incorporate all
requtred mitigation as ¶dentilted in the Revised Acoustical Analysts
of Tentative Tract Flap 22715 in Riverside Count , dated October 5,
1987. Said plans shall be reviewed and sl ne)Yby acoustical engineer
verifying that all recommendations within ~is report have been met.
c. Prtor to the tssuance of butldtng permtts, a fenctng and/or wall plan ·
for perimeter of tract shall be submitted to and approved by the
Planntn Department and Butldtng and Safety Department. Satd plan
shall .~ncorporate acoustical shielding on lots 12, 13, 75 and 76 as
1dentilted tn Revised Acoustical Analysis of Tentative Tract Map
22715 tn Riverside County dated 10-5-87, and shall also have been
revtewed and signed i~y t
acoustical engineer verify ng that
recommendations of report have been met.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and -
Irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall addresj 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
t and constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as
des gned
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
TENTATIVE: TRACr NO. 2~27~5
Cond i ti ons of , ~proval
Page 9
h. Prior to the tssuance of building permits, detailed entry statement
plans shall be su.bmttted for Planning Department, Road Department and
Butldtng and Safety Oepartment approval.
t. Prtor to the tssuance of butldtng permits, a detatled park development
plan, including eqUestrian ira11, shall be submitted to and approved
by the Planning Department for Lot ~*:~;-
· Prtor to' the issuance of building mtts detailed common open space
/~rea landscaping and irrigation p~ns shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development tn process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide
for the fol 1 owtng:
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 'hetght of six (6) feet at mturity.
/3~ M1 uttltty servtce areas and enclosures shall be screened from
;vtew wtth 1 andscapt ng and decorative barri ers or ball1 e
treatments, as approved by the Plannlng Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground-
. Parkways' and landscaped butldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to
'provtde vtsuaq screening or a transition into the prtmar~ use area
of the site. Landscape elements shall ,nclude earth barruing,
tn conjuncti on wl th
ground cover, Shrubs and specimen trees
meandering sldewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where
appropriate as approved by the Planning Department.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Mhere street trees 'cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they '. shal I be pl anted outside of the road
right-of-way ·
~f. Landscaptng plans shall incorporate natlye and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
/~.M1 existing specimen trees and significant rock outcropp~ngs on
the sub;~ect property shall be shown on the project's grading plans
and shall not those to be moved, rel ocated and/or retained.
TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 22, ,5
Cond tions of Approval
Page 10
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
pl ants where appropriate.
8. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shall be shown on the proJect's grading plans
and shall not those to be removed, relocated and/or retained,
tAll trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
10. Landscape and irrigation plans for open space Lot 112 shall
provide detail of 10 foot equestrian trafl along Rancho California
Road.
(Condition 20~ Added at Planning Commission on November 18, 1987.)
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PE!~ITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and
Safety Department, fencing and/or wall shall be constructed according
to a. pproved plan.
b. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If
tt
seasonal cond tons do- not pemtt planting, interim landscaping and
erosion control measures shall he utilized as approved by the Planning
Director and the Director of Building and Safety.
c. Entry statements shall be installed in accordance with approved plans.
d. Street 'lights shall he installed within the subdivision.
The applicant shall compl~y with all conditions of approval as set forth in
Specific Plan 199 as they relate to Tract No. 22715 and the development of
Planning Area 13.
LBL:me
11-4-87
12-10-87
L. Roy O.
eOAO ~ w- I~X[&COUNTY~
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOr*
November 18, 1987
Septsc.Asc ~,
RIverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Ladtes and Gentlemen:
Re: Tract Kip 22715
Scheeule A - Team 1
Amended at Planning Coasntsston November 18, 1987
Wtth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
dtvtston nap, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the
following street improvement plans and/or road dedications tn accoraance w~tn
Ordinance 460 and RIverside County Road Zmprovement Standards (Ordinance 461),
Zt ts understood that the!tentative amp correctly shows acceptable centerline
'profiles, all extsttng easements, traveled ways, and dretnage courses krith
appropriate. O's, and that thetr omtsston or unacceptabtlltymay requtre the amp
to be resubmttted for further consideration, These Ordinances and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring tn ONE ts as btnaing
as though occurrtngtn a11, They are tntended to be complementary and to
descrtbe the conditions for a complete destgn of the Improvement, All questions
regarding the t~je meantrig of the conditions shall be referred to the Road
Com~sstoner's Offtce,
1. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, t,e,, concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate dretnage facilities Including enlarging
extsttng facilities or by securtng a dratnage easement or by
both, All dratnage easements shall be shown on the final amp
and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachments by.land fills are allowed", The
protection shall be as approved by the Road Department,
2. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offstte
dratnage triowing onto or through the s~te, ~n the event the
Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for dratnage
purposes, the provisions of Article XZ of Ordinance No, 460
wtll apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
_.capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for dralnage
purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage
fadlit~es as approved by the Road Department,
'Trac't Nap 22715 *
$el)~embeP-~r-~96~ Novembe~ 3, 1987
Page 2
Amnded at Planning Conmnission 11-18-87
3. NaJor drainage ts tnvolved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as approved by the Road Department.
4. Pancho Vista Road shall be improved within the dedicated right of
way in accordance with County Standard No, 102, (64'/88')
5. Butterfield Stage Road shall be improved within the dedicated right
of my in accordance with County Standard No. 100, (43'/55').
6. "A" Street shall be improve within the dedicated right of way in
accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60').
7. "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F" Streets , shall he improved within the
dedicated right of my in accordance with County Standard No. 105,
Section A. (36'/60').
The westerly boundary of lot 112 shall be improved with 34 feet of
asphalt concrete pavement within a 45 foot port width dedicated
right of w~y in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section
A. (22'/33').
9. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision
in accordance with County Standard No, 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk),
lOe
Rancho California Road shall be improved with concrete curb and
gutter located 43 feet from centerline and match up asphalt
concrete povtng; reconstruction or resurfactng of existing poving
as determined by the Road Commissioner within a 55 foot half width
dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 100.
11. A s~condary access road to the nearest paved road maintained by the
County shall be constructed within the public right of my in
accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B, (32'/60') at a
grade and alignment as approved by the Road Commissioner. This
~s necessary for circulation purposes.
~2~ Prior to the recordatton of the final map, the developer shall
*~/deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of
$150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should
the developer choose to defer the tim of payment, he may enter
into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to
the time of issuance of a building permit.
.. ('
Tract Nap 22715
Sep~embeP-i~-iga~ November 18, 1987
Page 3
Amended at Planning Comission 11-18-87
Zmprovement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile
extending a mtntmum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at
a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road
Commissioner, Completion of road improvements does not imply
acceptance for ma~ntenance by County,
14, Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided tn
accordance wtth Ordinance 461, Standard 817,
5,
Asphalttc emulston (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days. following placement of the asphalt surfacing and
sh&11 be applied at a rate of 0,05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emulsion Shall confom to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the
State Standard Spedftcat~ons,
16. Standard cul-de-sacs and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed
throughout the landdivision.
17, Corner cutbacks tn conformance wtth County Standard No, 805 shall
be shown on the ftnal map and offered for dedication.
18, *Lot access shall be restricted on Rancho California Road, Butter-
field Stage Road and Rancho Vtsta Road and so noted on the ftnal
map,
Landd~vtstons creattn9 cut or ftll sopes adjacent to the streets
shall provtde eroSton control, stght distance control and slope
easements as approved by the Road Department.
The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from ~ncho
Cal(fornta ,tar Dtstrtct prior to the ~cordatton of ~e final
maP, .
The maximum centerline gradtent ~ha11 not exceed 15S.
ZZ, '*The mtntmum centerline radii shall be 300' as approved by the Road
Department,
,,
23, The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall
be 35 feet,
24, All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County
Standards.
· Tract Flap 22715 ,*'
-~-/-r-:lJ>,~- Novemb~.. 18. 1987
Page 4
Xmended at Planning Co.~ntsston 11-18-87
25. The mtnimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face.
of curb.
26. All centerline Intersecttons shall be at 90' wttha mtntmum 50'
tangent measured from flow 1the,
27. The street design and improvement concept of thts project shall be
coordinated kith Plq 22514, TR 22716, PN 22554 and TR 22267,
*28. Street lighting shall be req~tred tn accordance kith Ordinance 460
and 461 throughout the subdivision, The County Servtce Area (CSA)
Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an
extsttng assessment district or not, Zf not, the applicant shall
ftle an application kith LAFCO for annexation tnto or creatton of
a "LIghting Assessment District" tn accordance with Governmental
Code Section 56000,
Ver~ trul~ ~ours,
Gus Hughes
Road Division Engineer
GH:lh
*Added at Planntng Comatsston 11-18-87
NTY C)I: I:IIVEI:ISlC)E- DEPARTMENT OF
ilTI-nm II'll~rr eui..l. Ilql*'r Olrlr#C! ~ II'l'OI- Reveq.alD~, CA. 11141
Augus t 21, 1987
HEALTH
II
Riverside County Planning Commission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
RE; TRACT MAP 22715: Being t portion of the Pauba Land and
Water Company's subdivision of the Temecula Rancho in County
of Riverside, State of California, as per map recorded in
BOok 11, Page 507 Maps, in the office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, Calif.
(112 Lots)
Gentleien:
The Department of P~blic Health has reviewed Tentative Hap
No. 22715 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints or the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale
~ot less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
joint specifications, and the size of the main
at the junction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in
all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of
the California H~alth and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code. Title 22. Chapter 16, and 0eneral
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California,when applicable. The plans shall
be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: 'l certify that the
design of the water system in Tract Map 22715 is in
accordance with the water system expansion plans of the
Rancho California Water District and that the water
service, storage and distribution system will be
adequate to provide water service to such tract- This
certification does not constitute a guarantee that it
will supply water to such tract at any specific
quantities, flows or pressures for
any other purpose".
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
pLANNING D ........
Riverside County Plarming Commission
Page Two
August 21, 1987
This certification shall be signed by a responsible
official of the water company. _TI/_!_R~!_!~I~_~
submitted to ~!_~n/_~_~urv~or's
X!_!~ast two
This Department has a statement from the Rancho California
Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the
subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the
final map..
This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage
system. to be connected to the sewers of the District. The
sewer system shall be installed according to plans. and
specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate,
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications
and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new s~stem
to the existing system. A single plat indicating location
of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be 'signed by a
registered engineer and the sewer district with the
following certification: 'I certify that the design of the
sewer-system in Tract Nap 22715 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Nunicipal Water
District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the ~nticipated wastes from the proposed
tract.~ _T1/_~__~!~ns must be submitted to the Co~X
Surv~yor~s 0~[i~!__~_£~Fiew at least two weeks .~Ei~E to the
E!gg~!_!~£_!b~_~!R~dS~igD_~£_!he final maR.
ncere ,
m Sr SaZ"r~n 'Envi ronme~ta~
ices D~vision
SM:tac
till MARKIL'r rrRe. rr
P. O. BOX 1033
112-13eHC)N2 (7f4) 787-a015
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IRIq~RIIImW-, C&,LIIII}RNIA
Sept. ember 15, 1987
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention:
Regional Team No. 1
Lesley Likins
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Tract 22715
Tract 22715 is a proposal to divide 61.5 acres into 109 lots in
the Temecula Valley area, on the southwest corner of Rancho
California Road and Butterfield Stage Road."
Much of the site is on. hills above Long Canyon Wash· The wash
conveys runoff from the east along the northern tract boundary.
Another watercourse to the ea'st that conveys runoff from.about
145 acres,' approaches the project in the vicinity of Lot 13. The
applicant proposes' to convey Long Canyon Wash in a culvert under
Butterfield Stage Road and in a grass lined channel. The channel
would outlet into a proposed underground drain for Tract 22716.
Drop structures are shown as part of the Channel improvement.
The runoff from the 145 acre watershed would be collected into a
storm drain and discharged. into the grass lined channel. Onsite
storm runoff would be conveyed in the street system to outlet
into the preposed drain of Tract 22716.
Following are the Dtstrict's reco, m, endations:
This tract is located~within the limits of the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have~been adopted by the Board. Drainage
fees shall be paid'as set forth under the provisions of
the 'Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans', amended July 3, 1984= ·
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Co~issioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be-
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording
a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of
the parcel map= or
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Tract 22715
-2-
September 15, 1987
At the option Of the land divider, upon filing a re-
quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment
of fees, the drainage fees shall be paid to the
Building Director at the time of issuance of a grad-
.ing permit or building permit for each approved par-
cel, whichever maybe first obtained after the
recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map~
however,
Drainage fe&s shall be paid to the Road Co~nissioner
as.-ia part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or before receiving a waiver
to record a land division, for each lot within the
land division where construction activity as evi-
denced by one of the following actions has occurred
since May 26, 1981:
(a) A grading permit or building permit has been
obtained.
(b) Grading or structures have been initiated.
2. The grass lined channel and culvert crossing should be
designed to collect the 100 year peak flow bulked 50% for
debris, and convey it safely through the property to an
adequate outIet. The channel should be protected from
erosion at the culvert crossing- Storm flow in the chan-
nel shQuld not reach erosive velocities. If flow veloci-
ties are erosive, then channel side slopes should be pro-
tected. Slope protection should extend an adequate dis-
tance below the fl~w line.
Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism for the grass
line~ channel which should include irrigation, should be
submitted to the District and County for review and ap-
proval prior to record~tion of the final map.
3. At least one maintenance ramp should be provided upstream
and one downstream of each drop structure to afford ac-
cess from a road to the four to one channel slope area.
4. Development of this property should be coordinated with
the development of adjacent properties to ensure that
watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not
diverted from one watershed to another. This may require
the construction of temporary drainage facilities or
offsite construction and grading.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Tract 22715
-3-
Saptember 15, 1987
o
Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented
immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition
of debris onto doWnstream properties or drainage
facilities.
Onsite drainage f&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'.
7. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within
publicly dedicated. drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
recordation of the final map.
8. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism for the under-
ground storm drain!s should be submitted to the District
and.County for review and approval prior to recordation
of the final map.
2e
All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street
or an adequate outlet.
The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the
curb end the 100 year storm flow should be contained
within the street right of way. When either of these
criter'ia are exceeded, additional drainage' facilities
should be installed.
Drainage facilities outletting $ump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows.
Additional e~ergency escape should also be provided.
If the tract is built~in phases, each phase shall be pro-
tected from the i in r00 year tributary storm flows.
A drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of
the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the
District for review prior to the recordation of the final
map.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re= Tract 22715
September 15,. 1987
14. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with detailed supporting hydrologic and hy-
~aulic calculations should be submitted to the District
for review and approval prior to recordation of the final
map. Grading plans sh0uld be approved prior to issuance
of grading permits. A registered engineer must sign,
seal and note his expiration date on plans and calcula-
tions submitted.
Ouestions concerning this matter maybe referre~ to Stuart
McKibbin of this office at 714/787-2333.
Very truly yours,
CC ,'
William Bein, Robert Frost
& Associates
KENN~TH L. EDWARDS
· .I rg,.....]r I
r~,.Civ11 Engineer
SEM:bab
aTl~: 'TEAM
RIVERSIDECOUIVrY f"'
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERA11ON WITH THE
CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
RAY 'HEBRARD
9-l-87
PJannial & EnfineertnI Office
4080 LeamM~ Sereet, ~|e 11
RE: TR 22715 'RIVERSIDE COUNTY
'PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above fetefenced land division,
the Fire Department recon~ends the following fate protection measures be provided
in accordance with Eiverside Count70td~ances and/or recogn~ed fire protection
standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule "A" fix~ protection approved standard fire hydrants (6"x4'x2½"), located
.one at each street intersect/on and spaced'no more than 330 feet apart in any
direction, with no portion o~ any lot fnontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
ainimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water syste~ plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall conform to fare hydrant ..types, location and
spacing, and, the system shall meet the f~t,'e flow reluiraents. Plans shall be
signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with
the following certification: el certify/that the design of the water system is
in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the lttverside County FAre
Department*.
The required w~ter system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and
accepted by the appropriate water agency. prior to any combustibe building
material being placed on an ~ividual lot.
All beildin~s shall be constructed With fire retardant roofing material as
described in Section 3203 of the UniformBuildingCede. Any woodshingles
or shakes shall have a Class mBm rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.'
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Riverside County Fire Depart3aent a cash s~of $400.00per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection flupacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of
payment, be/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring
said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
MICHAEL E. GRAY, Planning Officer
DATE: July 27, 1987
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Duda
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Ft re Protect t on
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
LAFCO Doug Vterre
U.S. Posta] Servtce- Ruth E~ Davidson
RiV =R iDE COUn;,u
LAII in DEP mEn
-AUG 2 ? i987
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMEN~ E C lr I V E D
AUG 2 5 1987
PALOM~. OBSERVATORY
Rancho Caltf. Hater
Southern Caltf.. Edison
Sourherb Caltf. Gas
Gener&3 Telephone
Temecula Chamber of Commerce
Eastern Municipal Water
Regional Hater Quality Control
(hi Palomar '~
Cornmiss1 oner Brasson
:,
,'.
Bd t9
TRACT 22715 - (Tin-l) - E.A. 31847 -
Robert Beth, Willtam Frost & Assoc. -
Rancho California Dlstrtct- Ftrst
Supervtsorfal Dtstrtct- Rancho
California Road between Nargarita Road
and Butterfield Stage Road - R-R Zone -
Schedule A - No Watver- 61.5 acres Into
109 lots - (CONCURRENT CASES CZ 4982 & TR
· .. .........22716)-- Nod 119 - A.P. 923-220-002 & 030
: . ; ,,' -;-,~.o .,-,. ,,.
Please revtew the case descrfbed above, along with the attached case mp, A Land
Dhtston Committee meettng has been tentatively scheduled for September 3, I 87, Zf tt
clears, tt will then go to publlc' hearing,- . '.- 9
Your comments and recommendations are requested prtor to August 20, 1987 tn order that we
my tnclude them tn. the staff report for this particular use.
Should you have any questt6ns regarding thts ttem, please do not hesttate to contact
Lesley Linkins at 787-1363 *
Planner
COIfZNTS:
PLE-a-SE'SkE ATTACKED
DATE: R/P~/R7 SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and tttle
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
Dr. at =ant Dt~ector/Palomar
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICE OF THE DIiECTOI PALOtdAR OISEIVATOIY los-z4
This case is v'J. th:Ln 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory nd is therefore
vithin the zone requirin2 ~he use of Ice-pressure sodium vapor Lamps fo.r
street lightinK, as stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
We request tl~8t the desiWn for other tTpes of outdoor liKhting Chac may be
employed on this property be made consistent with the spirit of the decision
of the Board of Supervisors vhich is intended to mitigate the adverse effects
such facilities have on Zhe astronomical research at Palomar. Beneficial
steps to ~hat end include:
1. Use the minimum xmounC of light needed for the Cask.
Orient end shield liBhe Co prevent. direct upward illundnacion.
Turn o~f lights ac 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in cmrcial
applications, the associated business is aden past that time, in vhtch
case ~he lights should be turned off at closing.
Use lov-pressure sodium; lssps for roadrays, walkeaTs, equipment 7ards,
parking lots, security end other siuilar a~plications. These lights
need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m.
For further information, call (818) 356-A035.
Rober~ J. Brucato
Assistant Director
PASADENA. CALIFORNIA tilES TELEPHONE IIlll Jtc,-403J TELIX 6tl4Zl CALTECH PSD
ATTACHMENT S
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP NO. 26766
DATE: March 3, 1992
IMPROVEMENTS
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
MATERIAL 8; LABOR
SECURITY SECURITY
Streets and Drainaqe $ -0- $ '0-
Water $ -0- $ -O-
Sewer $ -0- $ '0-
TOTAL $ -0- $ -0-
*lldntanence Retention (1~ for one )mar)
t(or r~-~, ff work is ceapleted)
$ -0-
Monument Security
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
Fire Mitigation Fee
RCFC Drainage Fee Due
Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD #9
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
Other Developer Fees
-0-
-0-
400. o0
980.81
150.00
-o-
-o-
Planning Department Fee
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Fee
Quimby Fee
Plan Check Fee
Inspection Fee
Monument Inspection Fee
$
$
$
$
$
$
56.00
4.00
-0-
790.00
-0-
250.00
Total I nspection/Plan Check Fees
Less Fees Paid To Date I Credit)
Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due
$
$
$
1. 100.00
1,100.00
-0-
AF_~AS/AROO5 "'
ITEM 20
APPROV~T.
FCITY ATTORNE~.~
INANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Regulatory and Advanced Warning Signs
PREPARED BY: ~Q/~Brad Buron, Maintenance Supervisor
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize Staff to purchase regulatory and advanced warning signs from
Central City Signs as the lowest responsible bidder.
BACKGROUND:
The 1991/1992 Program of Services for the Public Works Maintenance Services Division
includes the repair and installation of regulatory and advanced warning signs which are
maintained 100% by City crew. The most cost-effective method of obtaining the new signs
is to order in bulk. Attached is a list of. signs needed by Public Works for stock, new
installations, maintenance, and to have necessary signs for special events.
The following details the quotes obtained from three vendors for the purchase of these signs:
Allied Barricade Company
Western Highway Products
Central City Signs
$16,522.49
$15,967.54
$14,705.28
Central City Signs is the lowest of three responsible bidders, therefore Staff recommends that
the City purchase the required signs from Central City Signs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for this project will be funded through Account #001-165-999-42-5244 (Signs).
Attachment: List of Signs
-1- pwO2%egdrpt%92%O414%RegSigns.pur 032692
DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS
SIGN ORD!~
GAGE .080
5
5
5
5
5
6
15
20
8
20
20
10
10
50
20
15
10
10
10
5
4
4
100
50
75
40
6
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
15
5
5
5
100
50
W-1R (left) Revere Curve
W-1R ~(dght) Reverse Curve
W-6R ~dgM.) 46 o Curve
W-r'JR Celt) 46° Curve
W-7AR Side Rood
W-11R (fight) Merge
W-11R (left) Merge
W-17R Stop Ahead
W-31R End
W-31AR Reed Ends
W-32R Dip
W41R Signd Ahead
W-43R Icy
W451t Hone Xing
W-S3R Not+Through Street
W-55R Flooded
W-SSR Dod31e AfTowe
W-57R Single Arrows
SR4R School Speed Limit
W-63R School Xing
W-66R School Xing
W-75R (left) Thin Traffic Merge Left
Type N4
Type N-5
R-1R |3M High Intee.) Stop Signs
R-1AR (4 way) 4 Allway
R-1AR (3 way) 3 wey
R-1AR {Allway)
R2R (60) speed limit
R2R (45) speed andt
R2R (36) speed Bruit
R2R (25) speed emit
R-7 (right) Keep Right
R7AR (dillst)
R16R No Right Turn
R 16AR
R17R No Left Turn
R 17AR
R26R No Parking
R48R Speed Checked by Radar
RIO4AP No Trespassing
W-65~1 'End"
W-65-1 'Begin"
10' Quick Punch Post
Anchoa
pwO2~ag4bpt~92~tO414%Reg14gns.puf 032692
ITEM 2 1
APPROVAl
FC~TY ATTORNEy~i/~
NANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
City Attorney
April 14, 1992
Pulte Home Corp. vs. Riverside County Local Agency Formation
Commission and City of Temecula - Approval of Settlement
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve and authorize the City Attorney to execute the
Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, which would settle the CEQA litigation brought by
Pulte Home Corp. challenging the City's sphere of influence, subject to the approval
of the City Manager and City Attorney as to the final form of the Stipulation.
DISCUSSION:
On October 29, 1991, Pulte filed suit claiming that the approval by LAFCO of the
sphere of influence for the City of Temecula violated the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequently, the City, LAFCO and Pulte entered into
negotiations to settle this dispute. The attached Stipulation and Judgment are the
result of those negotiations.
It has always been the general policy of the City not to annex territory without the
consent of at least the majority of the affected property owners. Consequently, while
the City has always vigorously rejected the allegations of Pulte's suit, particularly their
claim that approval of a sphere of influence requires preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report, the actual request of Pulte that their consent be obtained prior to any
annexation is generally acceptable.
The proposed Judgment would provide as follows:
1. The sphere of influence for the City would be confirmed.
2. The City would agree not to seek annexation of the Pulte property
except with the written consent of Puite. The City would further oppose
any effort to force ian annexation of the Puite property into the City if
initiated by a third party, absent Puite's consent.
3. LAFCO would agree not to approve any annexation of the Pulte property
except with Pulte's consent.
4. Judgment would not apply to any non-residential property sold by Pulte
to an end user. It would also not apply to any condominium project at
least 50% sold and to any individual single family dwelling sold to
individuals.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Settlement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Stipulation for Entry of Judgment
Judgment on Stipulation for Entry of Judgment
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
1
2
3
4. Te~ephonez
PILLSBURY HADISON & SUTRO
ROBERT L. KLOTZ #74650
KATHRYNA. BJORKLUN #125730
650 Town Center Drive
Suite 800
Costa Hesa, CA 92626-1925
(714) 436-6800
5
6
Attorneys for PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF
PULTE HOME CORPORATION
8
9
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
11
12 PULTE HOME CORPORATION, a Michigan )
corporation, )
13 )
Petitioner and Plaintiff, )
14 )
vs. )
is )
· RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY )
16 FORMATION COMMISSION and )
DOES I through 100, inclusive, )
17 )
Respondents and Defendants. )
le )
)
19 CITY OF TEHECULA, )
)
20 Real Party In Interest. )
21 )
No. 214999
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF
22
TO THE HONORABLE COURTz
23
This Stipulation for Entry of Judgment ("Stipulation")
24
is made and entered into on March , 1992, by and among
25
Petitioner/Plaintiff PULTE HOME CORPORATION ("Pulte"),
26
Respondent/Defendant Riverside County Local Agency Formation
27
Commission ("LAFCO"), and Real Party In Interest, City of
28
-1-
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY
2011SS0~z 1
0~/~/9~
I Temecula ('C.ity"), through their respective counsel of
2 record.
3 WHEREAS, on October 29, 1991, Pulte initiated the
4 above-entitled action which alleges causes of action related
5 to the approval by LAFCO of a sphere of influence for the
6 City. Pulte asserts that the adoption by LAFCO of the
7 sphere of influence of the City is invalid and shouldbe set
8 aside in that it was adopted in violation of the California
9 Environmental Quality iAct (Public Resources Code Section
10 21000, e__t seq.). LAFCO and the City disagree with this
11
assertion.
'25
26
27
28
12
· REAS it is the al pol the Ci ~ot to
13 x ~err tory with onset of the
14 er
15 WHEREAS, Pulte has objected, and continues to object,
16 to any annexation of its property without its written
17 consent, because of the potential for premature annexation
18 to disrupt the orderly development of the property and the
19 established mechanisms for financing public facilities
20 required for that development.
22 annex~/on*~ropos do not reflect order1 growth an
23 " t :* ' '
, -
24
WEEREAS, Pulte, ]J~CO, cad the City# and each of them,
now consider it desirable and in their best interests to
compromise and settle the disputes raised by this action,
without any party ~t~ag ~au~t o~
-2- SfZ~]fZOM
2o z ls~, ~
0~/2~/92
1 or in any amount to any other party, in order to avoid the
2 expense, inconvenience, uncertainty 'and distraction of
3 burdensome and protracted litigation.
4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among
5 Pulte, LAFCO, and the City, and each of them, that Judgment
6 may be entered as provided in the Judpment on Stipulation
7 for Entry of Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
8 incorporated herein by this reference.
9 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED by and among Pulte,
10 LAFCO, and the City, and each of them, that findings of
11 fact, conclusions of law, notice of entry of Judgment and
12 right of appeal are waived.
13
14 WIT.r. IAM C. KATZENSTEIN,
County Counsel
15 PETER H. LYONS,
Assistant County Counsel
16 JOE S. RANK,
Deputy County Counsel
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOE S. RANK
Attorneys for the
RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION
PITJ.SBURYMADISON & SUTRO
ROBERT L. KLOTZ
ROBERT L. KLOTZ
Attorneys for PULTE HOME
CORPORATION
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
SCOTT F. FIELD
By=
SCOTT F. FIELD
City Attorney, CITY OF
TEMECULA
20118806sl
03/2~/92
-3-
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY
1
2
3
4
· 5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PIT.T.SBURYMADISON & S~FI~U3
ROBERT L. KLOTZ #74650
KATHRYNA. BJORKLUN 1125730
650 Town Center Drive
Suite 800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
Telephonez (714) 43646800
'*Attorneys for PFEITIONERAND PlaINTIFF
PULTE HOME CORPORATION
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FORT HE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
)
PULTE HOME CORPORATION, a Michigan )
corporation, )
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
vs.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION and
DOES I through 100, inclusive,
Respondents and Defendants.
CITY OF TEMECULA,
Real Party In Interest.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
.)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 214999
JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, it appears to the Court that the parties
hereto have stipulated and consented to the entering of a
stipulated Judgment; and
WHEREAS, the Court has determined that the proposed
resolution of the controversy reflects a good faith effort
by the parties to resolve the disputes among themselves; and
20118808~1
03/2~/92
-1-
JUDGMENT ON' STIPULATION
:
1 WHEREAS, the Cour~ believes that the following Judgment
2 is in the best interests of the parties, and each of them,
3 because it represents a fair,' reasonable and equitable
4 resolution oftheir disputes and, .furthermore, it enables
5 the Cou~c and the par~les to avoid a substantial expenditure
6 of resources were the disputes to befully litigated~
7 NOW, THEREFOREr IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDt ADJUDGEDAND
8 DECREE AS FOLLOWSz
9 1. The Court finds that it has Jurisdiction over the
10 subject matter of and the parties to the above-entitled
11 action. In addition, Jurisdiction is retained by the Court
12 for the purpose of enforcing the te~s and conditions of
13 this Judgment and to make such further determinations as may
14 later be warranted. Nothing herein shall preclude the
15 parties from Jointly stipulating to modify this Judgment.
16 2. The parties to this action include
17 Petitioner/Plaintiff Pulte Home Corporation
18 Respondent/Defendant Riverside County Local Agency Formation
19 Commission ('LAFCO'), and Real Party In Interest City of
20 Temecula
21 3. Pulte is the owner of approximately 510 acres in
22 the vicinity of the City, which property (the
23 described in attached Exhibit No. 1, which is incorporated
24 herein by reference as though fully set forth. Unless
25 otherwise expressly stated, the terms used in this Judgment
26 shall have the same meaning as provided under the Cortese-
27 Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Government
28 Code Section 56000, et seq. As used in this Judgment, the
-2- JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
03/z4/92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
term 'annexation' shall include any annexation and any
reorganization which includes an annexation.
4. The sphere of influence for the City approved by
LAFCO in LAFCO's Resolution No. 87-91 is confirmed.
5. Except withi the express prior written consent of
Pulte, the City shall: not adopt a resolution of application,
or otherwise apply to LAFCO, for approval of any annexation
to the City that includes all or any par~ of the Property.
6. The City shall oppose, beth orally and in writing,
any a~exation proposal made by any other Person or public
agency for annexation:to the City of all or any part of the
Proper~y, unless relieved of this obligation by the express
prior written consent~of Pulte. Such opposition by the City
to any annexation proposal shall include opposition in all
proceedings before LAFCO, opposition as authorized by law if
the City is designated as conducting authority, and
opposition in all proCeedings before any other local agency
which may be designated as conducting authority.
7. Except with the express prior written consent of
Pulte, the City shall not prezone all or any part of the
Property.
8. Except with the express prior Written consent of
Pulte, LAFCO shall not approve any annexation proposal,
whether made by the City or any other person or public
agency,~such proposal includes all or any part of the
Property.
20118808s 1
03/2~/92
-3-
JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
1 9. Paragraphs 5 through 8, inclusive, of this
2 Judgment shall not apply to annexation proposals or
3 prezoning that include only the following:
4 (a) Any portion of the Proper~y that has been
5 sold and is occupied as single-family residences, or
6 (b) Any portion of the Proper~y that has been
7 developed as a residential condominium project, provided
8 that for such a p o ect ~ certificate of occu ap_~y 4~ae been
9 issued for khE £Lk-~ ~""~-'-a within the project and more
10 than fifty percent (50%) of the total units in the project
Cc) any pertion of the property, upon the
11 have been sold. sale .or lease of any non-residential lot or_
office, connnercial or industrial space to a*
12 10. Paragraphs 5 through 8, inclusive, of this
13 Judgment shall remain in effect for - F-'4e'4 e'~ ":~;e. (5)
14 -ymm~o. wh.~h p^,4^a ~h-!~ ~ =hug f~n %h= da~_c =f ~L~f G£
15 tl,l. uuagmen~.
16 11. This Judgment shall bind, and inure to the benefit
17 of, all successors and assigns of the parties to this
18 action, and their respective directors, officers, agents,
19 servants, and employees, and the successors and assigns of
20 each of them, separately and collectively.
21 12. Each party, on behalf of itself and its successors
22 and assigns, has agreed to and hereby shall release and
23 forever discharge each other party (and their officers,
24 directors, employees, agents and representatives ) from any
25 and all claims., demands, controversies, actions, causes of
26 action, obligations, damages and liability of any nature
27 whatsoever, whether at law or in equity, whether known or
28 unknown, which they ever had or now have against the other
*member of the public or -4- JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
~9~te userS. ~'
03/2/,/92
I which arise out of or relate in any way to any of the
2 matters alleged in the above-entitled action. The par~ies
3 expressly waive all rights under Section 1542 of the
4 California Civil Code, which provides as follows~
5 A GENERAL pRT.RaBE ~OE8 NOT EXTEND: TO CLAIHS WHICH
THE CREDITOR DOES TOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN
6 HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE,
WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY
7 AFFECTED HIS SETtleMENT. WITH THE DEBTOR.
8 This mutual release and covenant not to sue shall not apply
9 to such claims, demands!, actions or liability as may arise
10 from a breach by any par~y of the terms of this Judgment.
11 13. The par~ies dSsire to fully compromise, resolve
12 and settle any and all disputes that presently exist between
13 them in accordance withi the provisions of this Judgment.
14 This Judgment reflects the entire integrated agreement among
15 the par~ies pertaining to the matters in dispute and the
16 resolution of those matters, and there are no oral or
17 written representations, understandings~ covenants or
18 agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to
19 herein. The terms and conditions of this Judgment and the
20 actions taken pursuant hereto constitute a compromise of
21 contested matters by the parties, and each of them, and do
22 not represent an admission of liability or responsibility on
23 the par~ of any party.
24 14. By their execution of the preceding stipulation,
25 the signatories of said stipulation have warranted and
26 represented that he or she is authorized to do so and is
27 authorized to thereby b~nd said party to the terms and
28 conditions of this Judgment.
20118808zl
03/2~/92
-5-
JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15. In the event that any party should have to
petition the Court or otherwise .bring further Judicial
proceedings to enforce the terms of this Judgment, or to
assert this Judgment as a defense, the prevailing par~y in
any Such litigation shall be entitled to an award of all
costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys'
fees.
16. Specific performance and other non-monetaryrelief
for violation of any of the obligations imposed by this
Judgment shall be deemed to be appropriate and available
remedies in any proceeding to enforce this Judgment.
17. The parties shall refrain from doing anything
which would render their performance under this Judgment
impossible or impractical. The parties shall cooperate with
each other and act in good faith in implementing the terms
and conditions of this Judgment.
18. If any part of this Judgment is held to be illegal
or unenforceable by a court of competent Jurisdiction, the
remainder of this Judgment shall be given effect to the
fullest extent permitted by..law.
Dated:
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
20118808~1
03/2~/92
-6-
JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
ITEM 22
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEYR~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER'
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 14, 19'92
City Council/City Manager
Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager
UPDATE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT EFFORTS
LOCATION FOR A SCHOOL BUS FACILITY
TO SELECT A
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file report.
DISCUSSION:
Council asked staff to provide a status update on the school district's efforts to select
a site for a permanent school bus maintenance facility and storage yard. At the
meeting of Tuesday, April 7, 1992, the school district considered a proposal to
construct a new bus yard maintenance facility and a high school on a site north of
Winchester Road between Roripaugh and Nicolas Roads. The property encompasses
approximately 55 acres. No specific date for the move to this facility has been
provided, however, school board action concludes negotiations between Bedford
properties and the district.
a:staffrep.bus
ITEM 23
CITY ATTOR~'RO~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO.'
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
A(3ENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
April 14, 1992
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
PREPARED BY:
Debbie Ubnoske
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council continue Change of Zone
No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to May
12, 1992.
ANALYSIS
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vestirtg Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 were previously before
the City Council on October 8, 1991, November 12, 1991, December 10, 1991, January 14,
1992 and March 10, 1992. These items were continued at the applicants' request. The
applicant is once again requesting a continuance to May 12, 1992.
vgw
s~sTAFFeFnsealez.ee 1
~oberr !c't~iz~ , cBrilliara cfT'ost d~ c~ssociates
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS
J.N. 25800
April 3, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Temecula
431'74 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject:
vesting Tenafire Tract No. 25320/annge of
Zone No. 5631 - Bedford Development e, omtnny
Dear Mayor Birdsall and Councilmembers:
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25320 and Change of Zone No. 5631 are scheduled for hearing
before the City Council on April i14, 1992. Inasmuch as additional time is needed for the
City and Bedford Development COmpany to review the recent appraisal and determine the
appropriate course of action, we concur with sis recommendation to continue this item
to the May 12, 1992 meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Kemble
Director of Planning
Temecula Regional Office
CC:
June Greek - City Clerk
Gary Thornhill - Planning Director
Csaba Ko - Bedford Development Company
28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE * SUITE 250 * TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA 92590 * (714) 676-8042 , FAX (714) 676-7240
OFFICES IN IRVINE · CORONA * PALM DESERT * SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO
ITEM
24
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB/ECT:
C1TYOF~
AGENDA i~EPORT
City Cmmcil/City Manager
P~nnnittg DcparUnent
April 14, 1992
Change of Zone No. 13 and Vesting Tentative Tract Ms.n No. 26828, and
considerati__on of tile Riverside County Allport T-stud Use CommiAsion's
RECO~ATION: The Planning DeparUnent Staff recommends that the City Council:
,&DOFF l~e~olu"on No. 5}2- upholding the Planning
Commi~sion's denial of Change of Zone No. 13 and;
s
,&DOFF Resolution No. 92- upholding the Planning
Commi.~ion's denial of Vestillg Tentative Tract Map No.
26828, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report.
BACKGROUND
Change of Zone No. 13 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828, were submitted to the City
of Temecula on March 21, 1991. The Aixport I-~nd Use Commission (A.L.U.C.) denied the
project on July 19, 1991. The project was denied based on the findings in Section No. 21675.1
of the Public Utilities Code, wMch relate to compatibility with the existing nizport facility. The
projects were reviewed by the Planning Commis4ion on October 21, 1991. At that meeting the
projects were tienjed by the Commi.~sion by a vote of 3-2, with Commitloners C'hmiaeff and
Ford dissenting.
The proposed project is a request to change the zoning designation on 35.5 acres from R-R 2*A
(Rural Residential, 2~A acre minin~um lot size) to R-1 (Single Family Residential). In addition,
the applicant proposes a 130 lot single family subdivision. The project is located at the northeast
corner of Rita Way and Seraphim Road.
Planning Commission discussion relative to the proposal' was primarily limited to potential
conflict with the French Valley Airport. However, Commi.~sioner Chiniaeff raised concerns
about the easements required for lots 109-116, 118, 129, and 130. The applicant is required to
secure easements for those lots of Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 from the adjacent tract.
s~arnz~z. cc 1
Those essemems are required bec,nS,~ a= proposed grading win create 2:i dopes which cross
property, project, and City/County I~msaazies (see aUnched). T'nose ensemems would require
the placement of fencing at the tops ~of all slopes in question. By placing ~ slope within the
boundary of individual yards, instead of spliuing them halfway up, maintenance would become
The primary reasons for the Planning Commission' s dmial of the pro~sed project related to the
Airport Land Use Commisksion. Senate Bill 255 establis!~'a mnatls,o~ framework for counties
in the State of California to formulate specific land use policies for airport areas, and to review
those projects within airport influence boundaries. The County has not yet finished its own
plan. In the interim, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission has adopted the State
~ Land Use gfide-Hm-,s which include a two mile radius requirement for project review.
The radius of the influence area only allows residemisl lois with a minimum size of 2~i acres.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 pwposes 7,200 square foot lot sizes and is located 1¼-2
miles from the airport. Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code allows that if the A.L.U.C.
disapproves an application, the City may overrule the A.L.U.C. by a two thirds vote if it makes
fmdings that the proposed aclion is consisl~m with the purposes of the Public Utilities Code
pursuant to A.L.U.C. provisions. As pointed out by the City Attorney, if the City is not the
operator of the aixport, the operator becomes immlme from liability for damages to property or
personal injur~ for the City's decision to proceed with the particular project. The City Council
must make specific fmdings in order to overrule the A.L.U.C. decision. The Planning
Commission upheld [lie findings of the A.L.U.C. Commissioner Ford dissented stating that he
felt the Commission had adequate eVideswe to support findings to recommend project approval
to the City Colaldl. Commissioller Chieia~-ff also dissented, however he stated concerns over
design issues.
On March 16, 1992, the City Council overruled an A.L.U.C. denial for the adjacent project
(Vesting Tentative Tract M_s_p No. 25004, Dix Development). After consideration of the airport
studies completed for that project, the Council determined that the project would not he
adversely impacted by the Airport. ~ore, the Council has required that the property
owner or develq~ notify future homebuyers of the aitpott's proximity.
Subsequent to the Planning CommisSion meeting d October 16, 1991 the applicant submitted
information which is similar in content to that provided by rise adjacent projea. In addition, the
applicant has submitted a sample disclosure statement. The Airport Study which was submitted
makes the determination that airport impacts wffi he negligible.
In the event the City Council decides to approve these projects (Vesting Tentative Tract M_sp
No. 26828, Change of Zone No. 13), the findings made by the P!~nnin~ Commission rehtive
to the A.L.U.C. would need to he reversed. In addition, the City Council's action would need
to include a motion w overrule the Ahpon Land Use Commission decision, adopt the Negative
Declaration which was prepaxed for this project, and direct Staff to propa~ the Change of Zone
Oniinance. Condifious of Approval would need to he added to the project which would require
a disclosure statement he given to potential homebuyers, and conveyance of an avigation
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
4
5.
6.
7.
City Council Resolution No. 92-__, Change of Zone No. 13 - blue page 4
City Council Resolution No. 92-_.,
Vesting Tentative Tmet Map No. 26828 - blue page 8
Conditions of Approval
(Amended by Planning Commition, October 21, 1991) - blue page 14
Planning Commi.qsion minutes from Octo~ 21, 1991 - blue page 28
Planning Commi.~sion Staff Report, October 21, 1991 - blue page 29
Fee Cher. klist - blue page 30
~nce - blue page 32
a. Applicant' s disclosure statement
b. Applicant's agreement to provide disclosure statemeat
c. Airport Study for Vesting Tenta_~ve Tract Map No. 26828
d. Airport Land Use Commition denial letter
Exhibits - blue page 33
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP lVi~p
c. Zoning Map
d. Site Map
e. Aizport Proximity/Noise Contour Map
f. Slope Easement Areas
vgw
S~TAFFRP~!3C~C~ 3
ATrA~ NO. 1
CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION
ATrACHMBNT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_
A RF,~LUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TR~ CITY
OF TDf~2ULA DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 13
CHANGING ~ ZONE FROM R-R-2% TO R-I ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT TR~ NOR'l~iW~qT CORNER
OF R1TA WAY AND SERAPRINA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSE88OR'S PARC~J. NO. 914-260-039, 040, 041, 042, 043,
WHSCSt~'.,~, Dacin Development, Inc. filed Change of Zone No. 13 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City
has adop~ by reference;
WH~:Rg~.S, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
~FAS, the City Council considered said Change of Zone on April 14, 1992, at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
W~, at the conclusion of the Council bearing, the Commiqion recommended
denied of said Change. of Zone;
NOW, TH~Rv-~ORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES
RESOLd, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Fin,fin?~ ~nat the City of Temecuh City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incozpom~ city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months fonowing 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 hw that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, ff all of the
following requirements are met:
1. The city is pwceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
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 pwbability 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 pzol~ of ~al detriment to or
interfexcaitz with the future adopted gtmeral plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately
c. The proposed use or action complied with an other applicable
requirements of state law and local Ordi,m~-es.
B. The Riverside Count3, General Plan, as anaemded by the Southwest Area Community
Phn, (hereinaeer *SWAP*) was ad~ prior to the incmt~,ation of Tonearia as the General
Plan for the southwest portion of Rimaide County, inchding the area now within the bounda~es
of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as :its CJeneral Plan guide-line_~ while the
City is proce~ng in a 6mely fashion with the pxepamtion of its C_,meml Plan.
C. The City Council in denying the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following
findings, to wit:
1. The proposed zone change may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment, as a result of potenti~! future impacts from the French Valley Aixpon.
2. There is a reasonable probability of substantial detriment to, or int~,fc, ndcc
with, the future and adopted C~--nend Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan. The project may be Of significant scope in the context of city-wide and regional
development patterns.
3. The ~ change in distria clauifim~on from R-R-2% to R-1 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 (SWAP) recommendations for the subjea property. Further, densities and
uses prolx3sed are s'tmilar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project.
4. The site of the pwposed change in-distria classification my not be suitable
w accommodate all the land uses curren~y permitted in the proposed zoning district. Possible
land use conflicts may arise as the Ixroject proposes residential uses that are too dense according
m the interim guidelines of the A.L.U.C.
5. Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Rita Way
and Seraphim Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements abutting
proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with City standards.
6. Said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents assochted with this application and herein incoxpomted by reference.
7. The Airpo~ Land Use Commission iS mni~inE substantial progress toward the
completion of the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan.
8. 1'here is a reasonable probability that the project will be inconsistent with the
6
9. There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interfence with the plan,
ff the project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
D. The Change of Zone may not be compatible with the health, safety and welfare of
SECTION 2. ~wironment=! CownVlisnee.
The City Council has determin~ that future impacts relative to the French Valley Airport may
be significant.
SECTION 3. Recomm~qwhtinn.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Zone Change No. 13 to change the
zoning on 35.5 acres of land from R=R-2tA to R-1 on property genenlly located at the northwest
comer of Rim Way and Seraphlnn Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 914-260-039, 040,
041, 042, 043, 044, 045, AND 046.
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shah certify to the passage and adoption of this P, esohtion.
PASSED, D~ AND ADOFlED thi.~ 14th day of April, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDS~II-
MAYOR
I Ff!~RgRy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Temecuh at a zegular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of April, 1992 by the
following vote of the Comml.qsion:
COUNCnA(BMBERS:
NOES:
COUNaLMBMBI~,S:
COUNt:
S~TAItIFRF~I3CZ-CC 7
ATTA~ NO. 2
VESTING TRACT MAP RESO~ON
8
ATFA~ NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEM~CULA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
26828 TO SUBDIVIDE A 3S.S ACRES INTO 130
RESIDENTIAL LOTS. GENERAL LOCATION OF SAm
MAP BEING T!~ NOR'rHw~s~F CORNER OF RITA WAY
AND SERAPFnNA ROAD.
Vi~]EREAS, Dacin Development, Inc. filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828
in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by r~eremce;
W'!~i~.~tS, said Tract Map application was pwcessed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local hw;
WHm"'i~AS, the City Coundl considered said Tract Map on April 14, 1992, at which
time interested persons had an ~ to testify either in ~ or opposition;
NOW, THER!~.V0RE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETER.MINE AND ORDER AS FOI ,I OWS:
SECTION 1. Finding,s. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incozpomed 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 genera]
2. The planning agency fin&, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the foilowing:
a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or smdiod or which will be
smdiod within a reasonable time.
SWrAFFIPT~I3CZ. CC 9
b: Trifle is fittie or no lselmbility of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is xdtlmRtely
inconsisteS with the plan.
c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requimn~ of state law and local
B. ~ Riverside Cooairy Cvealcral Is~sn~ as *wnemtte~ by the Southwest Al*ea Community
Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP*) was ~ prior to the inc~xpozat~n of Tem~als as the General
Plan for the southwest poffion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries
of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its 6eneml Plan guidelines while the
City is ~ng in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tract Map:is conliste~ 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
2. The City Council flags, in ~ projects and taking oler actions,
including the lamarice of bulkling lxl.n;*s, putsmint to this title, each of the following:
a. There is reasonable probab~ity that Vetoing Tentative Tract Map No.
26828 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or
which wffi 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 hw and local Ordinances.
D. Pursuant to Section 7.1: of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
appwved unless the following findings arc made:
1. That the pwposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type
of development.
s~Amu, nxscz, cc 10
4. That the site of the proposed !and division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development.
5. 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
6. That the design of the ~ land division or the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the pwl~sed land division or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for ~s through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division. A land division rosy be approved if it is found that
nlternate 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.
B. The City Council in denying the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map, makes the
following findings, to wit:
1. The ~ Tract Msp my have significant negative impact on the
environment, as a result of potential future impacts from the French Valley Airport.
2. There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will not be consistent with
the General Plan being prepared at this time. The map together with the attendant zone change
request are consistent with applicable subdivision and land use ordinances, and conform with the
City's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) guidelines affecting the subjea ~, however, an
Airport Land Use Plan has not been adopted for the French Valley Aixport, future General Plan
consistency can not be determined.
3. There is 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.
The project is consistent with surrounding development, however it my have the potential to
generate significant adverse environmental impacts.
4. The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning
hws. Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460, California Governmental Code Sections 65000-
66009 (Phnning Zoning Law), and Government Code Title 7, Division 2.
5. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of parcel configurations, ms, and density. The project has access to public rights-
of-way, and is designed with sufficient parcel acreage ailowing appropriate building pad
sighrings.
6. The project as designed and conditioned will adversely affect the built or
natural environment as determined by the City Council relative to the French Valley Airport.
the ptopraty within the ~ project as conditioned. naaement dedic~tlons are not evident
in grant deeds degribhg the pfOFaty~
8. The site for the proposed use is ~ legal s:cess via Rim Way and
8emphina Rind public tights-of-way. Development of these roads shall comply with City
passive solar
alternatives.
9. Ti~ ptolxnexi project will not inhibit or r=strict fumr~ ability to us~ active or
eeeag7 symans. Adoquae lot tree and entpomz~ m provided for the, s~
10. The proposed use will not have a s,blp. ntial adverse affcct on abutting
pt~,tlcs or the permitted use thcacof. The pm~sed map provides for residentinl development
s'mffiar in chatactor and densities evident on vici~ prope, ties. Land use incongnfities and
associated adverse affects arising from implementation of this proposal are unliirely.
11. The Airport Land Use Commission is making substavtinl progress toward the
completion of the French Valley Aixport laud Use Plan.
12. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be inconsistent with the
13. There is a probability of mbmntial detriment to or interf~ with the
plan, ff the project is ultimately inconSi~ent with the plan.
F. As conditioned pursuant W SECTION 3, the Tract Map proposed may not be
compatible with the health, sdety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. ~vironmental Compile. The City Council has determined that future impacts
rehtive to the French Valley Airport my be signif-tom.
SECTION 3. Condifiont That the City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 for the subdivision of a 35.5 acres into 130 residential lots,
generally located at the northwest comer of Rim Way and Seraphina Road.
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.
~,srhn,nnt~z. cc 12
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
I !~':Ri~ay CERTIFY that the for~oin~ Resohtioa wss duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecala st a xt~mlar meetin~ thereof, held on the 14th day of April 14th
by the following vote of the Council:
COUNCr~AfI~,~BRS:
NOES:
COUNCtLMBMBBRS:
COUNt:
~srAm~-nincc 13
ATrA~ NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
swr~kn~pr~t~z. cc 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828
Project Description: Change =of Zone No. 13 and 35.5 acres, 130 lot Residential
Subdivision
ASSBSSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-260-039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, AND 046.
The tentative subdivision shah comply with the State of CAlifornia Subdivision Map Act
and m all the requirements of Ordinsnce 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the
conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in ~ce with the State
Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, ff made 30 days prior to the
expiration date.
m
This conditionally approved ~ve map will expire two years after the approval date,
unless extended as provided by ORfinan~ 460. The expiration date is
3. Any delinquent property taxes shah be paid prior to recotdation of the final map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the Wact map
boundary to a City maintained road.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement
phasing, if applicable, shah be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed
phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to atl lots in each phase, and shall
substnntinlly conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
A copy of the final grading plan shah be submitted to the Planning Depamnent for
review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shaH:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to I 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.
s~r~u~x3cT_cc 15
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
City Development Code. A detailed Innd~C~q~ trod hTigati~ plan, prepared by a
qualified professional, slmll be~ sub. uiUr. d ~o the City tqnnning DeparUnent for ~view and '-
approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
The applicant shall comply with the ~t!VifOnmtml~l henlth fecommeodations outlined in
the County Health Deyktme~'s trnamit, nl dated .aregust 27, 1991, a copy of which is
The applicant shah comply with the fire intprovemeat recommendations outlined in the
County Fire Depamneat's ~ dated August 27, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
All p~ construction shall comply with the California Instittre of Technology,
Palomar Observatory Outdoor T ightlng Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan.
The foBowing no~ shah be placed on the Bavironmental Constraints Sheet: "This
prolxaty is located within thirty (30) miles ofMount Pslomar Observatory. All proposed
outdoor ~ng systems shah comply with the Csllforllia Institute of Technology,
The applicant shah comply with the recommendations oudined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District trnnamil~! dated Febv_:_n_~ g, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Graded but undeveloped land shah be msln~ined in a weed-free condition and
shall be either planted with interim iandsc4ping or provided with other erosion
control measures as approved by the Director of P-.ilding and Safety.
The d~weloper shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped
areas and irrigation systems Until such time as those operations ate the responsibilities
of other parties as approved by the Planning Director and the Temecula Community
Prior to recordadon of the final map, an Bnvironmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall
be prclNtted in conjunction with the final map to delineate ideatified environmental
concerns and shall be pennnnendy filed with the office of the City Bngineer. A copy of
the BCS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The
approved BCS shah be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning
Depamnemt and the Dqmmnont of Building and Safety.
s~m~zcc 16
15. ~ne following notes shall be placed on the Bnvinmmeml Constnim Sheet:
"This pmlnty 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.
This prop~ty is located within a two (2) mile rodins of the French Valley
Airport. Interior noise levels shall be kept at a level below 45 dB by the use of
proper procedures as recommended in an acoustical engineering study completed
for this project.
16. Prior to the issjnt~c~ of GI~ A nTNC- PF~kfrl'S the following conditions shall be satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of gradin~ perufits tietailed cornmoll open space area
landscaping and irrigation plans shall be sub~ for Planning Department
approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shsll be certified
by a landscape architect, and shall provkle for the following:
(~)
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shah be installed on all landscaped
areas requiring irrigation.
(2)
T ~ndsc'Ape screel~llg where Bx[ui/ed shall be designed to be opaque up to
a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
(3)
All utility service areas and enclosures shah be screened from view with
landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as appwved by
the Planning Director. Utilities shah be placed underground.
Parkways shall be lsnd~ to provide vii screening or a transition
into the primary use area of the site. t ~n,Jsc~ne elements shall include
earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards
(5)
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Wooden
fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the projea. All lots with
slopes leading don from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall
for maintenance access.
~ ~ndsc~ping 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 wad fight-of-way, they shah be
planted outside of the road right-of-way.
(s)
Landscaping plans shah incorporate native and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate.
sx,vr~a.n~.~cc 17
0o)
· OD
(m)
AII kndicApiM areas p~opos~ for mVlnttm~n~e by the T.C.S.D., slmll be
reviewed and approved by the T.C.S.D.
AH trees shall be minimum double ruled. Weaker and/or slow growing
· Any oak trees wmoved with four (4) inches or larger trunk dinmeters 8hall
be replaoed on a Um (10) to one (1) buis ~s aignxwed by the Pisnning
DLrector. Regiscement tress shall be ~ on approved l~ndscaping
plans.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an
overan conceptual grading plan alan be submitted to the Planning Director
for approval. The phn shall be used as a guideline for subsequent
detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall
include ~he following:
Techniques which will be u~Hz~ to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Appro~dmate time frames for grading and ide~on of areas
which may be graded during the higher probabtty rain months of
January ttmmgh March.
(d) Anmseftemporarygradingmasideofapaniadarphase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded mmral terrain and exceeding
ten (10) feet in vercical height shah be contour-graded ~coxporating the
following grading techniques:
(a) The angle d the graded' sl~ shaU be graduaUy adjusted to me
angle of the natural terrain.
An~ular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
~he natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii
designed in lhopoa~on to the total height of the slopes where
drainage and stabjUry permit such rounding.
Wherer cut or fill slopes ~ 300 feet in horizontal length, the
borizomal conto..ws of the slope Slmll be curved in a continuous,
undulating fashion.
S~TAFI~FI~LSC~CC
18
(14)
Prior to the is-pnu~e of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site
mnmlfqdtJ!ld ~ have recorded idope eajeglellts ~ that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Building And Safety.
Prior to the ism, o-ce of a grading pe~m~, the applicant shah comply with the
provisions of Or~nn,~e No. 663 by paying the appropdate fee set forth in that
ordinance. Should Ordln~n,-e 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 implememed by County O~insnCe Or resolution.
17.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qtmlified paleontologist shah be retained by
the developer for consultation And comment on the ~ 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 represem__n_.ve shall have the authority to temlxmtrily divert, xedirect or halt grading
activity to allow recovery of fossils.
18. Prior to the issuance of BUTt-nING 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-imemst provides
evidence of compliance with public facility fnmnci~g measures. A cash sum of
one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shtl be deposited with the City as
mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Buikting and Safety
an acou~ study shah be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish
appropriate mitigation measures that shah 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 shah incorporate, all required elements
from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County
Fire Manhal.
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 pentfitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shah
be permitted with Planning Depamnent approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shah not be less
than ten (10) feet.
19
~__/-/
19..
20.
21.
22.
O. All street side yard sSC[~,*~ shall be m minlm,,m of ten (10) feet.
Prior to the isstance of ~,ANCY pm~ the following conditions shall be
All isndscaping and irrigation shall be insts!led in aw. onlan~ with approved plans
prior to tim iss,,swe of om~n{~ !~,c-.,,;Is. If ssmnml cos4itinns do not permit
p]lmtillg, i!~ b~~g al~ elDsiofl c~xl~ol ~ shall be utiH7ecl as
approved by ths Plnmplng Director and tim ~ of n~,ildlng and Safety. All
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans
and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not with.~-n(ilng tile piece(ling conditions, whel~er an acoustical study is
required for noise sttWnatlon purposes, the 'heights of all required walls shall be
determined by the acoustical study where applicable.
Or&nsnce No. 460.93 (Quimby) by paying IN ~ to the City of Temeada, TCSD
the fair market value of 1.683 acres of land, as determined by the TCSD plus 20% for
The subdivider shall defend~ inde~nnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officer, and employees from any chim, action, or ~iag against the City of
Temecula or its agere, officer, or employs to !attach, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the Cit~ of Temea, ts, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Tentative Vesting Tract Map No. 26828, which action is brought within the
time period pwvided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City
of Temecula will pmm~y notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecuh and will ~ fully in the defense. If the City fails to
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecuh.
The develeper 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
improv~ puramt to 6overnment Code Section 66462 at such time as the City
acquires the propc, ty imexests 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 pml2ny
interests required in conneaion 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 obtainod
by the developer, at the developer' s cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the
City prior to COmme!lCement of the appraisal.
s~r~m~arntsc~cc 20
23.
24.
25.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided for underground, with easemeats provided u required,
and designed and constructed in accoRhlze with City Codes and the utifity prorider.
Telephone, cable TV, and/or gcm'ity systems shall be pre-~ in the residence.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shah
deliver to the p!snnlnS ~ a cashien 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 Tho~and, Two Hundred, Fifi~ Dollars ($1,250.00)
fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Seaion 711.4(d)(2)
plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file
the Notice of Detemfina~on 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 shah be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
26.
Veging Tevt_s_tive Tract Map No. 26828 shall not be approvod until such time as Change
of Zone No. 13 has been adopted by the City of Temecuh.
27.
Prior to l~-Ol~nATION of the FINAL MAP, the applicant shall ~fisfy all fee
requirements of the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
BU~,DING AND SAFETY DEPARTM~'NT
28. Prior to final map approval, obtain street name clearance from Building and Safety.
DEPAR~ OF PUBHC WORK~
The following are the Depamnent of Public Works Conditions of ~ for this projea, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions ~mxling the true
meaning of the conditions shall be x~ferred to the approlnhte staff person d the ~ent of
Public Works.
It is understood that the Develop~ has correc~y shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, waveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the pwject to
be resubmitted for further review.
PRIOR TO P,I~ORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
29.
As deemed necessary by the Depamnent of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the foliowing agencies:
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
swrAmu,msa.cc 21
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
CATV FranchiSe;
Temeclda Unified School District.
All road ~ and/or sU'ect dedi,'~Hons slmH be offered for dedication to the public
and shall continue in force. unt~ the City accqas or abandons such offers. All
dedi~tions shah be ~ fn:mi all cocumtmmces as appmved by the :l:)epamnent of Public
Wo~..s.
Streets "A", "B" , "C" , "D" and "F" shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete
pavemeat, or bonds for the Street improvements my be posted, within the de~ticat~
right-of-way in accordance with County Standanl No. 104, Section A ((~:)'/,10').
Streets "G", "H", "I' and ,J" shall be improved with 36 feet of .~hait concrete
pavement, or bends for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated
right-of-way in accmdan~ with County Standard No. 105, Section A (60'/36').
Rim Way shall be improved with 20 fcct of half street improvement plus one 8 foot lane,
or bends for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way
in acconiance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40'). These improvements
shah be coonlinated with Tract Map No. 25004 as directed by the Dcpaxtment of Public
Joseph Road shall be improved with 28 feet of asphalt concrete pavement from Nicolas
Road to Rita Way, or bends for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40').
These improvements shall be at ultimate grade and shall be coordinated with adjacent
projects as direc~ by the Department of Public Works. If secondary access can be
provided through Tract No. 23143 from Joseph Road, those improvements through Santa
Gcmudis Crock to Nicolas ROad my be deleted by the Dcpamnm of Public Works.
Seraphina Road shah be improved with 20 feet of half street iniprovement plus one 8 foot
lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 60 foot dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with county Standard No. 104, Section A (60'/40'). These
improvements shall be coordinated with adjacent projects as directed by the Depamnent
of Public Works.
In the event that Willows Avenue is not constructed from Street "A" to North General
Kenmy Road prior to the final map recordation, the deve~ shall constma or bend
for the improvements to provide for full street improvements per Riverside County
Sumdard No. 103 (66'/44'). The improvements shah be constructed prior to occupancy.
37.
38.
39.
42.
43.
Joseph Road north of Rim Way shall be vscStd as directed by the City !~ineer.
Proces~g slsn be per the requiremeats of a full Seaoral vatsion as mluired by
Riverside County Ordinance and Seaion 8300 of the California Streets and Highways
Code. Prior to vacating ~oseph Road, alternate access to the existing s~hool and park
site shall be provided.
In the event road or off-aite right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions,
such easements shall be olXahr~ by the developer;, or, in the eveat the City is required
to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map A~t, the
developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement
at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be
at no cost to the City.
Vehicular access shall be restrict~ on Rita Way and Seraphina Road and so noted on the
final map with the exception of public street intersections as approved by the Department
of Public Works.
Comer property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
Easemems, whim required for roadway dopes along arterial ~, lnnd~ easements,
drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shs11 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 constma or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guarameeing the construction of the following public improvements in confonnance with
applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: paveme~, curb and gutter,
medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other
traffic control devices as appropriate..
C. Landscaping (street and parks).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. All trails, as required by the City's Ms-~er Plans.
F. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of _this project shall be coordinated with
adjoining developments.
swrmlscz.cc 23
the re~ of Olxllnnnce No. 461 and as apptoved by the Deparunent of Public
Works.
Prior to tecordation of the final map, the developer shah deposit with the Department of
Public Wo~ns a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards trt/~c signal
imlscc~s. Should the ~ choose m defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigsfion fee, he may enter .into a written agmmunlt with the City deferring said
payment to the ~me of ismanc~ of a buildin__g permit.
Th~ minitnU!ll (~f~ ~ shall b~ 300 feet or as atVn~ed by the Department of
Public Works.
48.
All street cente~i~ intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
~ent of Public Works.
Impwvement plans sixnil be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300
feet beyond th~ project botmda~s at a gra~ and alignment as appmved by the
Department of Public Works.
50. A minimum centedine street grade shall be 0.50
51.
AH driveways shall conform te the applicable County of Riverside mandards and shah
be shown on the street impmvement phns in Ex:ozdan~ witb County Smndard 400 and
401 (curb sidewalk).
52. AH driveways shah be located a minimum of two (2) feet frtm~ the property line.
53.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprebemive grading plan to the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in the~ 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.
55.
56.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public
Works. The r~port shah address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
A drainage study shah be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
57.
On-site drainage fac'tliti~s, located outside of road right-of-way, shah 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 !mikiings and obstructions."
S~,qTAPFRPT~I3CZ. CC 24
58.
59.
The subdivider shall protect downstream pfolx, ties from clamages caused by alteration
of the dmimge paUexm; i.e., coocentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by con~xmieg adequate drainage '~, including enlarging existing
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 PER_MIT$:
61.
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.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City~ road right-of-way.
All lot drainage shah be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any
other lot.
A flood mitigMion charge shall be paid. The charge shah 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 BI.m'-r~ING PERMIT:
A precise gr~_ding plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a re$istemt Civil Eagineer for
location and elevation, and the Soil ~-ngineer shall issue a Final Soils Report ackiressing
compaction and site conditions.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accoxdance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be
Developer shall pay any capital fee for mad improvements and public facilitim imposed
upon the propc, ty or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declareion for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the mount 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
Agreement my requite the payment of fees in excess of those now earlranted (n~uming
benefit to the pmject in the amount of mch fees). By execution of this Agfeement,
dev~ win waive any right ~o protest the provisions of ~ Condition, of this
developer is not waiving its right to protest the rcasonablcncss of any tmf~ impact fcc,
and the mount ~f.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIHCATBS OF OCCUPANCY:
68,
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive appto, ctes, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public mem. :
adequately. Trg~conU'olp~~bcprovidedudircacd
by the Depa~ment of Pubtic Works, and may be required to be prepared by a registered
Civil ~,~gine6.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days fortowing placement
die asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at amte of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emulsion shall codcam to Section Not 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard
Specifications.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINF-RRING
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
71.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for general local streets or larger and shall be
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engheefing for the
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
73.
A constmeeon area traffic control plan shah be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and ~ by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption
to tntffic cizculation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PI~,MIT$:
s~m.~:~z.cc 26
As warranted, traffic sipls shall be in~l~!1ed and operalj~ for the intersections of
MurrieU Hot Sprinlgs Road at Willows Avenue and Murriet~ Hot Sprinlgs Road at Town
View Avenue. If warrants have been met prior to occupancy of the subdivision, as
determined by the County of Riverside Transporr3~on Department, occupancy shall be
permitted with installation of said signals and as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
S~'TAPFRF~I3CZ. CC :27
ATTA~ NO. 4
PLANNING COMMI-~SION MINtrrES
FROM OCTOBER 21, 1991
s~r~m~2~:7~c 28
\.
OCTOn~ 2~, 199¶
C~MXBBION~FORDmoved to continue Parcel Hap 254 for
two weeks to look at the cut area on the vester ;lope
.edge where the existing chaparral is and the
applicant stake the upper boundaries of the tra for the
Commissions review. The applicant with the
2OMMISSIONEaFAWaY seconded the on.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey,
Hoagland
: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
I COMMISSIONERS: iniaeff
COMMIBBION2R
returned to his seat
C~AIRMAN NOAGLa.ND
action on the foil
two items together.
14, EXTENSION OF
22761
14.1 Proposal for s
residential
west side of Yne
of Time for a 50 lot
E6.7 acres. Located on the
of Pierce Lane.
EXTENSION OF TIME
NO. 22762
lS.1 Proposal for
residential
side of
ision
Road,
.on of Time for a 80 lot
acres. Located on the west
of Ynez Road.
opened the
ic hearing at 9:20 P.M.
D~NNY 43180
the applicant, stat,
proce of completing the eros:
con( with the recommendation
Drive, Temecula,
they were in the
control plan and
:ontinuance.
BlaIR moved to Continue
Tentative Tract No. 22761 and
~762 and continue the public hearing
L991, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIA~FF.
Lsion of Time
ve Tract No.
November 4,
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair,
Ford, Ch
Hoagland
None
16. VESTING TENTATIV~ TRACT NO. 26828/C~ANGE OF lONE NO. 13
16.1 Proposal to change zone from R-R to R-1 and a proposal to
ItC'IV410~i~I
-14 - s~t'asx
3tI.jt..tl!Ill 4DOla(TBITC3M
subdivide 35.!5 acres into 130 residential lots. Located
at the northwest corner of Rite way and Seraphina Road.
.liXlX IlO/kDF~!prasented the' staff report.
COIfalllO!r~!Flk!l/r stated that the lest page of the
Planning recommends no more than three
dwelling .~its per acre and ~e ~xim~ st~ctural
coverage of ~he area to ~ less ~an 20t in the traffic
pattern areas. Xl~ough this'tam. was not prepared for
this project, but was prepared for the adjacent project,
this project!is proposed at higher densities.
I~tRX II!O~DBB stated that the lot sizes were the same on
the adJacenttract~ however, there was a large easement
on the adjacent project.
CON!aBBION~iFOID questioned if there was an aviation
easement reqUirement.
MMtI R~OXDBS advised that there was not a requirement;
however, staff had received a letter from the A.L.U.C.
requesting one.
CO~XZBBZON~ F/k~mY questioned council on the City's
liability in!overruling the A.L.U.C.
3OBNC~VM~UG~iadvisedthatthe Citywould not assume the
liability~ hOwever, it relieves the operator of the
liability. Nr. Cavanaugh added that whatever the
recommendation is to the City Council on this matter, the
provisions of the Public Utilities Cede requires that if
it is the decision of the City Council to override the
recommendation by the AirpOrt Land Use Commission, it
must make specific.findings that the particular project
falls in line with purposes and intent of state law,'
saying that there is not a noise problem, air safety
problem, etc.
CIIXlRXXNNOAGLXIFDopened the public hearing at 9:30 P.N.
DON LO~R, Lohr & Associates, 43515 Ridge Park Drive,
Tamecula, expressed concurrence with the staff rapoat and
requested that condition No. 75 be deleted. Mr. Lohr
stated that they would participating in signal mitigation
through the form of fees paid.
ROBERT RIGNETTZ advised that the City's policy on signal
,F. id]kl.~!.]14 rwtlQiTBBTON MTIIUTRI
mitigation fees is that the fees are being used on
signals of regional impact. The rest are developer
driven. In the case of the signals associated with Tract
23145, adjacent to this Tract, these two signals will be
paid for by the developer. ltr. Righetti added that if
these two signals had fallen within the City' s
boundaries, staff would have conditioned the applicant to
participate in these signals through a reimbursement
agreement. Staff has tied the occupancy of this Tract to
those signal warrants; however, if the signals are not
warranted, staff has no objection to giving occupancy.
CO~)IIBBION~R FORD questioned if the applicant would be
opposed to providing permanent irrigation to the slopes
behind the homes which are to be homeowner maintained.
DON LOKR stated that they would not be opposed to
irrigating these slopes. NI~RK IIIOADES added that the
applicant was conditioned to irrigate these slopes.
COIOIIBBZONBR C~IZNDLF~F stated that he met with Nr. Lohr
prior to the meeting to review the proposal and at the
time discussed the lots with the large slopes. He
offered that the applicant has the ability to adjust the
top of the slope to the property line by taking out two
lots on each side of "C" Street as an alternative.
DON LO~R indicated that the applicant does not feel that
· this is necessary and the easements will be a reasonable
solution.
CONXIBBION~ FORD questioned if the applicant would be
willing to install the interior fencing. The applicant
responded thattheyunderstoodthey would be responsible
for that fencing.
CONNZSSZON~R FORD stated that he would like to see 15
gallon to 24" box trees.
DON LOBI stated they would be viiling to amend the
condition to read "as approved by staff".
CONMZSBIO)r2~ C!!INII~FF asked if the applicant was
proposing to put a fence at the top of slopes 91 through
98, as yell as along Serafina and questioned who will
maintain the down slopes along the retaining wall.
DAVID LOCII, Lohr Associates, stated that what was
proposed was that the wall would be at the top.of the
K:MNI0/21;91 - -- :Z 6 - 1(F23~91
~ pM,iladlTjSl.0] ]i.],.ul;~ll lv~.mlrit 9.1. lggl
.slopes and would be maintained by the TCSD.
eAR! lING stated that he was not aware that this was the
intent of the Condition that the TCSD maintain the slope
area. At this time there has been no discussion of
turning those slopes over to the TCSD; however, if that
is the intent, they must go through the norma 1
application process.
MaRl P~OaDF~ Stated that the Condition reads that the
developer is responsible for the upkeep of the slopes
until such time as the TCSD would take over the
maintenance.
eOMHZSIXO~ C~XFIa~FF stated that with no Homeowner rs
Association, there has to be a way of maintaining these
slopes.
DON L0n stated that they hope the TCSD would take over
the maintenance of these slopes and would proceed with
making application.
COMMISIXO~aHFZ stated that the real issues were the
conditions and findings.
DON LC~R advised the Commission that the land use has
already been established in this area. The project is
not located in. the flightpath of the main runway and the
project is barely in the 2 mile radius. He added that
the sound study showed that the project is not affected
by the sound Of the airport.
COMMISSX0~a FO~D stated
Attorney to review the
mitigation.
that he asked staff and City
requirement for school fee
DON LOBI agreed to bring the' School Fee up to building
permit stage.
~OBNCaVXNXUGladvised that if the recommendation is for
approval, staff will re-write Conditions 27 and 29 and
advise as to what position the City will take.
NaRI BHOXDBS advised of the following modifications to
the Conditions of Approval: deletion of Condition 10;
Condition I6(A), No. 5, add 'All properties adjacent to
public right-of-ways; and Condition No. 14(A) the
developer shall acquire easements for the placement of
top of slope fencing for Lots 109 through 116 and 118,
-17- taT..~t
.~Tdd~2IMTH6 OO)fi4TBBTON MTIII2TwB OQTO9!tep. 91, 1991'
129, and 130.
mOBZRT mIGI~TTZ advised that after discussion, staff
feels that Condition 75 should remain as written.
CONNIBBZQI~RCSilNII~FF stated that he was concerned with
recommendation by the Airport Land Use Commission;
however, this is the only land that does not have houses
approved on it in that area.
COM~lSaXO!r~-lFORDstatedthat the Commission will have to
make those findings that are 9oin9 to approve this tract
which is that the Commission has reviewed the sound study
that shows that the noise levels are not detrimental; the
densities are complimentary to other areas that fall
within the Jurisdiction and that there are housing
developments closer to the airport that are already
built.
CONXlBBIONE~ FA~BY stated that she felt the Commission
did not need to compound the problems that already exist
and that the Commission does not have the data to
override the decision by the Airport Land Use Commission.
COl2(lSSXOl~RFkl[Z~moved to close the public hearing at
10:10 P.M. and recommend Dents1 of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting TentativeTract Map No. 26828 and
Change of Zone No. 13 and recommend nenial of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 and Change of Zone No. 13
based on the recommendation by'the Airport Land Use
Commission, seconded by CONI(IBSlONBR BI~IR.
CO!~(iBBION~RC~ZNI~FF stated that he has concerns about
the design of the tract and landscaping of.the parkways;
however, he was not sure he felt that the proposal should
be denied.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Hoagland
NOES: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Chintaeff, Ford
PCMNIOt21~91
-18-
!~7J~91
ATrA~ NO. S
~G COMI~$IO N STAFF I~0RT
FROM OCIY)BER 21, 1991
s~rA~.a~lx~cc 29
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 21, 1991
Case No.: Change of Zone No. 13 (CZ 13) and
Tentative Vesting Tract Map No. 26828 (V'TM 26828)
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Planning Commission:
RECOMMFND ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
26828 and Change of Zone No. 13;
Rr-COMM;ND that the City Council over rule the Airport
Land Usa Commission denial of Change of Zone No. 13
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828.
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 13 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 based
on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Dacin Development, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Lohr and Associates, R.C.I.
PROPOSAL:
Change of Zone from R-R 2½ to R-1 and a 130 lot
residential subdivision on 35.5 acres.
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Rita Way and Seraphina Road
EXISTING ZONING:
Rural Residential, 2 ½ acre lot size minimum
STAFFRPT%13.CZ
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP (Specific Plan)
R-R2½ (Rural Residential 2 ½ acre lot size
minimum)
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
SP (Specific Plan)
(Single Family Residential)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Number of Acres: 35.5
Numer of Unite: 130
Minimum Proposed Parcel Lot Size:
Proposed Density: 3.6 D.U./acre
Minimum Permitted Lot Size:
7,200 square
feet
7,200 square
feet
BACKGROUND
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 and Change of Zone No. 13 were submitted on
March 21, 1991. The proposed Change of Zone and Tentative Map were presented to the
Development Review Committee at'meetings held on April 1 lth and August 29th of 1991.
The proposed subdivision was reviewed by Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
on July 24, 1991.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Change of Zone No. 13
The proposed Change of Zone is an application to change the zone on 35.5 gross acres of
land. The current zoning is R-R 2½ (Rural Residential-2½ acre minimum lot size) end the
project proposes R-1 (Single-Family Residential). The current Southwest Area Plan designation
for the proposed site is Residential, 2-4 dwelling units per acre.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828
The proposed subdivision is an application to create 130 single family lots on 35.5 acres. The
project is located at the northwest Corner of Rite Way and Seraphins Road. The project is
bounded on the north, east, and west by approved residential projects. To the south is vacant
land located in flood plain ares.
STAFFIFT%13.CZ 2
ANALYSIS
Area Coml~tibllity
The proposed project is surrounded on three sides by higher density zoning and approved
single family projects. The area to the north and west is the Silver Hawk specific plan
approved by Riverside County, The tram immediately adjacent to this project site exhibit lot
sizes which have areas as small as 4,500 square feet. The R-1 tract to the east was recently
approved by the City of Temecula with 7,200 square foot lot sizes. Southerly of the proposed
project site is vacant land which is zoned R-R 2 ½, and located in a designated flood zone.
The current Change of Zone and Tentative Map propose R-1 zoning and minimum lot sizes of
7,200 square feet, The project is consistent with the current pattern of area development.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The design guidelines for the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map provide descriptions
relative to fencing, walls, lot layout and landscaping in accordance with the requirements of
Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460. The architectural theme of the project is California ranch style,
with wood frame and stucco construction. All trees within the project will be required to be
a minimum of 15 gallons in size.
The front yards of all proposed units will contain landscaping and irrigation prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits. All cut and fill slopes with a ratio of 2:1 are required to be
planted and irrigated, The design guidelines propose the use of smooth and split face
concrete block. All walls adjacent to public rights of way will to be decorative block.
SITE LAYOUT
The proposed site is located in an area of gently rolling terrain with slopes that trend in a
south-southwest direction. The proposed site deign generally corresponds to the existing
topography of the site. Approximately 380,000 cubic yards of earth (balanced cut and fill)
will be moved on site to permit lot development. All of the proposed lots exhibit building pads
which provide for maximum useable area. The majority of proposed lots have slopes which
are less that 2½ feet in height. All internal slopes will be maintained by individual
homeowners. No homeowners association is proposed. The project is adjacent to an existing
elementary school, and the map provides for access to the school through the tract boundary.
CIRCULATION
The proposed project will take access from Willows Avenue, Rite Way and Seraphina Road.
Ultimately traffic will flow onto Nicolas Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road when it is
improved under Assessment District No. 161.
The interior streets of the proposed site trend in an east/west and north/south pattern. Cul-
de-sac streets are utilized to reduce traffic flows. The applicant has proposed a 10 foot wide
improved path way between the cul-de-sac bulb of street "B", and the adjacent school site.
This path will provide access for children travelling between the proposed subdivision and the
school site.
· r~wm~s.cz 3
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
Senate Bill 255 established a mandatory framework for counties in the State of California to
formulate specific land use policies for airport areas, and review of those projects within
airport influence ,boundaries. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission has adopted
the State Airport Land Use guidelines which include a two mile radius requirement for project
review. The radius of the influence area only allows residential lots with a minimum size of
2 ½ acres., Vesting Tentative Tract Map. No. 26828 propose 7,200 square foot lot sizes. The
Riverside County A.L.U.C. denied the project on July 18, 1991 based on S.B. 255 and the
findings required for that action. Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code allows that if the
A. LU.C. disapproves an application, the City may overrule the A.L.U.C. by a two thirds vote
if it makes findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of the Public
Utilities Code pursuant to A.L.U.C. provisions. As pointed out by the City Attorney
(attachment No. 5), if the City is not the operator of the airport, the operator becomes
immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury for the City's decision to
proceed with the particular project. The City Council must make specific findings in order to
overrule the A,L.U.C. decision. In overruling the decision of the Airport Land Use
Commission, the City assumes the :liability for damages relative to the tract.
As a result of the A.L.U.C. recommendation for this project and the approved tentative map
adjacent, a noise study was conducted (attachment No. 6) to examine the potential impact
of airport noise. The study has shown that the proposed project is located well outside of the
65 Community Noise Equivalent Value Area (C.N.E.L) which the County of Riverside and the
State of California Division of Aeronautics use as a standard for minimum outside noise levels
in a residential area. The outside. C.N.E.L. range for the project is 50-54 dB. Standard
residential construction techniques will reduce the noise levels well below the Environmental
Protection Agency standard of 45 dB for interior noise levels. The project is not located
within a clear zone or an approach safety zone of the French Valley Airport.
Based on the findings and data contained in the noise study completed by J.J. Van Houten
and Associates on May 30, 1991, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will not
be adversely impacted by the French Valley Airport.
ZONING
The current zoning for the proposed project is R-R 2½ (Rural Residential 2 ½ acre lot size
minimum). The proposed zoning is R-l, which allows 7,200 square foot lot sizes. Zoning to
the north and west of the site is currently zoned for high density single family residential
under Specific Ran 213. East of the project site is R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning.
South of the project site is existing R-R 2 ½ zoning.
Based on the surrounding zoning, Change of Zone No. 13 is a logical extension of the R-1
zoning to the east. Approval of the proposed zoning will provide a buffer between the higher
density specific plan to the north and lower density zoning to the south.
SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN
The current SWAP designation for the proposed project is 2-4 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed density of 3.6 units per acre is consistent with that designation. The designation
to the north and west is specific plan, and the designation to the south and west is 2-4
dwelling units per acre.
The proposed project is likely to be consistent with the City's Future Adopted General Plan
because of the intensity of approved area development.
ENVIRONMENTAL
An Initial Study completed for the project identified potential impacts relative to wildlife, noise,
circulation, and public services.
Although the project area is located within potential habitat area, biological report completed
on July 15, 1991, identified no individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat on site. However,
the project is within the habitat conservation fee area and is conditioned for the payment of
fees pursuant to Ordinance No. 663.
The noise study for this project is discussed in this report under the sention titled "Airport
Land Use Commission". The potential for noise impact is insignificant. Potential impacts for
circulation have been identified and mitigated relative to the traffic study completed for this
project. The engineering department has reviewed and accepted said traffic study. Potential
public services impacts will be mitigated by the payment of appropriate fees and through the
conditions of approval.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Change of Zone No. 13 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 are consistent in size,
scale, and design with adjacent and area development approvals. The proposed project is
consistent with the SWAP which the City has adopted as a policy guideline. The zoning
request is consistent with area development. -.
Given the ultimate runway length and approach zones for the French Valley Airport and the
noise contours associated with that lengl~h, the proposed Change of Zone and tentative
subdivision will not have an impact on the regular operation of said airport nor will the airport
have a substantial impact on the proposed subdivision. All other potential environmental
impacts have been mitigated to a level of nonsignificance.
FINDINGS
Change of Zone No. 13
The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the initial study performed for this project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
STAFF!!m~S.CZ 5
e
There is not a r~asonable probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with,
the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. ~The project is not of significant scope in the context of
city-wide and regional development patterns.
The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time
as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which are approved in the vicinity of the
project site.
The proposed change in district classification from R-R-2½ to R-1 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 (SWAP) recommendations for the subject
property. Further, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and
uses in the vicinity of the project.
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 Rita Way and
Seraphina Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements abutting
proposed; lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with City standards.
Said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and her.in incorporated by reference.
The Airport Land Use Commission is making substantial progress toward the
completion of a land use plan.
There is reasonable probability that the action, regulation, or permit will be consistent
with the plan being considered by the Airport Land Use Commission.
10.
There ie little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
Future Adopted Ran in the action, regulation, or permit is ultimately inconsistent with
the future adopted Airport Land Use Plan.
Vesting Tentative Treot Map No. 26828
The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment,
as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment prepared for Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26828. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption.
6TAFFRP~13.CZ 6
10.
11.
There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time. The map together with the attendant zone change
request are consistent with applicable subdivision and land use ordinances, and
conform with the City's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) guidelines affecting the subject
property.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the
future adopted General Ban, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, The project is consistent with surrounding development, and does not logically
have the potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts,
The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning laws.
Reference local Ordinances No. 348, 460, California Governmental Code Sections
65000-66009 (Banning Zoning Law), and Government Code Title 7, Division 2.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of parcel configurations, access, and density. The project has access to public
rights-of-way, and is designed with sufficient parcel acreage allowing appropriate
building pad sightinge.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 26828.
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. Easement dedications are not
evident in grant deeds describing the property.
The site for the proposed use is provided legal access via Rite Way and Seraphina Road
public rights-of-way. Development of these roads shall comply with City Engineering
Conditions of Approval contained herein.
The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive
solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas and exposures are provided for these
alternatives.
The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse affect on abutting properties or
the permitted use thereof. The proposed map provides for residential development
similar in character and densities evident on vicinity properties. Land use incongruities
and associated adverse affects arising from implementation of this proposal are
unlikely.
The Airport Land Use Commission is making substantial progress toward the
completion of the plan.
STAFFIF~13.CZ
7
12o
Them is reasonable probability that the action, regulation, or permit will be consistent
with the plan being considered by the Airport Land Use Commission.
13. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
Future Adopted Plan in the action, regulation, or permit is ultimately inconsistent with
the Future Adopted Airport Lands Use Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Planning Commission:
RFCOMIVI~ws ADOPTION of the Negative
Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
26828 and Change of Zone No. 13;
~l=Nrs that the City Council over rule the Airport
Land Use Commission denial of Change of Zone No. 13
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828.
ADOPT Resdution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Zone No. 13 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
NsOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 based
on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Change of Zone Resolution - page 9
Vesting Tentative Tract, Map !Resolution - page 14
Conditions of Approval; page 20
Environmental Assessment- page 33
Exhibits - page 48
City Attorney Letter - page 49
Airport Studies - 50
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CHANGE OF ZONE RESOLUTION
STAFFIFT'%13.CZ
9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE
NO. 13 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R-2½ TO R-1 ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RITA
WAY AND SERAPHINA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 914-260-039, 040, 041,042, 043, 044, 045,
AND 046.
WHEREAS, Dacin Development, Inc. filed Change of Zone No. 13 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use;, Zoning, Planning end 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 21, 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 denial of said Change of Zone;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Findings
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission 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·
Be
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
· rN~wm~a.cz 10 ~
(1)
Them 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 reasormbie time.
(2)
Them 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 ant,on 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 Planning Commission in recommending denial of the proposed Change of Zone,
makes the following findings, to wit:
The. proposed zone change may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment, as a result of potential future impacts from the French Valley
Airport.
There is a reasonable probability of substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project may be of significant scope
in the context of city-wide and regional development patterns.
The proposed change in district classification from R-R-2 ½ to R-1 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 thb Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)
recommendations for the subject property. Further, densities and uses
proposed are similar to existir~g densities and uses in the vicinity of the project.
The site of the proposed change in district classification may not be suitable to
accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning
district. Possible land use conflicts may arise as the project proposes residential
uses that are too dense according to the interim guidelines of the A.L.U.C.
Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from Rita Way and
Seraphina Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements
abutting proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with
City standards.
$TAFFRFT%13.CZ
11
Said finUings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and
environmental documents associated-with this application and herein
incorporated by reference.
The Airport Land Use Commission is making substantial progress toward the
completion of the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan.
Them is a reasonable probability that the project will be inconsistent with the
plan.
There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the plan,
if the project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The Change of Zone may not. be compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2.
Environmental Comfdiance.
The Planning Commission has determined that future impacts relative to the French Valley
Airport may be significant. The Planning Commission recommends tl-4t the City Council
should uphold the determination of denial rendered by the A.L.U.C.
SECTION 3.
Recommendedon.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of Zone Change
No. 13 to change the zoning on 35.5 acres of land from R-R-2½ to R-1 on property generally
located at the northwest corner of Rite Way and Seraphins Road and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 914-260-039, 040, 041,042, 043, 044, 045, AND 046.
STa, E-m-,d3.CZ 12 ~'
SECTION 4.
PASSED, DENIAL AND ADOPTED this 21 st day of October 1991.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temacula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 19th day of
August, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT%13.CZ
13
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
VESTING TRACT MAP RE~OLUTION
grA.~13.CZ
14
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION' NO. 91-104
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26828 TO SUBDIVIDE A 35.5
ACRES INTO 130 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. GENERAL LOCATION OF
SAID MAP BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RITA WAY
AND SERAPHINA ROAD.
WHEREAS, DEcin Development, Inc. filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
26828 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tract Map on October 21,
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 denial of said 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:
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:
A8
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:
STAF:FRPT%13,CZ
15
(1)
(2)
There is a reasonable probability that the land usa or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(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 Plen 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 Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
26828 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 7.1 of :County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following. findings are made:
At
That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
~r~wm~..cz 16
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 divisien 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 altamata 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.
The Planning Commission in recommending denial of the proposed Vesting Tentative
Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
The proposed Tract Map may have significant negative impact on the
environment, as a result of potential future impacts from the French Valley
Airport.
There is a reasonable probability that this proposal will not be consistent with
the General Plan being prepared at this time. The map together with the
attendant zone change request are consistent with applicable subdivision and
land use ordinances, and conform with the City's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP)
guidelines affecting the subject prope.rty, however, an Airport Land Use Plan
has not been adopted for the French Valley Airport, future General Plan
consistency can not be determined.
There is 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. The project is consistent with surrounding development, however it
may have the potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts,
The proposed use or action complies with City and State planning and zoning
laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 348,460, California Governmental Code
Sections 65000-66009 (Planning Zoning Law), and Government Code Title 7,
Division 2.
STAFR~m~3.CZ 17
The site [s suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of parcel configurations, access, and density. The project has
access to public fights-of-way, and is designed with sufficient parcel acreage
allowing appropriate building pad sightinge.
The project as designed and conditioned will adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined by the Planning aCommission relative to the French
Valley Airport.'
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting
street layout are such ~thst they are not in conflict with easements for access
through or use of the proparty within the proposed project as conditioned.
Easement dedications are not evident in grant deeds describing the property.
The site for the proposed use is provided legal access via Rite Way and
Seraphins Road public =rights-of-way. Development of these roads shall comply
with City Engineering 'Conditions of Approval contained her. in.
The proposed project !will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or
passive solar energy systems. Adequate lot areas and exposures are provided
for these alternatives.
The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse affect on abutting
properties or the permitted use thereof. The proposed map provides for
residential development similar in character and densities evident on vicinity
propart,as. Land use incongruities and associated adverse affects arising from
implementation of this proposal are unlikely.
The Airport Land Use :Commission is making substantial progress toward the
completion of the French Valley Airport Land Usa Plan.
There is a reasonable ;probability that the project will be inconsistent with the
plan.
There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the plan,
if the project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tract Map proposed may not be
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2.
Environmental Compliance.
The Planning Commission has determined that future impacts relative to the French Valley
Airport may be significant. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
should uphold the determination of denial rendered by the A.L.U.C.
s'rAFm~.cz 18
SECTION 3.
Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 26828 for the subdivision of a 35.5 acres into 130 residential lots,
generally located at the northwest corner of Rite Way and Seraphina Road.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, DENIAL AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October, 1991.
JOHN E. 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 21 st
day of October, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT~13.CZ 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2O
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
STAFFIFI~I3.CZ
33
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Background
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
n~cin Develol~ment. Inc.
R01 ~. P-xrfield Ave #901
AlhxmhrA. CA 91801
1818) 300-8883
Sentember 73. 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
~,IITY OF TI=MFCUI A
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
VestiLng Tentative TrAct Mao No. ~68~8
and Change of 7one No, 13
Location of Proposal:
Northwest Corner of the Intersection of
Rita Way .nd SerAnhina Ro-d.
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheeta.)
Yes Maybe Ng
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
t·on or overcovering of the soil?
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
~catlon of any unique geologic or
ST~'I3.CZ
34
STAFFtF~II.CZ
physical features?
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of Mils, either on
or off site?
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach ends, or change in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
dver or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quake, landslides, muds.ides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
as
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Airsration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
ram, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
C$
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
35
Yes
Mxvbe
X
X
L!~
de
h$
Plant
8,
Change in the amount of surface
water iin any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waterS, either through direct addi-
tions er withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cute
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public: water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water. ralsted hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native Species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grase,~ crops, and aquatic, plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plente?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
Yes Mmvbe No
_ _ X
_ _
_ _ X
_ _ X
_ _ X
_ _ X
_ _ X
sTAme~a.cz 36
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbera of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rap-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlfe habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial: alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resource. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Yes
_ X
Mayhe No
_ X
_ X
_ X
STAFFFIPT%11.CZ
37
10.
11.
12.
13.
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve: ,
A risk of an explosion or the release
of haZardous substances (including,
but nOt limited to, oil, pest, cedes,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the Iocation~ distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or cram 8 demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will. the
· proposal result in:
am
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
'.
Effecte on existing paring facili-
ties, or demand for new paring?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
de
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicycllste or pedestrians?
Yes Mq.yhe No
_ _ X
_ _ X
_ _ X
_ _ X
ITAFFRPT%13.CZ
38
Yes Mq.yhe No
STAR:IFT% 13. CZ
14.
15.
16.
Public Services. VVill the propoSal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered govemrnentel
services in any of the following areas:
ae
CN
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
Other governmental services:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a~
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications system?
Water?
Sewer or septic tenks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
ee
39
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xe
X
X
X
X
X
-Yes Maybe No
17.
18.
19.
20.
Human Heallh. Will the proposal
result in:
CreatiOn of any health hazed or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically:offensive she open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural ResOurces.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
sTrucTUre, or object?
Ce
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic culTUral
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
_ X
_
_ X
STAPrw-n13.CZ 40
Yes Mxvhe No
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
all
be
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below serf
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
Doe the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be rela. tively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts. on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
_ X
STARWm~S.CZ 41
III
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1,e,
1.f.
1.g.
~r
a-c,
Water
d~,
r3actfe,lan o~. the Environmental Evaluation
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort. There will be
substantial grading for this iproject. However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the
project was approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil
displacement, compactiorji, and overcovering. This impact is not considered
significant.
No. The mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross natural topography
of the site in its original condition, While substamial grading and recontouring of this
site will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote general
preservation of site topography.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase
and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is
considered significant but. will be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of
natural vegetation whenev~er feMible, end use Of watering trucks and hydra-seeding
of disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed, increased water run-
off during floods may ocdur. Water will be channeled to drainage easements and
streets. Appropriate drainage contrd devices will have to be approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions
of Approval.
No. Since the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed, the proposed
project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any creek or stream bed.
No. The subject site is designated as subject to liquefaction and subsidence by the
Riverside County General Plan. To mitigate under hazard, a geological report has been
prepared. This report contains mitigation measures addressed in the Conditions of
Approval.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area's air quality.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water bodies. The
proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and quality of run-off water in
the City, however, the individual impact is not considered significant.
STNWe~a. CZ 42
3.b.
No. The prol~sed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the ground through
the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site. Rumoff will increase but not
substantially.
3.c. No. Rood waters will continua to be diverted to the streets and flood channels.
3.f-g. No.- The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or quantity of ground
waters.
3.h. No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the public water supply.
3,i,
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require proper design
and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
Vl,latr, I;on
4.a-c. No. No sensitive vegetationel associations or species were identified on-site.
4.d. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
Wildfife
5.a-c. Maybe. A survey for the Staphen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project identified
no individuels of the species on the subject ire. Evidence found on site indicate that
some potential habitat does exist. As a result of This projects incremental impact on
potential S.K.R. habitat, fees will be required in accordance with Ordinance 663 and
the Habitat Conservation Ran adopted by the City of Temecula. Conformance with
these procedures will mitigate the impact to a level of non-significance.
Noise
6.a-b.
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the French Valley Airport influence
area. A noise study conducted by J.J. Van Houten and Associates indicated that the
proposed development will not be affected by current or future aircraft noise. The
proposed project is located well outside of the 65 C.N.E.L noise boundary which the
State of California Division of Aeronautics considers an acceptable fly over noise level.
The project C.N.E.L range will be 50-54dB which also meets E.P.A. standards. The
impact is not considered significant. it is further recommended that the final
engineering design of the project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to
ensure compliance with the County's noise standards.
Light and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with applicable lighting
standards, specifically Ordinance No. 655, Pelomar Lighting Standards. The impact
will be mitigated to at level of non-significance.
43
Land Use
e
No. If the Change of Zone is approved the subdivision will be consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan and Ordinance No. 348. The project is surrounded by approved
medium density residential projects.
Natural R.eeowces,'
9.a-b. No. This project in itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of natural
reSOurCeS.
FgBk of Upeet
10.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release hazardous
substances. Construction materials and petroleum products will be used extensively
to support the project dudrig construction. however this impact is temporary and not
considered significant. It will not interfere with emergency response plan or an
emergency evaluation plan.
Popda~jon
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to incr. e.aha the density from zero dwelling unit to
130 units, the proposedi project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation
(according to SWAP},
Houdng
12.
No. Since the proposed project will create housing, the proposed land use will not
create a demand for additional housing.
Trenw[; zt - don/Circvl- 1' ' i,
13.a. Maybe. The Traffic Study which wn ix, pared for the proposed
13.
b-e. No.
project has addressed potential 'traffic impacts and has
.13.f. Maybe.
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be significant.
Public Services
14.
a-f.
Maybe. The proposed !project may have an effect on public services, however,
appropriate fees are required as conditioned to mitigate impacts to a level of non-
significance.
Energy
15.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand
of fuel or energy.
UtilitiOl
16.
a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not require
substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on human health.
Aesthetics
18,
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the
'surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
Maybe. The proposed project will have the potential to increase the population, and
impact City of Temecula recreation opportunities which are currently limited.
However, Quimby fees ere required of this project which will provide funds for the
acquisition of future recreational facilities, mitigating the effect of this individual tract
to a level of non-significance.
Cultural Resources
20.
a-d.
As identified in the archaeological study prepared for this project, this project will have
no impact.
Mandatory Rndings of Significance
21 .a.
No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or wildlife
species, However, if a project is located within an area designated by the Riverside
County as habitat for the endangered Stephan's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be
subject to mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
21 .b. No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals..
sT, e:mm~a.cz 45
21.
c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which am individually limited or
cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental affects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on humen beings, either directly or indirectly.
5TAFI:!!m~13.e7
46
ENVIRONMENTAL Dr: ~ c..;/..INATION
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, them will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requires _
Date
For cITY OF TFMFCUI ^
STAFFIFT%13.CZ
47
ATTACHMENT NO. B
EXHIBITS
sTk,,mm~a,cz 48
CITY OF TEMECULA
klURRIETA
~ PROJECT
· V I C INITY MAP
NO1~ TO &CALL~''''
JOIEPH RD.
(TR. 23428)
r(,,..'7_.L.~,~,:"
CASE NO.Vl""t'ffiU~"zklZt
EXHIBIT NO.
,le.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
W
/'i
/~
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/d
NO~.~..~ ~:~ '
CASE .
EXHIBIT NO.
Jm.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
.J
r ~-~ ~:~ '
CASE
EXHIBIT NO.
Je.C. DATE | e:>-2., i l
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
I
I
,\
--4
I
--|
,.,f
II
I
r_.=-~
CASE NO.v"TTh,'% ,,~,~2..~
EX~IIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE
ATTAC,I IM!2~IT NO. e
CITY ATTORNEY LETTER
49
VENTUII& COUNTV
lui'rE I
C~AMARIL. t,.O. CAL,|rOIIIMIA I30tO
IlOl,~ elT'-3d. eS
3100 W~llVO~
lye)
September 16, 1991
GazTThornhlll, Planning Director
CITY OF'rB(ECUIA
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Riverside County Airport land Use
Commission/French Valley Airport
Dear Gary:
You requested this office to provide you with comments,
recommendations and directions regarding the Riverside County
Airport land Use Commissionis ("ALUCe) decisions to deny vesting
tentative tract sap 26228 and recommending denial for vesting
tentative tract sap 25004. You also requested direction on what
options the City has in its relationship with the ALUC with
respect to those land use decisions.
As I understand the facts as were presented to me though
your memorandum and supporting documentation, these two projects
are within the proposed French Valley Airport areas of influence,
which said airport is a public use airport. In 1984, the
Riverside County ALUC adopted the Riverside County ALUCpolicy
plan which is apparently an interim plan used for the French
Valley Airport until a specific land use plan is adopted· On
September'29, 1989, the French Valley Airport extended its sphere
of influence to include those areas in which the two projects
are nov currently proposed. As was indicated in your memorandum
to me, the ALUC denied vesting tentative tract map 26128 and has
recommended denial for vesting tentative tract sap 25004 based
upon the following grounds:
The MJJC is making substantial progress toward the
completion of the French Valley Airport land Use Plan;
There is a reasonable probability that the project viii
be inconsistent with the plan; and
Gary Thornhlll
September 16, 1991
There is a probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the plan, if the project is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
Evidently, the ALUCos policy dictates that there be a
minimum lot size of 2 1/2 acre minian for proposed residential
uses and the proposed projects have lot sizes smaller than those
set forth in the ALUCpoltcy,
It is my further understanding that the City placed a
condition on tract map 25004 which required clearance from the
ALUC prior to issuanc~ of any building permits, After receiving
the Commissiones rec~mendation for denial of the project, the
applicant retained so.-vices of an airport consultant and a sound
attenuation engineer to analyze the project, whereinafter the
consultants determined that the project would have no adverse
impact on the airport nor does the airport affect the project
adversely, .
Based on this factual background, two issues need to be
addressed. The first, issue is what are the duties and
obligations of an ALUC and from what authority does the ALUC
derive its powers. The second issue is what is the legal
relationship between the City of Temecula and the ALUC with
respect to the land uSe decisions involving the French Valley
Airport.
Issue No, l, What are the duties and obligation of an
Airport land Use Commission and from what authority does it
derive its powers,
provisions of SB 255 Which said provisions were later codif led in
the Public Utilities Code pursuant to Section 21670, e~ sac. (a
copy of these code sections is attached hereto for your review).
The overall purpose of the ALUC statutes is to provide for
the orderly developme t of each public use airport in this State
and.the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the
overall goals and objectives of the California Airport Noise
Standards adopted pursuant to Section. 21669 of the Public
Utilities Code and to prevent the creation of new noise and
safety problems.
Gary Thorn!lill
September 16, 1991
Page 3
~herefora, ste~elsvrequires 'that every County establish an
Airport ldndUsa Coalssiam v hera there is loanted an airport
which is either served by s s~heduled airline or which is not
served by a scheduled airline but is operated for the benefit of
the general public. It is myundarsUndingthst the French
valley Airpor~ is ~rrently an airport which is a public use
airport but which is net ~rently served by a scheduled airline.
Since the Riverside County ALUC was cm~ed prior to the
incorporation of the City of Tm~ula, the City is not ~urrently
being represented on the COmmiSSiOn aS would otherwise be
required under State law,
Depending on ehen the Riverside ALUC was created, the term
of office of sech mr is four years. If the current ALUC is
the very first commission, the tars of office for one
conissionar is one year, ~eo msbers: two years, two members
three y4mrs and two mrs four years. Therefore, somewhere
down the line a representative of the City say be placed on the
AL~JC as a m'm~vr.
Section 21674 sets forth the powers mtd duties of RnALUC.
Par~ of its sandstory duties is ~o adopt · comprehensive land use
plan for the orderly growth of each public airpor~ and the area
surrounding the airpor~ within the Jurisdiction of the Commission
which reflects the anticipated grow~ of the airport during at
leastar he next twenty (20) years. This land use plan must be
adopted by Juno 30, 1991. As pex~c of its plan, the planning
boundaries of the particular airport must be established by the
Commission after hearing and consultation with the involved
agencies which presumably would include the City of Tamecula.
The requirement that the ALUC shall adopt a comprehensive land
use plan by June 30, 1991, is not permissive in nature; rather,
it is mandatory. The question arises whether the ALUC can now
take any action regarding a particular project within its
Jurisdiction when it has failed to adopt this land use plan by
the June 30, 1991 data. It does appear under the facts of these
two projects, that the applications were considered prior to that
date at a time in which the ALUC did not have its land use plan
adopted; rather, only an interim policy plan. Therefore, it
appears that the current County ALUC had the proper authority to
review and take the appropriate action regarding the projects at
issue.
Issue No. 2. What is the legal relationship between the
City and the ALUC with raspeat to the land use decisions
involving the French Valley Airport.
Gary Thornhill
September 16, 1991
Page 4
'Section 21675.1 S~ates that until a Land Use Commission
adopts a comprehe~jive land us plan,. ~he City must first submit
all actions, regulations and permits within the vicinity of a
public airport to theCommission for review and approval. Before
the Cassiasion approves or disapproves of any actions,
regulations or permits, the Cosaissiun must give public notice in
the same sannar as the city is required to give for such actions,
If the ALUC disapproves s particular application, the City
may overrule the Coxxtssion by a two thirds vote if it makes
specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the
purposes of the Public Utilities Code dealing with the Airport
Land Usa Commission provisions. In the event the City does
overrule the Commission end the City is not an operator of the
publicly owned airport, the operator of the airport is imaune
from liability for damages to property or personal injury for the
City*s decision to p&~_l.l4 With the particular project.
Thsrefore, with respect to the projects at issue, the City
has two (2) options in accoz~iance with the provisions of the
Public Utilities Code;
The City may let stand the decision of the Airport Land
Usa Commission to deny tract map 26828 and affirm its
rscomndatien for denial of map 25004 based on the
findings of the Comsission~ or
Overrule the Conission*s determination by two thirds
vote of the City Council based on specific findings
that the particular projects are consistent with the
purposes of Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code.
I hol~ the above information is helpful to you and I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Very truly yours,
cc: David F. Dixon, City Manager, w/out enclosures
Scott F. Field,-City Attorney, w/out enclosures
JEC\tem\117890. ttr
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
AIRPORT STUDIES
~ sTA,:,PT~a. CZ 50
j.j. VAN HOUTm & A XnATB&
1~16 lAST ItATBLLA RVINUF, ANAHIIM, CAUFO RNIA 92109
p'14l F/14Oll (~i41024226 FAX lye4| g3~6248
Project tile 21es-90(s)
DIX DEVELOPNENT
22865 Lake Forest Drive
E1 Tore, Ck 92630
Attention: Mr. Gary Dix
Subject:
Assessment of AIrcraft Nolme Exposures, Tract 25004,
County of lttverstde
Reference:
wNoise ~ssessment and Noise Control Recommendations,
Tract25004, C~unty of Riverside," J. J. Van Houten and
Associates, Inc., Narch 19, 1990
Gentlemen:
specifically address the aircraft · u ~t Tract 25004
generated by flight activity at French Valley Airport. Referring
to Fieure 1, the conunity noise equivalent level (CNEL) at th~
site ranges from 50 to 54 dB. In the following sections, thib
level of noise exposure is assessed relative to three recognized
standards:
Co,,nt7 of e4vevside
The County specifies a CNEL standard of 65 dB for exterior
residential areas. The aircraft noise exposure at the project sits
is 11 to 15 dB below the Countyes standard.
grate of oll lfowwll_J~Ly~l&n oe ILew'~au~iaB
Title 21, Subchapter 6, Arkicle l, Section 5005 of the California
Administrative Cede statest
wThe level of noise ecceptable to a reasonable person
residing in the vicinl%y of an airport is established as
a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) value of 65 dB
for purposes of thele ~qulations. This criterion level
has been chosen for relsonable persons residing in urban
residential areas where houses are of typical California
construction and say hews windows partially open. It has
1
DZX DEV'SLOPKErr F. ROa':CT FZLB 23.85-90(S)
been selected with reference to speech, sleep, and
community reaction."
Again, the aircraft noise exposure at the project site is signifi-
cantly. (ll to 15 riB) below the State standard.
Ke. Ia_]I,~V4voREIAI~I 1~Po1~04'4o' ;,,e~aw (IFA~
The SPA has identified a day-night average sound level (Ldn) of 55
dB as the requisite level to protect public health and welfare with
an adequate margin of safety for both activity interference and
hearing lossI· [Note: Ldn and CNEL are essentially identical
measures of noise exposure. Title 24 of the State of California
Administrative Code uses the two deecrtptors interchangeably.]
This noise exposure level is considered by the ~-PA to be a
guideline rather than a standard since the agency recognizes that
this level is not always attainable, particularly in urban
environments- In any event, the aircraft noise exposure at the
project site will be I to 5 dB below the level identified by the
SPA as requisite to protect the health and welfare of the resi-
dents.
Figure 2 provides the results of several case studies relating to
community response, as reported by the SPA1· Referring to the
figure, it Is expected that there will be no "overt reaction" by
the residents of Tract 25004 to an aircraft noise exposure of 50 to
54 dB at the site.
TIiT~!XTOI ILTRr~/~T IOT~
Both the County ot Riverside and the U.S, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) identify in interior noise exposure standard of 45 dB
(CREL or Ldn) for residential liviog areas. The SPa identifies
typical sound level reductions of 12 dl with windows open and 24 dB
with windows closed for standard residential construction~ ·
Applying these values to the exterior CNEL of 50 to 54 dB yields an
interior CN~-L of 3S to 42 riB' With windows open and 26 to 30 dB with
windows closed. These levels are well below the interior standard
of 45 dB identified by the County and Federal Governments.
I "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of
Safety," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974.
J.J. VAN HOUTEN &ASSO CIATES, Inc.
DZX D~v'E:LO:i~(ENT Z~X:XT~CT FXL~ 2185-90(8)
The referenced report identifies several rocosaendations for
mitigating interior residential noise .levels at Tract 25004.
Forced air ventilation has been reoossended at oyez7 residence so
that a'habitableenvirormentsaybeprovidedvlthvindows closed.
&s indicated in the previous section, it is estimated that these
recommendations, along with standard building construction, will
reduce the interiorCN~L to about 26 to 30 dB, This is 15 to 19 dB
below the- State end Federal standard, a significant amount.
However, if it is desired to reduce the aircraft noise exposure
still further, sound rated windows and sliding glass doors having
a sound transmission class (STC) of 25 couldhoused throughout the
project (with the exception of second riser windows facing
Nutrisers Hot Springs Road, whoreSTO ratings as high as 30 may be
needed due to the traffic noise exposure). It is estimated that
withSTC 25 assemblies, the interior noise exposure will be reduced
by another 2 to 4 dB.
CO!IC~r.UB TON
The aircraft noise exposure of 50 to S4 dB at Tract 25004 due to
flight activity at French Valley Airport is well below County,
State, and Federal standards. No cowsunity reaction is expected
from this level of exposure. · With windows closed, the interior
noise exposure 'within the homes will be 15 to 19 dB below the
County and Federal standard of 45 dB. However, if desired, the
interior aircraft noise exposure level say be further reduced by
using sound rated glazing assemblies throughout the project.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at
714/978-7018.
Very truly yours,
copy
Nr. Richard Berg
CN Engineering
41593 Winchester Road, Suite'210
Tomsouls, C~ 92390
3
J. J. VAN HOUTEN &ASSO CIATE~ hc
i~,q~Q,e. eeeeeeeee
,..,:,;.~...:...' ·
It
I
. . ~ /
=.; , :
. /~,,
,,
· . ,--
N
Figure 1.
Location of Project Site Relative to French Valley
Airport Noise Contours
COMMUNITY REACTION
VIGOROUS ACTION -
SEVERAL THRtATS
OF LEGAL ACTION
On STRONG APPEALS
TO LOCAL OFF~iALS
TO STOP NOISE
wtO(SPN(AO COMPLAINTS
On SINGLE TH~EAT
Of LEGAL ACTOR
SPORADIC
COMPLAINTS
NO REACTION
ALTHOUGH NOISE iS
GENERALLY NOTICEAlL[
· ·
DATA NORMALIZED TO:
KSIOENTIAL URBAN NE~dDUAL NOISE
PRIOR EXPOSURE
~N,O0~S PARTIALLY OPEN
PtMlt TONE ON IMPLUSES
.:- 0, ·
I ! !
54 60
I t t , I
TO 80 10
tNI~LIZED 0UTD00e MY/NIGHT SOUND LEVEL OF INTRUDING NOISE IN d6
FiBare 2.
Combi..ed-Data From Community
for CJftd~cio~8 of Exposure
Case SCud~.el Adjusted
May 30, 1991
To:
Mr. Gary R. Dix
Dix Development, lnc.
22865 Lake Forest Drive
E1Toro, Ca. 92630
Fm;
Gerald M. Dallas
Airport Consultant
25242 Derby Cr.
Laguna Hills, Ca. 92653
Subjz Airport Land Use considerations of proposed residential
project in relation to the French Valley Airport,
Temecula, Ca, IF THE EXISTING RUNWAY WERE EXTENDED TO
THE SOUTH 1200 FEET.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONz
135 single family sized lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200
square feet. Density is 2:3 dwelling units per acre, with
structural coverage per lot of approximately 16%.
PROJECT LOCATIONz
The proposed project is located in the City of Temecula, east
of Seraphina Road and north of Nicholas Road. The proposed
project would be approximately 5,500 feet southeast of an
extended runway 18/36 at the Frech Valley Airport. The project
is within the 'Interim Influence Area' of the Airport Land Use
Plan for the French Valley Airport dated September 29, 1989.
ISSOE:
Would the proposed project be consistent with an Airport Land
Use Plan that may be developed for the airport if the existing
runway were extended to the south by 1200 feet, for a total
length of 5800 feet?
ANASYSIS:
This analysis is limited to the future development and operation
of the French Valley Airport as defined in this report and its
relationship to the proposed project. These issues include
consideration of the following three major areas:
Heig',t Restrictions fo~ Air Safety
o Noise Compatibility
.o Safety to persons on the ground
Height Restrictions for Air Safety
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 have been issued
by the Federal Government to define height limits around
airports. The principal purpose behind Part 77 is to provide
standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace.
FAR part 77 has three major elements, (1| Notice Requirements
(2| Obstruction Standards and (3) Definition of Substantial
Adverse Effect.
The Notice Requirements of FAR Part 77 for the French Valley
Airport are that a notice of construction or alteration is
required if any proposed construction is greater than 200 feet
above the ground level at its site or penetrates a 100:1 plane
for a distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the
runway.
Since no structure in the proposed development would exceed
thirty five feet and would be at least 5,500 feet from the
extended runway, no notice to th~ Federal Aviation
Administration under FAR Part 77 would be required.
Therefore the proposed project would not impact on the safety
of air operations in and around the French Valley Airport,
with the runway extended 1200 feet to the south.
Noise Compatability
The California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautic's 'Airport land Use Planning Handbook' indicates
the following guidelines for determining land use compatibilit~
based on aircraft noisez
Residential and Lodgings
Within the 60-65 CNEL - potential for annoyance exists,
accousticsl studies should be performed, noise
insulation should be included if appropriate, and
all forms of housing can be accommodated.
Within the 55-60 CNEL - little potential for intereference
indoor or outdoor activities.
With the extended runway a different mix of aircraft could be
accon~odated at the airport than can presently utilize the
airport. For this analysis the followinV assumptions were made.
AsSumption lz
The traffic patterns shown on the alnterim Influence Area' of
the Airport Land Use Plan for the airport dated September 29,
1989 were used for the extended runway, (This is considered
conservative in rel!ation to the proposed project since with
the longer runway, larger aircraft would be expected to approach
and dellart ~ore directly aligned with the runway than indicated
by the September 29, 1989 flight tracks).
Assumption 2~.
192,000 annual operations~ night operations 1.5%, evening
operations S%, day operations 90.S%~ 85% of operations
north to south.
Assumption
The following fleet mix was used to determine the approximate
location of future CNEL contours shown in Exhibit Az
General aviation single engine piston aircraft -
General aviation twin engine piston aircraft -
General aviation twin turboprop engine aircraft- 2%
Civil and Military Helicopters -
General Aviation twin Jet aircraft -
Exhibit A indicates that the proposed project would be well
outside the 60 CNEL contour resulting from the assumed
future aircraft operations.
Therefore, the proposed project should conform to State criteria
for noise competability With regard to operations from the French
Valley Airport with a 5800 foot runway with the assumed air-
craft activity.
Safety of Persons on the Ground
The State of CalifOrnia Department of Transportation Division
of ~eronautic's 'Airport Land Use Planning Handbook' identifies
9uidlines for land use restrictions in Safety Zones or Safety
Areas associated with airports. The purpose for establishing
land use restrictions iin safety Zones is to minimize the number
of people exposed to aircraft crash hazards. The two principal
methods for reducing the risk of injury and property damage on
the 9round are to limit the number of persons in an area and/or
limit the area covered by structures.
The Safety Zones or Safety Areas have been divided into four
categories. (1) Clear Zone, (2) Approach Safety Zone, (3) Outer
Approach'Surface Safety Zone, and Overflight Zone (including
the traffic pattern area}.
Exhiit A indicates the proposed project is not in a clear zone
or in an approach safety zone. However, the proposed project
would probably be in a traffic pattern area.
The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook indicates that in the
Traffic Pattern Area, hazards to any site is quite low compared
to the areas nearest the runway. However, the handbook
recommends that large assemblages of people not be located in
these areas because of the potential for injury if there were
a crash. Therefore, schools and hospitals, spectator sport
arenas, auditorjams, outdoor amphitheaters or industries with
flammable materials or processes are not recommended in
overflight zones or traffic pattern areas.
The Airport Land Use Planning Handbook further recommends
no more than three dwelling units per acre and the maximum
structural coverage of the area be less that 20 percent in
the traffic pattern areas..
Since the project proposes 2.3 dwelling units per acre and a
structural coverage of sixteen percent, recommendations of the
handbook are met for construction in a traffic pattern area.
CONCLUSION:
Since the proposed project would conform to the recommendations
of. the California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautic's 'Airport Land Use Planning Habdbook', in the areas
of height restrictions for air safety, aircraft noise
compatability and safety to persons on the ground~ it is
reasonable to conclude the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan
when finalized for an airport with a 1200 foot runway extension
to the south would indicate the proposed project will be
consistent with the plan and that the proposed project will not
effect the aeronautical activities at the airportz nor will
operations from the 5800 foot runway effect this project.
ATTA~ NO. 6
DEV~ OEVIgNT ~ Ci~X ~lgT
ATTACHMENT NO. ~
CITYOFT~d~CULA
DEV~IO~ ~ CR~~T
CASE, NO.: Vtsting Tmtttive Tnact Map No. 26828
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
Public Facility
Crraffic S gna fit afion)
Public Facility
(L brary)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future Genentl Plan
Condition of .a~roval
Condition No. 16.B.
Condition No. 20
Condition No. 67
Condition No. 45
Condition No. 18.A
Condition No. 9
Condition No. 64
YES NO
YES NO
31
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
CORIESPONDENCE
s~~t~cz. cc 32
The homes'constructed within this Developsent fall within a two
mile radius of the French Valley Airport, owned and operated by
the County of Riverside.
All homes being built within this two mile radius are now being
required to provide the County with Avigation Fasements. Should
you decide to purchase one of our homes, your' Deed will likewise
be subject to such an easement.
During the Approval process of the Development, the builder
obtained an Aeronautical Impact Study addressing the potential
impact the French Valley A~rport may have on this project. The
conclusion of findings was that the impact hazard is negligible
and the noise assessment determined levels well within acceptable
standards of all Federal, State, County and City of Temecula
regulations. '
Attached please find a nmp showing the proximity of this project
to the Airport. Copies of the Impact Study are available upon
request.
Should you have any questions, you may contact the builder or the
onsite representative for further information.
SiSnature of Potential Homebuyer
Date
DACIN
DEVELOPMENT INC.
Man:h 30, 1992
Bet. Pa,-y.
City of
43174 Bus~,'ess ~ DrJ. Ve
'Z~eec,-1 ,,, Ca.l.:L:l~otn:l.a 92590
Ves~ng Tentative '~act 26828
(~encjeofZOneNo. 13
Dea= ~. 'EhOLT~ll;
Enclosed pl_ee_~e, find a c~y of the Xtzlxxt DIsclosure Statement ~e
~L~:se to distribute tO potmttal ~ of Vestinq Tentative
Tract 26828,, In addition, we would not ,$~ this iten beinq
irr.2.~ as a caad:Lt~crt of apprcmal for V~stt.,~ Tentat_rye '1'tact 26828.
Ver~ t:n~ly yours,
Slmngrila Hcsmm ~,l s~ Lbntted tm. bL,.ship
801 S. GARFIELD AVE. SUITE 201 ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 · TEL: (818) 300-8883 · FAX: (818) 300-8716
Tentative TraCt 26828 Ae~onaut{cal Impact Study
v. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing analyses and conclusions of Sections
II-IV, Tentative Tract 26828 is in complete compliance with
the relevant height compatibility and noise/land use standards
and the-risk of an aircraft accident is quite low. Hence,
there is no reason to regard the project as portending any
derogation of public health, safety and welfare or of the
orderly expansion of the airport. As such, it does not
conflict with the purpose of Section 21670 of the California
Public Utilities Code and there is no reasonable evidence that
Tentative Tract 26828 should be disapproved as a land use for
the site.
A STUDY OF AERONAUTICAL
IMPACT POTENTIAL
AT TENTATIVE TRACT 26828
FROM AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT
FRENCH V~T.T.~-y AIRPORT
BY
GARY MIKEL ~T.T.~.N, PH · D, J.D.
DANIEL TENOLD
AVIATION SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
23430 HAWTHORNE BLVD., SKYPARK. 3, SUITE 200
TORRANCE, CA 90505
(213) 378-3299
, RECEIVED AUG
5 1991
ALUC
RtVERSFDE.COUNTY _A. ORT LAND USE COM ZON
3499 Tenth Street Riverside, California 92501 (714) 788-9770 (714) 788-1415 [FAX]
July 24, 1991
File,No.:
Case No.:
FV-91-125
Vesting Tentative
Tract No. 26828
Lohr & Associates RCI
28441 Rancho California Rd., Suite R
Temecula, California 92390
Dear Sirs:
SUBJECT: RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
On July 18, 1991, the Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC} denied your proposed project based on a
determination of inconsistency. The project was denied based on
the following, as identified in Section 21675.1 of the Public
Utilities Code:
1)
2)
3)
The ALUC is making substantial progress toward the
completion of the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan;
There is a reasonable probability that the project will be
inconsistent with the plan; and
There is a probability '~f substantial detriment to or
interference with the plan, if the project is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan-
You are proposing a minimum residential lot size smaller than the
ALUC policy of 2 1/2 acre minimum fo'r proposed residential uses.
Should you have questions, please contact me at (714} 369-9577.
Sincerely,
Marlene Hagman
Development Specialist
MH:sa
fv91125
co:
Mark Rhoades, City of' Temecula Planning Department
Dacin Development Inc.
ATTA~ NO. 8
F...XH a ttITS
· CITY OF TEMECULA
NOT TO SCALE
CASE NO.: Ci~*n_~e of Zone No. 13, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY 1MAP
C.C. DATE: April 14, 1992
CITY OF TEM~CULA
SWAP- Exhibit B
~t'~: _- :7,,-4 D.U./AC.
Designation: R-R 2 1/2
Case No.: Change of Zone No. 13, Vesting Tenalive Tract Map No. 26828
C.C. Date: April 14, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Change of Zone No. 13, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828
ExHmrr: D SITE PLAN
C.C. DATE: April 14, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
66 dB CNEL-
160 dB
dB
iolld ~rt jilt
~.., ;.",,"-iFUI*'URE CNEL.k'
iNOISE CONTOURS
i (I,700' RUNWAY)
iAIIIPOIIT IOUII~AIIY
,
~ -:
~ .....
,* I';
,
: Inch' Valley AIrport
.., :.. .
~:~:~::', :- a . I
:.. ,) (~.~.- ,
~. , '.,.,;, ~-""',..~, .
"'~ ' ' ~'.~.~7'~"- ''
~..'. ,:~ {' ,/-...,~,,'.~.,. ~.:..-:...' .....
.... E'~ :!~''
,,'. ~:i:....
,, ',
':' "; ': ~!' '; . ..'.. "'
.V!"i ,I · °"
~' ) :,~; .: ................
.+, :. ,...:
.',., .,..,)J~.-- ,/,~ ,, ':
I
..,.
CASE NO.: C!tu__ge of Zone No. 13, Vesting Teambe Tract Map No. 26828
E~nmrr: E AIRPORT PROMITY/NOISE CONTURE
C.C. DATE: April 14, 1992
CITY~ OF TEMECULA
[ w,
I
CASE NO.: Chsmooe of Zone No. 13, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26828
Exmnrr: F SLOPE EASEM~,NT AREAS
C.C. DATE: April 14, 1992
ITEM 25
CITY ATTO~I~PROV~
FROM:
DATE:
SUBIECT:
CITY OF T!~
AGENDA I~EPORT
City Cmmc~/City Manager
Planning Department
April 14, 1992
Outdoor Disphy and Advertising Ordinance
RECO~ATION:
ArIOPT Ordinance No. 92~, enti~ed:
"AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TI~flLr'ULA PERTAINING TO SIGN
REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR
THE USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS."
BACKGROUND:
This item was heard by the Planning Commition at its March 16, 1992, meeting. During the
review and discussion, the Commi.~ion raised concerns related to non-commercial signage and
the amortization provisions. The item was then continued to the Commission's April 6, 1992,
meeting. At that meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the Outdoor Display and
Adveffising Ordinance on a 40-1 vote.
DISCUSSION:
The concern x~mnting non-commercial sigmtge was the ability of a bffiboard structure being
maintained so long as the sign message was non-commercial. This concern was alleviated by
standards in the ordinance which limit the siT. c and height of non-commercial signs.
The City Attorney recommended rmnoving the amortization provisions altogether. Therefore,
pursuant to the proposed ordinance, existing billboards will be accepted as non-conforming
signs. This would allow for the sign structure to remain, unless the City is willing to
compensate the ownen for its removal.
S~qTAIsltalq~OUTDOOit. CC2
A____ttn__r'-hmCilts:
OnlinonCO No. 92- - page 6
plsnning Commi.ion Staff ~
(datcst March 16, l~J2 and April 2.4, l~J2) - ps~ 12
]}ian[Li!~ Commition ]Vlim!l~s
(daU~ March 16, 1992) - page 13
vgw
S~TAHrl/'I'~OUTDOO!.OC2
2
ATTAINT NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
~ CITY OF ;TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN
~TIONS AND ESTAm,~HNG REGUI~TIONS FOR
THE USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Teme~ula hereby finds that the proposed
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance will provide for the establishment of regulations for
outdoor advertising displays in a fair and equitable manner, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Teme~ula further finds that the proposed
Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is necesiry to bring about eventual conformity with
its land use plans, and
THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA DOF.~ HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings
findings:
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
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 poriod
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 appwving 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.
1
3. The'proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ordinances.
The Riveaside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area Community Plan,
(hereinaftcr *SWAP*) was adoptedi prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan
for the southwesX 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 Phn guidelines while the City
is proceeding in a timely fashion With the prelmm~on of its General Plan.
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:
C. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan.
D. The City Council finds, in adopting land use regularions pursuant to this rifle, each
of the following:
1. There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 92-xx 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 hw and local ordinances.
Section 2. Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to set forth the development
standards for the installation and maintenance of outdoor advertising displays within all land-use
zones of the City. The purpose of these regularions is to ensure that the design and location of
outdoor advertising displays are consistent with the health, safety, and aestheric objectives of the
City.
It is a desire of the City that the design of this community be of the highest quality, that
new development be architecturally distinctive as well as homogeneous in design, and that
accessory facilities be compatible with the overall theme. The quality of signage plays a very
distinctive role in achieving the above desire, when abused, signs can create a visual blight
which detracts from the quality of the environment and an individual's visual perception of the
City.
Recogninn'g that the primary purpose of signs is proper business identification, the
regulations of this Ordinance are enacted to:
A. Ensure that signs erected within the City are compatible with their surroundings and
are in keeping with the policies of the City;
2/OP, DS/3? 2
B. Provide for the identi~eation of business enterprises only and shall not be used for
advertising purposes;
C. Promote traffic safety and community identity while also enhancing the quality of the
visual environment of the City; and
D. Estnblish regulations which control outdoor advertising disphys within the City.
Section 3. r~nitions For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, terms,
phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the
context, words used in the present .tense sing'include the plural.
A. "Commercial Off-Premise Sign" means any sign structure advertising an
establishment, merchandise, service, or entertainment, which is not sold, produced,
manufactured, or furnished at the property on which the sign is located. A commercial off-
premise sign may be commonly known or referred to as an off-premises billboard.
B. 'Non-Commercial Off-Premise Sign' means any sign structure exhibiting non-
commercial speech or message in lieu of commercial sign copy; and any sign structure exhibiting
non-commercial signing unrehted to the buying or selling of commodities or anything involved
and practiced.
Section 4. Prohibited Siglls The establishment of the foliowing outdoor advertising
displays are hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan, or other
application discretionary entitlement for a outdoor advertising display shall be accepted, acted
upon, or approved:
A. Commercial off-premises signs.
Section 5. l:-xenlVt Outdoor Advertising rfi~lays The provisions of this Ordinance shall
not apply to any application for:
A. Directional Signs, as deftned in Chapter 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
B. On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.5 of the non-
codified ordinances of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of Temecula under
Ordinance No. 90-04).
C. Subdivision signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.6 of the non-codi~ed ordinances
of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of Temecuh under ordinance No. 90-04).
D. Non-commercial off-premises advertising structures and signs, subject to the
following design and performance standards:
1. Square footage of the sign board is limited to twelve (12) square feet or less;
2. There shall be no more than one (1) sign board per parcel;
3. ToUil height of a ground-mounted sign and supporting structure shah not
exceed six (6) feet;
4. A building-mounted sign shah not extend above the eave or parapet line and;
5. No sign shall be iliumin;ted.
See~on 6. Non-conformin$ Outdoor Advertising l)i~9hys All outdoor advertising
displays, in any zone, lawfully cOnstructed and ea'eaed prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance, which do not conform tO the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance for the
particular zone in which they are located, shall be accepted as non-conforming sign.
Section 7. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance conflict with any provisions
of Article XIX of Ordinance No. 348 the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply.
Section 8. Severability. The City Council hetty declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and it 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 9. F. nvironmental 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 10. F-ffective Date, This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government Code
Section 65858 and is hereby declared an urgency measure and shall take effect immediately.
The basis of the urgency is that failure to implement these regulations immediately may result
in the establishment of signs in violation of this Ordinance. Such signs would become legal non-
conforming uses and interfere with the implementation of the future general plan.
Section 11. The City Clerk shall certi~ to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted as required by hws.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 14th day of April, 1992.
ATTEST:
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
2/OIt1~/~7 4
STATE OF CALr~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Gr~k DO F!I~RI~y CERTIFY ~ ~ foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. 92-
xx was duly sdopu~d and passed at a regular meeting of ~he City Council on the 14m day of
April, 1992 by ~he following vo~e, to wit:
COUNCn~MI~MBERS:
NOES:
COUN~EP, S:
ABSENT:
CO~CLMEMBERS:
June S. ~, City Clerk
APPROVED A~ T0 FORM:
Scott F. Field
City Attorney
,'}/
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
STAFF !tF-PORTS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE: April 6, 1992
SUB3ECT: Outdoor Disphy.and Adverti~ng Ordinance
This item was continued from the March 24, 1992 Planning Commission meeting in order for
staff and the City Attorney to address concerns raised by the Commission. The two issues of
concern were related to non-commercial signage and the amortization pwvisions.
The concern regarding non-commercial si2nage was the ability of a billboard structure being
maintained so long as the sign mcuage was non-commerciaL This concern is alleviated by
standards in the or~i~snce which limit the size and ~eight of non-commercial signs.
The City Attorney has recommended removing the amortization provisions altogether.
Therefore, pursuant to the proposed ordinance, nonconforming signs will be accepted as non-
conforming sign, which would allow for the structure to remain, unless the City is willing to
compensate for their removal.
vgw
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1992
Nixre By:. John Mayer
~ Resolution No. 92-__. recommending adoption of an
ordinance entitle:
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS AND
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS."
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Ternecule
PROPOSAL:
An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of outdoor
advertising displays.
LOCATION: City Wide
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-08, "a moratorium pertaining
to regulations for outdoor advertising displays". This moratorium was adopted in order to
prohibit the installation of "Off-Premise" Signs (Billboards) within the City of Temecula. All
other signing, as regulated under Section 19.4 {On-Site Advertising Structures and Signs),
Section 19.5 (For Sale, Lease or Rent Signs), Section 19.6 {Subdivision Signs) and Section
19.7 {Temporary Political Signs), are exempt from the moratorium.
Through the adoption of Ordinance No. 91-17, in April 1991, the City Council approved the
final extension of The moratorium to April 23, 1992.
The purpose for preparing the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance is due to the
inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to signage, and specifically off-
premise signs or "Billboards". Ordinance No. 348 {Attachment 5) provides the following
standards and requirements:
Outdoor advertising displays are permitted only in The c-1/c-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H
zones.
2. NO outdoor sdw., ii~N displays shell be located within 500 feet in any direction from
any oths ,satdos adarUng dismy.
3. The maximum height of sn mKd~s salve, lisi_M display shall not exceed 2~ feet.
4. Roof-mourned outdoor isdve. lising displays am Ixohi~ed.
5. No e, _edn nr 8dvelteleg dillsift shell be aleted within 8n established setback or
building line, or within road right-of-we/lines. A one (1 ') foot minimum setback from
the property line is rsWired.
6. No outdoor advertising display shsl have s total surface ares of mm than 300 square
feZ.
Exhibit 'A' graphically M_es.~ts the current zoning districts that permit the installation of off-
site signs, putstent to Ordi,,;~cs No.
DISCUSSION
In order to provide the City of Temecuis with specific sod complete staodards for regulating
outdoor advertising displays, Staff has prepared the attached Ordinance which includes, in
summary, the following main components:
1.
Definitions:
A. "CommerCial Off-Promise Sign" means any sign structure advertising an
establishment, merchaodise, service, or entertainment, which is not sold,
produced, manufactured, or furnished st the property on which the sign is
located.
"Non-Commerciel Off-Premise/On-Premise Sign" means any sign structure
exhibiting non-commercial speech or ,,,sssqge in lieu of commerciel sign copy;
aod any sign ~dcture exhibiting non-commercial signing unrelated to the
buying or selling of commodities or s~ involved aod practiced.
Commercial off-premise signs aod commercial signs on public property are prohibited.
The following outdoor advertising displays are exempt:
Direotionsl Signs, es defined in Chapter 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code
(Ordinance No. '91-40}.
B. On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.4).
C. For sale, lease or rent signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.5).
D. Subdivision signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.6).
2
Non cc,,,merci81 advertising ~ end signs am permitted, ff not illuminated,
subject to the followinll design end performance standards:
A. The total sign cow area is limited to twelve {12) sure feet or less.
B. No more than one (1) sign is permitted per parcel.
C. The maximum height for · grm,.d ,auntod sign is six (6) feet.
D. A building mounted sign shell not extend above the save or parapet line.
CONCLUSION
As noted above. the propose Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance provide the City with
the standards to thoroughly review an spplicanVs ~ as well as providing the necessary
control measure needed to.ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and control the
overall quality and number of such signs.
The new Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance will serve as interim regulations until the
City's Zoning Development COde is prepared end adopted, at which time this Ordinance could
be incorporate end/or modified into the final Zoning Development Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETEPJVIINATION
This Ordinance does not have .a potential for Musing a significant affect on the environment.
Therefore, Staff has determined that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section
15061 {b)(3).
FINDINGS
The proposed Outdoo~ Advertising Displays Ordinance is necessary to bring about
eventual conformity with the City's future Land Use Plan.
There is ramsenable probability that the proposed Outdoor Advertising Displays
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 pdicies of the
Clty's future General Plan.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
h,,ture General Plan, if the proposed policies are ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
due to the fact that pdicies 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.
FUTURE GENBLAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Staff finds it probable that ~he proposed Outdoor .Advertising Displays Ordinance will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted since a Community Design Bernant
will be included in the new General Plan to address aesthetics, which includes architecture,
landscaping and signage,
3
STAFF RECOM~TION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
Af'~PT Resolution No. P.C. 92-.._. recommending.
adoption of an m'dinance entitJed:
'.AN ~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ~ FETTRIII9 TO 81ON RE6ULATION8
AND BITAILIIHIN6 REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF
OUTDOOR ADVNTTtBIN6 DISPLAYS.'
vow
A~c~ents:
dlI ·
2.
3.
4.
5.
Resolution page - 5
Ordinance - page 8
E.d'tibit · A · Current Zoning Districts - page 14
Outdoor Advertising DiSplays Ordinance - Summary Report - page 15
Ordinance No. 348, Article XIX (Advertiing Regulations) - page 16
4
ATTA~ NO. 3
PLANNING COIVIN~SION MINtTTF.~
s~,unmynom*gx~,cc~ 10
It was moved by Commissioner Chinieeff, econded by Commissioner Ford, to
approve the minutes of February 24, 1992 as 8mended. The motion was
NON PUBUC HEARING ITEMS
None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
8
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY ORDINANCES
3.1 ProDosed interim C)rdirmnce establishina regulations for Outdoor Advertising
Disglare.
Senior Planner John Meyer summarized the staff report.
Chairman Hoegland opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M.
Commissioner Fahey questioned the wording on Page 11, Section 3, fifth
sentence of the Ordinance.
City Attorney Scott Field advised that the sentence should read "conforming
uses for one (3) year period...".
Commissioner Fahey and Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned the meaning of
"Non-Commercial Off-Premise Signs" and requested clarification of "Prohibited
Signs ".
City Attorney Scott Field stated that staff would like time to review this section
of the Ordinance.
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to
continue Outdoor Advertising Display Ordinances to the meeting of April 6,
1992, to allow staff time to review Section 2. Prohibited Signs. The motion
was carried unanimously.
PLOT PLAN NO. 8839, REVISED NO. 1, AMENDMENT NO. 2
4.1
Prooosal to revis4 Plot Plan No. 8839. chanaina uses on the second floor from
5.413 sauare feet of storaae to a 780 sauere foot beauty shoo end 9.961
sauare feet of office soace and 1.672 saUare feet of storaae. and reauest a
PCMIN3116/92
-2- 3/20/92
r't /
ITEM
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCR OFFICER
CITY MANAGER' ~
CITYOFTEMECULA
AGENDA IHu~)RT
city councu/city MareSet
FROM:
x'lanning Demmnmm
DATE:
April 14, 1992
SUB~CT:
Approval Authority Ordimmce
RECOMMENDATION:
The Plauning Deiwmnent Staff recommends that the City Couucil
adopt Ordinance No. 92-__, upholding the Planning Commi~sion's
approval of an ordinance regulating the approval of land use
x~=~uhtionso
BACKGROUND
In response to past concerns expressed to Staff by the Council relative to speeding up the
processing of development applications, Staff initi_nt__,~! an amendment to the existing approval
ordinance which ruff believes will substaWinlly reduce processing time for a number of pwject
types.
Under County pwcessing requirements, projects (depending on their scale) were approvable by
either Staff, Planning Director with public hearing, Planning Commi~4ion, or the Board of
Supervisors. When the City incorporated December, 1989, the City Council amended the
County procedures. -.
When the City formed the Planning Commission in June of 1990, approvals were largely
advisory to the Council.
In August of 1990, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-19, which outlined approval authority
for all develupment proposals, (see Attachment 4). This ordinance still did not provide for
Planning Director approvals of discretionary projects and only aliowed the Planning Commi.~sion
to approve rehtively minor projects.
The Planning Commission has reviewed development applications for the last 20 months. In
addition, consultant Planning Staff has been replaced by City employees. Consequen~y, the
level of both Commission and Staff experience has risen to a point where additional approval
authority is warranted.
the revisions to both the CiLT Coo~4ln:ti.g Committee and the Economic DeveJopmem
Committee. Both comma:tees were ~mtl;,ein~c about the pro~sed changes and felt that their
implementslion would re. suit in ~;bstnntitliy improved processing dines.
At their January 27th meeting, the Phnning Commission recomm~odesd some wvisions be made.
Staff's recom~tlons were:
Item numbers 3, 11, 18, 20, 22, 23, 7,4, and 27 were moved from DiRctor approval to
Commigsion approval.
Item no. 8 wss moved to Staff approval from Director approval.
Item No. 21 was rcvis~ to rcquirc .temporary use permits beyond six months to be approved
by the Commission. The commission then condm~cd the ~__t~-~ to February 3rd, for
recommended adoption of the proposed amendments to the Council
FISCAL IMPACT
NoDe
Approval Authority MaUix
(Planning Commition Recommended) - page 3
Ordinance No 92-__ - page 5
Planning Commiqion minutes of January 27th and February 3rd, 1992 - page 9
Planning Commition Staff packt, Ianuary 27, 1992, with the Planning Staff
recom_mmded matrix attached - page 10
Letter of support, Temecula, Murrieta EDC dated January 23, 1992 - page ll
vgw
ATTA~ NO. 1
APPROVAL AUTHORITY MATRIX
APPROVAL AUTHORITY
1. Cel~icete of CornpRance X
2. ChengeofZoee/0edlnme Amendment.
3. Cooditjomd Use Perndt (Existing Bulkling)
4, Com~oel Use Peme (Not In ExbtJn0 Balding)
5. Fkud Map
6, (brueelPbnAmendment
7. Percd Merger X
8. Lot Une A~ X
9. Peking Adjuremerit X
10. Rot Plan for Antonnm end Off-Site AdveelbJnll
(PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED)
*PLAN, DIRECTOR *PLAN. *Cn'Y
J~lCO:a:,~...'ldgtiOI1
X
X
Receeallmldad~
X
X
X
X
11. Plot Ran Under 10,000 541. Ft.
Exempt from CEQA
12. Rot Ran Under 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Non Exempt horn ~EQA
13. F1ot Plan Over 10,000 Sq.Ft,
14. PuMc U~e Permit Under 10,000 Sq. Ft.
15. Pubic Use Permit Under 10,000 Sq. Ft.
16. Public Use Permit Over 10,000 Sq. Ft.
17. Reefsion to Acre
18. Second Dwdling Unit Permit
19. SpecidCaweFecility
20. Specific b/Amendment
21. Sulxtantlai Conformmace
22. Temporary Use Pemdt (Under 6 Months)
23. Temporary Use Permit (Over 6 Months)
24. Tentative Parcel Map (ReidmUd
Less thBt 5 Lots)
25. Tentative Percad Map (Commercial/Industrial)
26. Tentative Tract Map (More than 5 Lots)
27. Time Extension - City Approved Projects
28. Time Extension - County Approved Projects
29. Variance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Notioed Puldio Hearing, 300 Ft. for Nanning Direotor Approval, 800 Ft. for Planning Commbeion end City Courtoil A~,,-~vei.
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 92~
S~%'TA, P~PAUTH.CC ~
ORDINANCE NO. ~,-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TI~IF. J3ULA REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 9t}- 19 AND
ESTABI-I,~n~NG DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR
SUBDIVISION AND LAND USE APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1989, the City of Temecuh was established as a duly
organized municipal corporation of the State of California;
WIn~E4$, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 90-04, the City adopted certain portions
of the non-co&fled Riverside County Ordinances, inchding Ordinance No. 348 (*Land Use
Code") and Ordinance No. 460 ("Subdivision Use Cede") for the City of Temecuh;
WIIEREAS, on October 9, 1990, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted
Ordinance No. 90-19 establishing decision-making authority for subdivision and land use
applications in order to provide for a smooth transition from the County of Riverside to the City
of Temecuh involving such land use applications;
WHI~tEAS, in recognition of the fact that most land use applications are now originating
in the City of Temecula, it is the desire of the City Council to make more efficient and to
establish a line of authority for the review and approval process involving development
applications.
NOW, THEREFOr, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 90-19, adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula
is hereby repealed;
Section 2. Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 and Ordinance No. 460, as adopted
by City Ordinance No. 90-04, are hereby amended to adopt the development application
procedures identified in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
Section 3. Where combined development applications are submitted for consideration,
to the extent any portion of the application would be considered for approval by the highest
reviewing body, as set forth in Section 2, then the entire combined application shall be
considered by the reviewing body.
Section 4. Any application for extension of an approved tentative map, parcel map,
or vesting tentative map considered in accordance with the procedures contained herein shall pay
the same fee as if the application were for the original map approval.
Section S. Any interested person may file an appeal to a final decision by the
Planning Commission to the City Council. Together with the applicable filing fee established
by Resolution of the City Council, such appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) .
days of the date the matter was decided by the Planning Commission. For purposes of this
Section, any City Council member may appeal a decision by the Planning Commission without
payment of any fee for the appeal.
Section 6. Except as Otherwise provided therein, any other land division or
development application may be submitted to the City Planning Director for approval. If the
Planning Director determines that the proposed application is comparable to one of the approvals
described in Section 2, he shall direct that such application be submitted to either the Planning
Commission or City Council for consideration pursuant to the procedures set forth at Section 2.
Section 7. To the extent the pwvisions of Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460 are not
superseded by the pwvisions of this City Ordinance, including notice and hearing requirements,
said remaining pwvisions shall remain effective.
Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause
copies of this Ordinance to be posted and published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this .
day of April, 1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATrST:
hne S. Greek, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
crrY oF T ,M ULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 92- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the of ,1992, and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
,1992, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
O~da38 -3-
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
APPROVAL AUTHORITY
STAFF
X
1. CerfiflmteotComplianee
2. Change or Zone/Ordlmmce Amendmint.
3. Conditional Use Permit (Existing Building)
4. Conditional Use Perufit (Not in Existin~
5. F'ma!Map
6. General Phm Axnendsnent
7. Parcel Merger
8. Lot Line Adjus5iient
9. Parking Adjusmaent
10. Plot Plan for Antmmae and Off-Site
Advertising
~1. Plot Plan Under 10,000 Sq. FL
Exempt from CEQA
12.~ Bot Plan Under 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Non Exempt from CEC~A
13. Plot Plan Over 10,000 Sq. FL
14. Public Use Permit Under 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Exempt frmn CEQA.
1~. Public Use Permit Under 10,000 Sq. FL
Non Exempt from CEQA.
Public Use Permit Over 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Reversion to Acreage
Second Dwelling Unit Permit
Special Care Facility
Specific Phn/Amendment
Substantial Conformance
Temporary Use Permit (Under 6 Months)
PLANNING PLANNING ~TY
DIRECTOR COMMISSION COUNCR,
Recommendation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recommendation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recommendation
X
X
X
X
Ords38
(C~
Tampatory Use Permit (Over 6 Months)
LemtbatSLoa)
.Tmmtivehzu!Map
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF
JANUARY 27 AND FEBRUARY 3, 1992
aMENDMENT OF
Proposalby the City of Temecula tonend Ordinance 90-19
establishing decision making authority for sub-division
and' land use applications, City of Temecula City
boundaries.
$
GARY THORNHILL reviewed the revised Approval Authority
Ordinance. After Commission discussion, the following
amendments were recommended:
No. 3 -
No. 8 -
No. 11 -
No. 18 -
No. 20 -
No. 21 -
No. 22 -
No. 23 -
No. 24 -
No. 27 -
F~INO ~TmBTON MXNUTw2
Planning Co~mission Approval
Planning Director Approval
Planning Commission Approval
Planning Commission Approval
Planning Commission Approval
Exceeding six months, Planning Commission
Approval
Planning Commission Approval -
Planning Commission Approval
Planning Commission Approval
Planning Commission Approval
~)wU)~y 27,
~r~vpw-W XOAOLaSDopenedthe public hearing at 9:30 P.M.
1992~
RUBBELL RUBGdeBOFF# 27349 aefferson Avenue, representing
the Tamecula/aurrietaABCExpediting Committee, indicated
their support of staff's approach to streamline the
approval process.
LARRY M~u~g~q, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, concurred with staff's approval authority
proposal.
BTEV2ALOUIST, 31265 Infield, Tamecula, Vice President of
the Economic Development Corporation, concurred with
staff's recommendation to streamline the process.
PAT ~aRTON, 38605 Highway 79, Temecula, Executive
Assistant for the Economic Development Corporation, very
supportive of this process.
OARY THORNHILL stated that parking adjustments are done
at staff level. He also stated that any time there is an
accompanying general plan change or re-zoning, everything
will trail with that application and go on to the highest
approval authority.
COMMISSIONER CHINIA~FF moved to continue Ordinance 92-
(next) to the meeting of February 3, 1992, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FINBY,
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Slay TBOX~IIIILL advised that this item vould be passed on
to the City Council.
pT.~NNING nTI~CTOR I~O~T
GARY THOIt~HILL r~inded ~e CO~iSSiOn Of ~e Joint meeting with
the City Co~cil on W~esdy, F~~ S, 1992.
pT.ANNTNG COIdMTRRTON hT~CURRTON
OTHER RUSTNESS
ADJO~
COMMIBBION~ BLAIR moved to adjourn at 7:00 P.M., seconded by
COMMIS2IO![2~ FORD. The next meeting of the City of Temecula
Planning Commission will be on Monday, February 24, 1992.
J ~oagla d
Secretary
-6- 02/05/92
~CMZN02/03/92
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF PACKET
DATED
JANUARY 27, '1992
WITH PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED MATRIX ATTACHED
o ·
s~r~mu, r~-t,,.,mcc 10
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
January 27, 1992
Approval Authority Ordinance
The attached approval authority matrix, if approved, would provide for more expedient
processing of applications by City Staff. The proposed revisions and their effect are
summarized below:
Conditional Use Permits (C.U.P.'s) in an existing building (T.I) would be approvable by
the Director rather than the Planning Commission.
Public Use Permits (P.U.P.'s) under 10,000 square feet in size and exempt from CEQA
would be approvable by Staff (Director); P.U.P.'s and P.P. under 10,000 square feet
and not exempt from CEQA would be approvable by the Director (with a public
hearing); P.U.P.'s and plot plans over 10,000 square feet would be approvable by the
Planning Commission. Currently, all P.U.P.'s and plot plans require Planning
Commission approval and/or City Council (in excess of 50,000 square feet) approval.
Second dwelling units would be approvable by the Director with public hearing, rather
than the Planning Commission, per current ordinance.
Substantial Conformance determinations would be approvable by the Director, rather
than Planning Commission.
All commercial and industrial parcel maps and residential parcel maps would be
approvable by the Director at a public hearing. At the present time, the Commission
approves all tentative parcel maps (T.P.M.'s) under 20 acres in size; the Council
approves all T.P.M.'s in excess of 20 acres.
All tentative tract maps would have final approval by the Planning Commission,
regardless of size. Currently, the same criteria as stated above in item 6 applies to
approvals. .'
The Planning Commission
Approval Authority
Page 2
Time extension requests on maps, P.U.P.'s, plot plans, and C.U.P.'s previously
approved by the City would be approvable by 'the Director with public hearing. Time
extension requests on applications approved by the County would require Planning
Commission approval, Currently, time extension requests are approvable by the
Commission and/or Council depending on the size of the project.
The net effect of instituting these changes would, in Staff's opinion, result in a measurable
decrease in processing times; for affected applications, this could amount to four weeks or
more in some cases.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend approval of Ordinance
No. 92-_, an interior Ordinance regulating the approval of land
use regulations.
vgw
ORDINANCE NO. 90-19
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF TBE CITY COUNCIL OF
TIlE CITY OF TEMECUIA ESTABLISHING DECISION
MAKING AUTHORITY FOR SUBDIVISION AND LAND
USE APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1989, the City of Temecuia was established as a duly
organized municipal corporation of the State of California;
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 90-04, the City adopt~l certain portions
of the non-codi~ed Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348 ('Land Use
Code') and Ordinance No. 460 ('Subdivision Use Code') for the City of Temecula;
WHEREAS, both the Land Use Code and the Subdivision Code currently provide for
procedures for consideration of approval for various development applications. These land use
procedures were designed by the County of Riverside in light of the very large number of
development applications that it had to process; amsequen~y, · significant number of
applications were delegated to the County Planning Director and County Planning Commission
for consideration;
WHEREAS, subsequent to the City's incorporation and pursuant to Section 2.06.010
of the Temecula Municipal Code, the City Council utablished the Temecula Planning
Commission which become effective on lune 4, 1990;
WHEREAS, prior to June 4, 1990, the members of the Riverside County Planni g
Commiuion and the Riverside County Planning Director served as members of the inte ~1~
Planning Agency for the City of Temecuh pursuant to the City Ordinance No. 89-13; and,
WHEREAS, in recognition of the need for a smooth transition from the County to the
City, it is necessary for the efficient operation of the affairs of the City that the City Council
establish · clear line of authority for the zview and approval process involving development
applications;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 and Ordinance No. 460, as adopted
by City Ordinance No. 90-0~, are hereby mended to adopt the following development
application procedures:
3/UrOs 90-19 -1-
~
I
) 0
.(
:2l e o'
I
-I
0
,l
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TEMECULA, MURRIETA EDC
DATED
JANUARY 23, 1992
TEMECULA- MURRIETA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
January 23, 1992
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I am writing on behalf of the Temecula/Murrieta Economic
Development Corporation to request your support of a matter of
great importance to the business community.
It is our understandingthat the Planning Department staff will be
proposing changes in the approval process to allow for various
types of routine planning approvals to be granted at the staff
level rather than submitting the items for public hearing as is
currently required. This matter will reportedly be heard by the
Planning Commission on February 27th.
The Temecula/Murrieta EconomicDevelopment Corporation is dedicated
to supporting economic growth in the Temecula Valley. We believe
that streamlining the development approval process to allow for
faster approvals of routine matters would be of great benefit to
the local business community and the overall economy of the area.
Please support the planning staff and the economic development of
Temecula with your "yes" vote on this matter when it comes before
you.
Thank you fur y~ur consideration.
Very truly yours,
Carliene M. Danielsen
Riverside County Portfolio Manager
CMD/cah
40945 Count3r Center Drive, SuiCe C Temecula, California 92591
714-699-6266 FAX 714-694-0201
ITEM
27
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Temporary Street Closure on Avenida De La Reina Between
Corte Arroyo Vista/Corte Alhambra and Calle Aragon
PREPARED BY:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council consider the alternative proposal (time-limit closure) for Avenida de la
Reina as formulated by the Ad Hoc Committee, and direct Staff to maintain the temporary
closure until a permanent closure can be constructed.
BACKGROUND:
At the regular City Council Meeting of January 28, 1992, the City Council reviewed the
temporary street closure of Avenida De La Reina ("ADLR") between Corte Arroyo Vista/Corte
Alhambra and Calle Aragon, and directed Staff to explore alternatives to implementing a
permanent street closure.
Subsequently, an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of representatives of the Public Works
Department, Police Department, Fire Department, School District, Traffic and Transportation
Commission, and Public Safety Commission, along with Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans,
Councilmember Mu~oz, and citizens from the affected tracts was formed. The Committee
met for the first time on February 19, 1992 and unanimously agreed that this was a traffic
safety problem involving the quantity and speed of vehicles using ADLR as a shortcut to the
High School, and heard a presentation by Mr. Ben Dobbins, a registered traffic engineer with
J.F. Davidson Associates, discussing the merits and constraints of approximately twenty
alternatives (Exhibit No. 2). At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee agreed to the
following actions:
-1-
Conduct a postcard survey of the neighborhood similar to the original survey taken in
August 1991;
Direct the residents of Paseo Goleta to the Traffic and Transportation Commission for
assistance with their problem;
3. Request Staff to investigate the legality of a mechanical gate; and
Re-convene on March 25 to review survey results and agreed on a potential alternative
solution prior to returning to Council.
The postcard survey was completed prior to the March 25 meeting and revealed that of the
298 cards mailed, 195 residences responded with 115 (59%) in agreement with the closure,
and 80 (41%) disagreeing with the closure· A complete breakdown of the results along with
a comparison to the 1991 survey and summary of the comments received on the cards is
attached for your review. See Exhibit No. 3.
The mechanical gate was discussed at each meeting and rejected by the citizens on the
Committee due to potential effects on property values· Additionally, Section 21101.6 of the
California Vehicle Code states:
"Local authorities may not place gates or other selective devices on any street
which deny or restrict the access of certain members of the public to the street
while permitting others unrestricted access to the street·"
A gate such as that used in Cupertino and operated on a time clock would be legal, but a gate
that involved cards or keys would not unless a portion of the street was vacated.
At the March 25 meeting, the various alternatives were discussed once again and while no
consensus could be reached among the Committee as to recommending a permanent closure
or an alternative, a consensus was reached as to a. preferred alternative for the Council to
consider on a trial basis prior to implementing a perrYanent street closure·
The preferred alternative involves the clo~Ure of ADLR between Corte Arroyo Vista/Corte
Alhambra and Calle Aragon during the hours encompassing the beginning and end of the
school day. The street would remain open during all other times. The following action would
be necessary to implement this alternative:
Stop signs on ADLR at Corte Arroyo Vista (4-way), Calle Aragon (3-way), and on Calle
Bahia Vista at ADLR. See Exhibit Nos. 7-A and 7-B.
Time limit closure sign on ADLR and advance warning signs on Rancho California
Road (2), Rancho Vista Road.(2), and ADLR (2). See Exhibit No. 7-A.
Request the School District to instruct students and parents to use the arterial routes
of Rancho California Road, Margarita Road, Meadows Parkway, and Rancho Vista Road
when driving to or from the High School.
Install sign at High School driveway restricting through movement and requiring right
and left turns only.
-2- I~Oll~lr~tg~Olt4~-J-d~.2 O4138a
5. Direct the Police Force to concentrate on enforcement of the closure.
Although this alternative appears to re-direct the cut-through traffic to the more appropriate
arterials, the lack of any physical barrier to prevent the flow of traffic during the restricted
times may result in significant amounts of noncompliance. This may cause the problem to
appear as an enforcement' issue when it is a circulation problem. Another area of concern
involves the visual effects of the additional signage that will be installed in the parkways of
residential areas. This alternative is the least expensive of all the alternatives and can be
effective if the citizens of the community work together. The installation of the additional
signage, including labor costs, is approximately $2,000.00.
As stated in previous reports, the permanent closure has been endorsed by the Police
Department, Fire Department, and Public Safety Commission as having no significant safety
impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Each residence would still have two points of
access. Although an extension of the existing park was mentioned as a possible use if a
permanent closure was implemented, the closure could simply involve the installation of
signing and bollard with the existing pavement remaining as is.
The estimated cost of constructing the quarter-acre park extension involves approximately
$35,000 to remove the existing pavement, etc., and extend the curb and gutter across ADLR;
and approximately $35,000 to develop the site. The existing park is a City park, not a private
park, and is maintained by the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD).
Representatives of the TCSD estimated that this construction would increase the citywide
park assessment by approximately $2.00 for FY92-93. In subsequent years, the $2.00 would
not be assessed, and the individual citywide assessments would increase approximately $.05
for the additional maintenance.
Staff recommends the Council consider a permanent street closure due to the following
circumstances:
ADLR is a residential collector street that is being used as a direct route to the High
School;
The High School parking lot driveway lines up directly with ADLR at Rancho Vista
Road. Although it is the most practical location for the driveway as it relates to traffic
safety on Rancho Vista Road, school traffic has the opportunity to use ADLR as a
shortcut.
The circulation system surrounding ADLR is designed to convey traffic to and from the
High School and consists of Rancho California Road (110' arterial), Margarita Road
(110' arterial), Rancho Vista Road (88' secondary), and Meadows Parkway (100'
major). There is no opportunity to construct a bypass;
A permanent closure will alleviate (decrease) traffic on Rancho California Road;
No diversion of traffic to other neighborhoods has occurred; and
The safety of the neighborhood is not impacted.
-3-
Ir,~Ol~gd~4~.i12~Ol!4~4id4.2 040~
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adequate funds are available in the Public Works Department Street Maintenance Account No.
001-164-999-42-5402 for the alternative. The construction of the park site could be funded
from the Development Impact Fund or the citywide park assessment under the TCSD.
Attachments:
1. Area Map
2. Alternatives Matrix
3. Summary of 1992 Card Survey
4. Summary of Comments
5. Agenda of February 19, 1992 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
6. Agenda for March 25, 1992 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
7. Alternative Signage
a. Message
b. Location
-4,- PwOl~gz2b~d2~O414~dL2 040~
C'
CITY OF TEMECULA
AVENIDA DE LA REINA
TRAFFIC STUDY
AVENIDA DE'LA RBNA
. POST CARD SURVEY
RESULTS
Auqust 1991
February 1992
Agree with the Closure
Disagree with the Closure
92.5 (76.4%)
28.5 (23.6%}
115 (59%)
80 (41%)
Out of the 307 post cards sent out, 23 came back returned to sender, 14 of which were
personally delivered to the residence. Therefore, out of the 298 (307 minus 9) post cards,
195 (65.4%) responded vs. 43.3% for the August, 1991 post card survey.
The following are the number of residents that had the same answer on both the August,
1991 and the February, 1992 post card surveys:
1. Agree with the Closure 62
2. Disagree with the Closure 21
The following are the number of residents that changed their answer on the February, 1992
post card survey from the August, 1991 post card survey:
Changed from disagreement to agreement with the closure: 2
Changed from agreement to disagreement with the closure: 9
-1-
pwO2%trafflc~reina%survey.res 032592
COMMENTS REGARDING THE
AVENIDA DE LA REINA ("ADLR")
MARCH 1992 POST CARD SURVEY
AGRFE WITH CLOSURE
The foliowino are comments are from the March 199~ oost card survey:
4.
5.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
# of Commenl~
The closure helps prevent crime·
It has been quieter with the temporary closure ................................ 1
With the closure, it is a safer area, 4
It will reduce traffic.
.................................................. 1
Margarita Road is made for high volume traffic ................................ 2
There has been no problem with drinking or drugs at
the existing park. 1
Had several near-misses backing out of driveway when the
street was open. , 2
Extend park ....................................................... 20
Please keep safety as the top priority ..................................... 10
Why is this continuing? ................................................ 2
i would not agree with any type of gate or fence .............................. 1
It is hard to get out of the neighborhood when the High
School lets out. Main concern is - what if ther~'s
an emergency? - with only one way in or out .............................. 1
This is the only way to resolve and solve the problem ........................... ~
Any solution will lower the value of my property ................................
Speed bumps/stop signs if the permanent closure is not
agreed upon·- .....
.................................................... 1
I agree with permanent closure unless students can be
made to turn left only coming out of the parking lot .......................... '1'
Routing High School traffic through a residential tract .....
will eventually cause a fatal accident...-... ............................... 1
Relocate the High School? ....... ? -: ...... : ............ ~ ................. 1
A bicyclist was killed because of speeding on Calle"Aragon ....................... 1
Temporary street closure is working just fine. Therefore,
let's make it permanent. 1'
One life lost after re-opening would be a tragedy .............................. ;i
As is, at the present ........................................... . ....... 1
ADLR wasn't made for the a.m. and afternoon traffic ........................... 1 -
Rancho California Rodd speed limit should be reduced
to 35 mph. 1
Would like to see this completed as soon as possible ........................... 1
It is not just High School kids. Everybody speeds down
the hill·
........................................................ I
TOTAL .................... ; ..................................... 66
(49 residents had no comment.)
-1-
pwO2~,tref~c~,reine~closure.agr 032592
COMMENTS REGARDING* THE
AVENIDA DE LA REINA ("ADLR"|
MARCH 1992 POST CARD SURVEY
DISAGREE WITH CLOSURE
The followirt~ comments are from the' March 1992 oost card survey:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
# of Commqnts
If Rancho California Road ever becomes heavy with
traffic, there is no other way out ..................................... 2
Law enforcement is the answer ........................................ 3
Emergency vehicle access will be restricted if the
closure is implemented ............................................ 2
This closure is not the appropriate solution ................................ 1
The problem is just a few hours during school days .......................... 3
Closure is not a reasonable solution ..................................... 1
Have a traffic controller to open and close the street .......................... 3
Can't be just a win/lose situation (open/close) .............................. 1
Install a mechanical gate ............................................. 2
A burglar escaped this week due to the closure ............................. 1
Very inconvenient .................................................. 4
Install stop signs and/or speed bumps .................................... 7
Use portable median barrier on Rancho Vista Road
(morning and afternoon) ........................................... 1
We have a legal right to use the street ................................... 1
Closed off Calle Aragon just west of ADLR and place speed bumps on ADLR ......... 1
The closure diverts traffic to other areas .................................. 1
Use "prohibit turn" signs ............................................. 2
It is dangerous to have to take Rancho California Road ........................ 1
Close the street during school time only .................................. 2
Cul-de-sac ADLR at Rancho Vista Road .................................... 3
Set no' through hours ................................................ 2
Place this issue on the ballot .......................................... 1
Post policemen and give tickets ........................................ 1
Let the area planners come up with a better idea ............................ 1
ADLR is a public street .............................................. 2
Control the students..- .............................................. 1
One-way street .................................................... 1
Created access problems ............................................. 1
Test and evaluate alternatives ...................................... . . . 1
Strongly disagree .................................................. 1
$70,000 for a park and maintenance costs is too much of a
tax burden for Villa Avanti and Village Grove Estates ....................... 2
Traffic is good - it helps your children to be responsible ........................ 1
I raised my kids one street from a high school with
kids driving up my street. No one ever complained ........................ I
TOTAL .............................................. ; ......... 58
(22 residents had no comments.)
pwO2%~raf~c%reins%closure.dis 03259:
CiTY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS
AD HOC A VENIDA DE LA REINA COMMITTEE
CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
4:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
!1.
III.
IV.
Purpose of meeting
A. History of problem and definition
B. Existing situation
High School
A. Hours, events
B. Location map of student's residence
Alternatives
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K~
L.
Stop signs
Speed bumps
Signing
One-way street
Divertersltraffic circle
Mechanical gate - ~
Median islands (Rancho Vista and Rancho Calif.)
Limited access gate; cards; manual closure by crossing guard)
Relocate high school drive
Traffic controllers
Traffic signal
Permanent closure
Establish next meeting
-2-
pwO 1 ~td8%mem\0211 ·
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AD HOC A VENIDA DE LA REINA COMMITTEE
CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
MARCH 25, 1992
4:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
II.
i11.
IV.
/Ad Hoc Committee was formed to look at alternatives and reach a consensus
History of Project
A. January 1991 - Public Safety Commission
B. Temporary Barrier September 1991
C. Staff Evaluation and Council Presented
Temporary Closure
A. Neighborhood Survey
B. Volume Reduction
C. No Traffic Diversion (Investigate)'
1992
A.
B.
C.
Survey Results
1991 Comparison
Card Comments
Alternatives Discussion (Vehicle Code Section 211.01.6)
Conclusion
A. Ad Hoc Committee
B. City Council Meeting with Recommendations
p wO 1 \traffic~rei nt, agd0325~''~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AVENIDA DE LA REINA
TRAFFIC STUDY
AVENIDA DE LA RBNA
Closed between Calle Aragon
and
Corte Alhambra/Corte Arroyo Vista
From 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.
From 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
(Except weekends & holidays)
ROAD CLOSED AHEAD
From 6:30 a.m. To 7:30 a.m.
From 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.
(Except weekends & holidays)
ROAD CLOSED
From 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.
From 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
(Except weekends & holidays)
~ C2 (Modified)
EXHIBIT 7B
N0
LEFT
TURN
From 6:30 a.m. to 7~30 a.m.
From 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
(Except weekends & holidays)
(~R17B (Modified)
NO
RIGHT
,TURN
From 6:30 '~i.'~""~ 7:30 a.m..
' From 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
(Except weekends & holidays)-
R16B (Modified)
NLY
(~ R61 (Modified)
ITEM
28
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council/City Manager
Planning Director
April 14, 1992
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Approving Zone Change No. 18
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce an Ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID
CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A 2-
112 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 2-112 ACRE LOT SIZE
MINIMUM) TO S-P (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE
PORTOLA ROAD.
BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of March 24, 1992, staff was directed to
make changes to the conditions of approval dealing with the recommended land uses and to
prepare an ordinance reflecting the approval of the Zone Change.
The attached ordinance has been prepared for introduction at this meeting.
JSG
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMEC~A, CALIFORNIA, AMI~IDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE
OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 18 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A 1-1/1
(RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 2-1/2 ACRE LOT SIZE
MINIMUM) TO S-P (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOI3HEAST CORNER OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND DE PORTOLA ROAD.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
Public Hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City
of Temecula, State of Califomia, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of
California, and the City Code of the Cit~ of Temecula. The zoning district as shown on the
attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Zoning Map for the City
of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be mended 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 effect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 18 and in
the above title, as shown on zoning map attached here to and incorporated herein.
Section 2. Notice of Adoption, Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk
of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be posted
in at least three public places in the City.
Section 3. Taking Effect. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30)
days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Ordinance and cause
copies of the Ordinance to be posted and published as require by law.
PASSED, APPROVal3 AND ADOPTED this day of
,1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
hne S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
0~s39
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
crrY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 92- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of April, 1992, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _th day
of , 1992 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNC~MBERS:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Scott F. Field
City Attorney
Ord~19
MAP NO.:
CHANGE O1~ ZONE NO.:
ORDINANCE NO.:
18
CITY OF ~
CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTEn:
klORT'H
'S-P' ,SPEORC
PLAN ZONE
ITEM
29
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 14, 1992
City Council/City Manager
Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager
PAVING OF 6TH AND FRONT STREET VACANT LOT
RECOMMENDATION:
a)
b)
It is recommended that Council direct staff:
regarding its interest in the tempprary paving of the vacant
6th and Front Streets; and
to appropriate funds as necessary.
lot at
DISCUSSION:
The City recently acquired the vacant lot at the northeast corner of 6th and Front
Streets. One member of the City Council has asked staff to explore the feasibility of
providing temporary paving on the vacant lot so that it can be used on an interim
basis for the Farmers Market and other similar activities. The lot can be temporarily
paved with three inches of asphalt for approximately 938,850.00 This temporary
improvement would not include landscaping, tire blocks, striping, or any other
improvements that would accompany the development of a permanent parking lot.
As an alternative, gravel can be placed on the lot to provide a temporary surface at
the cost of $15,000. It should be noted, however, that there are maintenance
expenses associated with keeping the gravel in a confined area.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1)
If the City Council determines that the lot should be temporarily paved
with asphalt, $38,850 should be appropriated from Redevelopmerit
Agency CIP-General Contractor Account # 016-199-999-44-5804 to
016-199-999-42-5219.
2)
If the City Council determines that a temporary gravel overlay should be
utilized, $15,000 needs to be appropriated from Redevelopment
Agency CIP General Contractor Account # 016-199-999-44-5804 to
016-199-999-42-5219 Temporary Improvements.
a:pave.agn
ITEM
3O
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
April 14, 1992
Maintenance of Streets Not Within the Maintained Road System
PREPARED BY:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and provide Staff direction.
BACKGROUND:
There are several unimproved (dirt) streets within Temecula such as Leifer Road north of
Nicolas Road, Walcott Lane, Calle Girasol, John Warner Road, and Santiago Road, that were
not accepted into the County's maintained road system due to the increased maintenance
costs and liability associated with lack of asphalt pavement and drainage facilities. The land
divisions associated with the streets were typically required to provide an offer of dedication
to the public for street and road purposes, but were not conditioned to install the
infrastructure improvements that would have made them eligible for maintenance by the
County Road Department. The offers of dedication were then either not accepted by the
County Board of Supervisors, or were accepted only for vesting purposes to preserve access
rights.
Under Section 1806 of the Streets a. nd Highways Code, the governing agency is not
responsible for maintenance nor liable for failure to maintain until the agency formally accepts
the street into the maintained street system. AdditionalLy, streets that are not within a City
or County's maintained street system are not eligible for Gas Tax Funding and the associated
maintenance cost must be funded by an alternative source.
-1- pwO1\agdrpt\92\0324\maintnon,rnrs 0406
Currently, the Public Works Department will respond to citizens in these areas in times of
emergency with barricades or sand bags, but will not do any routine maintenance of these
streets. The Council may wish to continue this policy or direct Staff to formulate a policy that
would limit the expenditures of public funds to emergency repairs; or possibly accept all the
streets into the maintained system, but maintain only minimally with grading and minor
drainage facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To design and construct to a minimum standard a twenty-four foot paved roadway (using
Leifer Road as an example) with 3" of asphalt over 4" of base, asphalt betins, down-drains
and one minor culvert crossing (2-24" C.M.P.) would cost approximately $100,000-
8115,000. To only compact and grade the roadway, along with dust control and base
stabilization, would cost approximately $12,000. However, the road would need to be
re-graded twice per year at an approximate annual cost of $14,000.
Attachment
Memo on Leifer Road
-2- pw03\agdrpt\92\0324\rnaintnon.rnrs 0406
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Brad Buron, Maintenance Supervisor
March 11, 1992
Leifer Road Update
Tim, here is a cost breakdown for projected work to be constructed on Leifer Road.
Grade, compact subgrade
106,800 sq. ft. ~ $0.05/s.f. =
Two 24" arched C.M.P., installed
60 linear feet @ ,~78.55/I.f. =
SUBTOTAL =
Dust control and road base stabilation using
liquid calcium chloride application
3.88 gai. per sq. yd. =
TOTAL COST =
$5,553.60
$~,-,713.00
$10,268.60
$1,500.00
$11,768.60
In response to your request of how many families access their homes off Nicolas Road into
Liefer Road area, there are forty-two (42) different residences that live on the following
streets:
Liefer Road
Greenwood Lane
Kimberly Lane
Pala Vista Drive
Jessie Circle
Gatlin Road
Indian Summer Road
if you have any more requests, or require more information on any of the above, please feel
free to contact me at extension 184.
pwO2\buronb\0311 a.mem
ITEM
31
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
DATE:
April 14, 1992
SUBJECT:
Volvo World Cup '92 Team Penning Competition
RECOMMENDATION: Consider appropriating ,~1,500 for City participation and
promotion at the 1992 Volvo World Cup Team Penning Competition.
BACKGROUND: Attached you will find correspondence from the committee
chairpersons regarding the Volvo World Cup Team Penning Competition. The City of
Temecula has been asked to participate and sponsor a portion of the trophies. As the
correspondence states the City will receive recognition as a sponsor and will be able
to publicize the City of Temecula activities such as the Temecula Pro Rodeo and the
Great Temecula Tractor Race.
The request for support is in the amount of $1,500, the proceeds of which will go
toward the purchase of trophy belt buckles.
Additional materials are available in the office of the City Clerk, should you wish to
learn more about this event.
March 24, 1992
TO:
PATRICIA BIRDSALL
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FROM:DIANE GROD AND MIKE QUICK
COMMITTEE 'CHAIRPERSONS FOR THE VOLVO WORLD CUP TEAM PENNING
Telephone numbers Day: 714-699-5255, Home: 714-654-9446
The city of Del Mar is hosting the 14th Volvo World Cup
Finals during April 15-19. The'~aturday, April -t~8th.has been
designated California Day. Immediately follwing the International
Grand Prix of Del Mar on Saturday there will be held a California
Horse Exposition in the main arena while spectators from all
over the United States and the world look on. During this
exposition, the premiere event will be a team penning competition
consisting of two divisions. The first division will be
comprised of six Southern California Professional Team Penning
teams. The second division is comprised of fourteen teams
made up of one professional team penning rider and two world
cup riders, most of whom will be seeing this California tradition
for the first time let alone participating in th fastest grQwing
horse sport in the United States.
The Volvo World Cup is held once a year generally in
the month of April. For this years' World Cup the state of
California has won the bid to host the international show
jumping competition which is being held at the Del Mar Race
Track. During the fourteen year history of the World Cup,
the competiton has only been held twice before in the United
States besides this year so it is a honor for Southern
California to be the host of such a international level
competition where sixteen nations will be represented. We,
Southern California would like to leave our mark on the
international world of show jumping and the other nations
of the world, by sharing a part of our western culture.
As a sponsor of this special event the city of Temecula
will be promoted as a major sponsor of ~he horse sports world.
The City of Temecula will be promoted as a part of California's
western heritage. It will be personally represented by the
Miss Temecula Rodeo Queen and The Miss Temecula Junior Rodeo
Queen. The spectators will be comprised of not only residents
of California but also people from all over the United States
and at least sixteen foriegn nations. Some of the professional
team penning riders are local residents such as Cindy Anderson,
Eddie Jarnigan along 'wi~h other professionals such as Don
Fullerton, Ramon Silva and Marie Scovill who is the 1992 president
of the World Championship Team Penning Association. A few
of the world cup riders that will be participating are Ian
MIller from Canada who is a former olympian and has won the
world cup twice before, John and Michael Whitaker from Great
Britian and former olympians, Eric Navet and Herve Godnignon
from France, and from the United States Bernie Trauig a former
olympian, Candice Schlom, Phillip Cyllis, and Hap Hansen whose
mother has been a resident of Temecula for at least ten years.
Many of these riders will be leaving Del Mar and travelling
to Barcelona for the 1992 Olympic Games.
With the presence of the Rodeo Queens, the Temecula Pro
Rodeo and The Great Temecula Tractor Race along with the
Golden Harvest Festivities will be publisized. Fliers wi~
be distributed to the spectators by the rodeo queens along
with a banner listing the names of the organizations of the
donors. The Volvo World Cup Team Penning Committee is requesting
a donation of $1500.00 the proceeds of which will go towards
the purchase of trophy belt buckles. We, the committee,
apologize for the short notice but we have just recently been
invited to be included in the festivities being held during
California Day.
Thanks for your consideration.
Volvo World Cup Team Penning
Committee,
Diane Grod and Mike Quick
~.ND DAA, 19cJ0
A Production of the
22rid District
ASricultund Association
State o~ Ca~onda
22/~ Jimmy Durante BIrd.
Dei Ma~ California 92614
U.S.A.
Telephone: (619) 755-1161
Fax: (619) 755-;~20
DATE:
CONTACT:
EVENT DATE:
ORGANIZER:
LOCATION:
'Fact Sheet
February 7, 1992
Shawn Riley
Information Officer, Del Mar Fairgrounds
(619) 755-1161 or (619) 296-1441
April 15-19, 1992
The 1992 Volvo World Cup is a production of
the 22nd District Agricultural Association
(22nd DAA). The district is an agency of the
State of California Department of Agriculture.
The district operates the 1.4 square kilometer
(350-acre) Del Mar Fairgrounds.
One of the 22nd DAA's principal purposes is to
provide agricultural education and recreation
for the people of San Diego County. Equine
activities are a focal point of the
fairgrounds' annual calendar of events. Among
those activities is the two-week Del Mar
National Horse Show, which has as its featured
event the $30,000 Cadillac Grand Prix, a part
of the American Grandprix Association circuit.
Other equine activities include the Del Mar
Thoroughbred Club's racing meet, one of the
most successful in the United States; and the
headquarters of the California Thoroughbred
Breeders Association. Several thoroughbred
auctions are held each year on the grounds.
Del Mar, California USA
Del Mar is approximately 32 kilometers (~0
miles) north of San Diego and about 161
kilometers (100 miles) south of Los Angeles.
Bordering the Del Mar Fairgrounds on the west
is the Pacific Ocean. Because Del Mar is 60
kilometers north of Mexico, it is influenced
by Latin language and culture. In Spanish,
"Del Mar" means "of the sea."
San Diego County, where Del Mar is located, is
a major center of show jumping competition.
-more-
page two--World Cup Fact Sheet
ORGANIZER:
ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE:
EVENT STAFF:
FACILITIES:
Internationally known riders who live in Del
Mar include Hap Hansen and Bernie Traurig.
International horses in the area include Zulu,
Juniperus, Eastern Sunrise, Zadok, Corsair and
Maybe Forever.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS: 22nd DAA
Allan Royster, president
Battle Kujawa, vice president
Jan Anton
Bill Cleator
John "Jack" Ford
Gloria "Brooks" Parry
Raymond Saatjian
Robert Spanjian
Bob Vice
Brooks Parry, chairman
Max Ammann
Jan Anton
Uif Bergqvist
Dick Brown
Jane Brown
Joseph Harper
Bettie Kujawa
John Quirk
Allan Royster
Robert Spanjian
William C. Steinkraus
Roger Vitaich, CFE, general manager
Martina Stimmel, executive assistant
The site of the Volvo World Cup Finals is the
1-year-old, $5.4 million horse show arena. The
arena floor measures 92 by 46 meters (300 by
150 feet), a roof height of 14 meters (45
feet), and state-of-the-art lighting, sound
and scoreboard.
The seating capacity for the World Cup,
including, bleacher seating at the north and
south ends of the arena, is 9,000.
The' new arena also will be the home of the
highly regarded Del Mar National Horse Show,
which has been at the fairgrounds since 1946.
-more-
page three- World Cup Fact Sheet
EQUINE
INFORMATION:
In addition, a new $15 million satellite
wagering facility opened to the public,
September 1991. This facility includes
extensive dining facilities adjacent to the
horse show arena, offices and meeting rooms
for the World Cup Finals.
The stabling facilities include 2,000
permanent stalls with full security. There are
extensive warmup areas. Complete veterinary
and equine hospital facilities are on the site
andnearby.
The horse industry is a $15.2 billion business
in the United States. California's horse
industry alone contributes $2 billion to the
economy, more than any other U.S. state.
The Del Mar race track is first in the nation
in average daily handle.
WCFACT
02/10/91
ITEM
32
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA IH~]RT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
April 14, 1992
Temporary Political Signs
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
BACKGROUND
Attached for your review is a memo from the City Attorney summarizing the relevant provisions
concerning temlx)rary pofitical signs. At the request of staff, the City Altomey has reviewed
the State Codes and local Ordinances.
In Summary, the City may remove political signs located within the pubtic right-of-way. Pofitical
signage located on private property may not exceed 16 square feet in surface area nor exceed
6 feet in height.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments
vgw
S~STAFFRF~POL1T. 5GN
BUI~KEt WILL=AM~ & SORENSEN
TO:
~ROM:
Gary Thornhill, Planning CO:
Director
Scott F. Field, City Attorney~PILz NO.
DATE:
March 27, 1992
Temporary Political Signs
Per your request, this memo summarizes the relevant provisions of
State law and City ordinance concerning temporary political
signs.
Sec. 5200, st. ~.~q. of the. Business & Professions Code regulates
all forms of off-premises advertising, including billboards and
temporary political signs. H~wever, it provides at Sec. 5230
that cities may enact more restrictive land use regulations, but
may not authorize 'less restrictive advertising.
Under Business & Professions Code Sec. 5405.3, a temporary
political sign is defined as a sign which:
(a} Encourages a particular vote in a scheduled election,
(b) It is placed not sooner than 90 days prior to the
scheduled election and is removed within 10 days after
that election,
(c)
(d)
Is no longer larger than 32 sq. ft., and
Has a Statement of Responsibility filed with ColTtans
certifying a person who will be responsible for remov-
ing the temporary political sign and who will reimburse
CalTrans for any cost incurred to remove it.
section 5405.3 further provides that while it does not prohibit
the placing of temporary political signs aenerally, no political
sign may be placed within.660 ft. of any ~andscaped freeway, and
further may not be placed wfthin the right of way of any "high-
way". Highway is.defined to include all "roads, streets, boule-
vards, lanes, courts, places, commons, trails, ways or other
rights-of-way or easements used for or laid out and intended for
the public passage of vehicles or of vehicles and persons". In
other words, no political sign may be placed within the right-of-
way of any city streen.
Since temporary political signs are prohibited by State law from
being located within city streets, this only leaves placement on
private property. Further, placement on private property is
limited to property outside of 660 feet of any landscaped free-
way. I am unsure if I-!5 is a landscaped freeway, so you need to
check on this with CalTrans.
This leaves the area of signs posted on private property, which
is controlled by Sec. 19.7 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348,
which the City has adopted by reference since Incorporation.
Sec. 19.7 provides that temporary political! signs may be posted
on private property so long as the sign does not exceed 16 square
feet in surface area, does not stand taller than 6 feet, the lot
does not have signs in excess of 80 square feet, and the candi-
date has the consent of the owner. Sec. 19.7 places additional
restrictions on such signs, a copy is attached.
Also please note that Sec. 19,7 provides that signs are to be
removed only after providing the candidateor sponsor at least
five day's notice. Following that period, the City may remove
the sign summarily and bring an action against the candidate for
the cost of removal. HoWever, this procedure applies only to
signs on private prope.~cy. Signs on public property, or within
the right of way, may be summarily removed without notice. Bus.
& Prof. Code Sec. 5463.
'1~ I IQ7533.),i~M
.~t;ecettatteous pZatt/fit~-Ret~ted Laws
(b) Advertising displays advertising the sale or Ie,~e oEthe property upon which they are located,
if all adver~sing displays within ~ feet of the edge of the right-of-way of a bonus se~nent shall
comply with the regulations adopzd under Secdons 5251 and 5415.
(c) Adve~sing displays which advertise the business conducted, ~rvices rend¢.~,~ or goods
pr~luced or sold upon the property upon which the adve,-'~ing display is place, if me display is
upon ~he same side of ~he highway as the advertised activiW; and if all advertising displays within
660 feet of the right-of-way o f a bonus segment comply with ~he regulations adopted under S ~dons
5251, 5403, and 5415; and except that no advertising display shall be placed after Ianuary 1, 1971,
if it contains fla.shing, intermiv~nt or moving lights other dxan tha~ part n~ to give public
service inEormadon including, but not limited to, the time, dsie, temperature, weather, or similar
informadon~ or a message center disphy as defined in subdivision (d).
Message cenzer (d) (1) Message cenzr alLsplays, which comply with Article 6 (commencing with Secdon 5350)
displays and Article 7 (commencing with 3ection 5400). As used in this subdivision, message ceru~rdisplays
are displays which have a changeable message which may be changed by electronic processes or
by remote control The i/hmination of a message cenw, r display is not the use of a fi,~hing,
inw. rm ittenr, or moving li ght for purposes of subdivis ion (b) of Section 5408, except tha~ no message
center display my include any illumination which is in motion orappears ~o be in motion or changes
in inmnsity or exposes i~s message for less d~n four seconds, normay th~ interval between
be le~s than one second. No message center display may be placed within 1,000 feet of another
message center display on the same side of the highway. No message center display may be placed
in violation of Secdon 131 of Tide 23 oE the United States Code.
(2) Any message cenw~ display locn~ beyond 660 fe~ from the edge of the right-of-way of an
intersmz or primar~ highway and pertained by a cit~, county, or ciW and county on or before
December 31, 1988, is in complhnce with article 6 (commencing with 3ecdon 5350) and Article
7 (commencing with Section 5400) for purpos~ of this section.
(3) Any message center display legally placed on or before December 31, 1989, which does not
conform with ~ section may continue to be maintained under i~s existing criteria if it advertises
only the business conducat, services rendered, or goods produced or sold upon the property upon
which the display is placed.
(4) This subdivision does not prohibit the adoption by a city, county, or civ/and county
re~u-ictions or prohibitions affecting off-premises message center displays which are equal to or
~x-~ater than those imposed by this suSdivision, if that ordinance or regulation does not r~wict or
prohibk on-premises adver~ing displays, as defined in Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section
5490).
(e) Advertising displays erected or maintained pursuant to regulations of the d~ctor, not
inconsisten~ with the na~onal polic~ set forth in subdivision (f~ of Section 13 1 of Tide ~ of the
United Sm~s Code and the standm'ds promulga~.xi thereunder b~ the Secretary of Transportation,
and designed to give information in the specific inr~,-~st of the waveling public.
( mnded by S ~ts. 19 7-~, C h. 1074: Amended ~ S t~ts I989, C h. 6 91J
Temponu'y poii~d S405.3. Nothing in this chapter, including, but not limited to, Section 5405, shall prohibit the placing
si~,ns of ternporary political signs, unless a federal a~ency determines tha~ such placement would violate
federal regulations. However, no such sign shall be placed within the right-of-way of any highway
or within e(~0 feet of the edge of and visible from the right-of-way of a landscaped fr~way.
A 2mpomv] polltic. al sign is a sign which:
(a) Encourages a pardaxlar vote in a scheduled election.
(b) rs placed not sooner u~n 90 days prior to the scheduled election and is removed within 10 d~ys
~ d~t decdo..
(c) h no larger tha~ 32 ~quare feet.
(d) ~ had a stas:m~t d responsibility fried with the dq:~'tmmt ~g · I~" who
be r~spo~sible for removing me temporary polid::al sign and who will .:im buzse th~ depazsme-t for
any CO, S~ incurred to remove iL
(Ad~d by Szats. 197~), C,~.
Farm product outlay S4OS.~. In addidon to those displays permiv. ed pursuant to Section 5405, erected and maintained
advertising d/sivlay~ pursuant to regulations oi the director, which will not be in violation of Section 131 of Tide 23 of
the United States Code, and which identify the locadon of a farm prnduce oudet wher= farmers sen
direcdy to the public only thos~ farm or ranch producr~ they have produced themselves, may be
The Plannin~, Zoning, and Development Laws
2. No sign shall be within i00 feet of any existing residence.
3. No more than two such signs shall be pen~itted'for each
subdi vision.
4. The maximum period of time a sign may remain in pl ace shall be two
years.
5. No Sign shall be arti~ftctally lighted.
6. An agreement, secured. by a $100 cash bond, shall be executed with
the County for each sign, assuring the removal of the sign within
the allowed time period. The bond and agreement shall be filed
with the Departant of Building and Safety.
Added:
09-13-.73 (Ord. 348. lZO1 )
· ~mended Effectt re:
01-20-77 (Oral. 348.1540) ,
06-~7-78 Ord. 348.1658!
07-16-85 348.2496)
SECTION 19.7. TENPORARY POLXTICAL SIGNS.
a. For the purpose of this 'ordinance, a temporary political sign shall
mean a sign, not otherwtse permitted by thl s ordi nonce, whtcn
encourages a particular vote in a scheduled election.
b. Notwithstandt'ng any other provision of this ordinance, temporary
political signs are permitted in all zoning classifications subject to
the following limitations:
I. No such sign shall exceed 16 square feet in surface area.
2. No free-standing temporary political sign shall exceed 6 feet in
height.
3. No lot shall contain tmporary political signs having an aggregate
surface area in excess of 80 square feet.
4. NO such sign shall be artificially lighted.
S. No such sign shall be erected or placed more than gO days prior to
the scheduled election to which it' pertains.
6. All such signs shall be removed within 10 days after the scheduled
election to which they pertain, except that a sign erected or
placed for a candidate who prevails in a primary election may be
maintained until 10 days after the final election.
7. No such sign shall be erected, placed or maintained upon any
private property without the consent of the owner, lessee, or
person in lawful 'possession of such property.
B. No tmaporary political sign shall be erected, placed, o~ maintained
on any publicly owned tree or shrub or upon the improved portion of
any street or .highway .right of way which is used for traffic or
pa rkl ng.
g. No temporary political sign shall be erected, placed or maintained
so that it does any of the following:
{a) Nars, defaces, disfigures or damages any public building,
structure or other propert>'.
{b) Endangers the safety of persons or property.
(c) Obscures the view of any fire hydrant, traffic sign, traffic
signal, street sign, or public informational sign.
(d) Blocb~s motorists' lines of sight to areas of vel~icular or
pedestri an traffic.
Any temporary political sign erected, placed or maintained in
violation of any provisions of this section may be renoved by the
County 5 days .after notice of the violation is given to the concerned
candidate or sponsor, and.to the owner, lessee or person in lawful
possession of the property. Any te~er;;Yf political sign which
constitutes an immediate danger to ety or persons or property,
or which has not been renoved within 10 days after the scheduled
election as provided in subsaction {b)(6), may be r~noved by the
County summarily and without notice. The County may bring as action
to recover the reasonable cost of sign removal under this subsection.
Added Effecttve:
04-21-83 (Ord. 348.2126)
256
ITEM
33
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
April 14, 1992
SUBJECT:
Resolution No. 92-__ To Approve An Advance From The
Revolving Fund To the Temecula Redevelopment Agency
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No.92- entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA)
REVOLVING FUND FROM $2,000,000 TO $4,000,000 AND APPROVE
AN ADVANCE OF $3,484,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE
40 ACRES OF PROPERTY WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND SOUTH OF
CHERRY STREET.
DISCUSSION: In a separate RDA agenda report, staff is requesting that the
RDA Members approve the acquisition of 40 acres of property west of Diaz Road and
south of Cherry Street. In order To fund the acquisition it is necessary to approve an
increase in the RDA Revolving Fund from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 and approve an
advance of $3,484,000 from the fund to the RDA.
Attachment:
Resolution 92-
Promissory Note
PROMISSORY NOTE
The Temecula Redevelopment Agency does hereby promise to pay to the City of
Temecula on or before June 30, 1994, the sum of $2,000,000 the receipt of which,
as a loan, is hereby acknowledged. The principal sum due on this note shall carry
interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, from the date of this note to and
including the date that the full amount of the principal sum due hereunder is paid in
full 'to City.
That principal and interest due hereunder shall be paid in currency of the United States
at the offices of the City located al~ 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
92590.
Should litigation be necessary to enforce the rights of either party pursuant to this
Note, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to recover its costs
together with reasonable attorneys fees.
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
By:
J. Sal Mu~oz, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Secretary
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING AN ADVANCE PROM THE GENERAL FUND
REVOLVING FUND TO THE IIRDEVELOP1M~NT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND SOUTH OF
CHERRY STREET
WtIF~REAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula ("Agency") desires to
purchase a 40 acre parcel of land located west of Diaz Road and South of Cherry Street; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to approve an increase in the Redevelopment Agency
Revolving Fund in the amount of $2,000,000 to allow an advance of $3,484,000 to accomplish
this acquisition; and
WtIF~REAS, expenditures of monies from the Redevelopment Revolving Fund may be
approved by resolution of the City by a majority vote for the acquisition of real property in any
project area pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33622;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That an advance in the amount of $2,000,000 is approved from the General
Fund Revolving Fund to increase the Redevelopmerit Agency Revolving Fund to $4,000,000.
Section 2. That an advance of $3,484,000 from the Redevelopment Agency Revolving
Fund is approved for acquisition of 40 acres of property west of Diaz Road and South of Cherry
Street.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 14th day of April, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
2/r~o~/249 -1-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temez:ula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution No. 92- was duly ,adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 14th day of April, 1992, by the following roll call vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCK, MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
2/reso~/249 -2-
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING AN ADVANCE FROM THE REVOLVING
FUND TO THE REDEVELO~ AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHERRY STREET
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula ("Agency") desires to
purchase a 40 acre parcel of land located west of Diaz Road and South of Cherry Street; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to approve an increase in the Redevelopment Agency
Revolving Fund in the mount of $2,000,000 to allow an advance of $3,484,000 to accomplish
this acquisition; and
WHEREAS, expenditures of monies from the Redevelopment Revolving Fund may be
approved by resolution of the City by a majority vote for the acquisition of real property in any
project area pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33622;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That an advance in the amount of $2,000,000 is approved from the Revolving
Fund to increase the Redevelopment Agency Revolving Fund to $4,000,000.
Section 2. That an advance of $3,484,000 from the Redevelopment Agency Revolving
Fund is approved for acquisition of 40 acres of property west of Diaz Road and South of Cherry
SWeet.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 14th day of April, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
2/r~so~/249 -1-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, I-~J~RY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution No. 92- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 14th day of April, 1992, by the following roll call vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
2Iresos/249 -2-
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
o
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD MARCH 24, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:08
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS:
PM.
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz,
Parks
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S.
Greek, City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given·
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Moore to approve Consent Calendar
Items I and 2.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz,
Parks
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Minutes
1.1 Approve the minutes of March 10, 1992.
Notice of Completion - Rancho California Soorts Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project
2.1 Accept Rancho California Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project as
100% complete·
2.2 Authorize final retention payment to Mahr Construction, Contract No.
91-006, to be released pursuant to Section 9-3.1 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works construction.
2.3 Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion·
-1-
Minutes/032492
03130/92
CSD Minutes March 24.1992
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
None given.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
DIRECTORS RrPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Lindemans to adjourn at 8:10 PM.
The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, TCSD Secretary
Ronald J. Parks, President
Minutee/O32492 -2- O3/30192
ITEM
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
DAVID F. DIXON
DATE:
APRIL 14,1992
SUBJECT:
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
PREPARED BY:
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Receive and File.
DISCUSSION: Two community workshops concerning the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan were held at Vail Elementary School. Input was received
concerning land acquisition, park facility development, bikeways and trails, and
operations and funding sources. In addition, a telephone survey with approximately
four hundred residents was conducted to receive additional input concerning
recreation programs and facilities in the City of Temecula. The input derived from the
community workshops and the telephone survey will be an integral part in the
development of the first draft of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
The completed Master Plan will explain the purpose of the planning document,
evaluate the existing parks and facilities within the City, assess the community
recreation needs, create park facility standards and develop an implementation plan
that addresses service areas, future needs, park standards and operation and
maintenance costs,
A Parks and Recreation Master Plan Committee was formed with representatives from
the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, and community members. It is
expected that the committee will review the first draft of the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan by the end of April. The Master Plan will then be reviewed by the Parks
and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and the Traffic and Transportation
Commission before final approval by the City Council. It is planned that the City
Council will review the Master Plan for approval in July, 1992.
I a'.agend~'urastplan. O01 031892
ITEM
3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
DAVID F. DIXON
DATE:
APRIL 14,1992
SUBJECT:
STATUS REPORT ON SPORTS PARK IMPROVEMENTS
PREPARED BY:
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Receive and File.
DISCUSSION: Eighteen (18) trees and the required irrigation improvements
have already been installed to the playground area in the Rancho California Sports
Park. The trees are the twenty-four gallon size and are approximately fifteen to
twenty feet in height. These trees will eventually grow to forty feet in height and
provide a long term solution in providing shade to the playground areas. Until the
trees are fully grown, staff will provide temporary canopies for shading during the hot
summer months.
The irrigation system used for the trees was designed to expand the grass areas
around the playgrounds at a future date. Staff is now in the process of obtaining
quotes to install the required irrigation and hydroseed to plant grass around the
playground areas. Depending on final costs, staff would like to proceed with these
improvements by June 30, 1992.
A joint City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled
for April 9, to discuss the Community Recreation Center (CRC) project. The intent of
this meeting is to form a consensus concerning the floor plan of the CRC, community
pool, amphitheater, and required parking for the project. Once a consensus is
reached, final schematic drawings will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation
Commission and Planning Commission. Approval of the final schematic design will
be considered by the City Council on May 26, 1992.
la~X~9. ttPtk'001 031892
TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AGENDA
ITEM
NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD MARCH 24, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at
8:10 PM.
PRESENT: 5
ABSENT: 0
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks, Mu~oz
AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and
Agency Secretary June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMI=NTS
None given.
AGENCY BUSINESS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Moore to approve the minutes
of March 10, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Dixon stated he has sent the Agency Members a copy of a matrix that
outlines development incentives. He requested the members forward comments to him to be
included in an official policy.
Executive Director Dixon also reported that he and the City Clerk are reviewing applications
for the Old Town Advisory Board and will present a report in the next two to three weeks.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
None given.
AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS
Agency Member Birdsall requested that consideration of a loan to the Boys and Girls Club for
relocation of temporary buildings be placed on the next RDA agenda.
4~RD~2492 -1- 03/30/92
Temecula RedsvdOpment Agep~ M'mutes March 24. 1992
Agency Member Parks requested a report from staff addressing the RDA Old Town Advisory
Committee and the manner in which the expenditure of RDA funds is to be considered by this
committee.
ADJOURNMI:NT
It was moved by Agency Member Moore, seconded by Agency Member Parks to adjourn at
9:15 PM.
J. Sal Mufioz, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
/~PPROVAT.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Redevelopment Agency
FROM:
Executive Director
DATE: April 14, 1992
SUBJECT:
Selection - Old Town Advisory Committee
PREPARED BY:
June Greek, Agency Secretary/City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: Select seven members to serve as members of the Redevelopment
Old Town Advisory Committee.
BACKGROUND: At the direction of the Agency, staff re-advertised to invite
applications to the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee during the month of March.
This series of advertisements resulted in the receipt of 11 applications for positions on this
committee.
All but one of the applicants is qualified either as a resident, owner and/or operator of a
business entity which has its principal place of business located in Old Town. The City
Attorney has ruled that a business entity can be a "for" or "not for profit" corporation. He
has also ruled that the members of the Board of Directors of the Old Town Merchants
Association, the Temecula Town Association and the Temecula Museum Foundation are the
operators of those non-profit corporations.
Attached for your review are the applications of the following qualified individuals:
Susie Bridges - Businesswoman - Board Member of the Temecula Town Assn.
Chuck Cena - Owner - Flower Corral Florist in Old Town
Dallas A. Gray - Businessman - Board Member of Old Town Merchants Assn.
Robert L. Hemme - Businessman - Board Member of Temecula Town Assn.
Charles Jenkins - Carpenter - Resident of Old Town
Nancy J. Maurice - Businesswomen - Board Member of the Temecula Museum
Constance Pelonero o Artist - Resident of Old Town
William Perry - Architect - Offices in Old Town
Bonnie K. Reed - Owner - Antiques and Collectibles in Old Town
Ron Walton - Owner - Texas Lil's Restaurant in Old Town
Foundation.
Ageride Report
April 14, 1992
Selection of Old Town Advisory Committee
Page 2.
We also received an application from Robert "Bob" Taylor, a retiree who serves as Official Old
Town Greeter. Mr Taylor does not qualify under the provisions of the stipulated judgement
because he does not own or operate e business or live in Old Town.
Should members of the Agency wish, you also have the option available to nominate qualified
candidates who have not formally applied.
ATTACHMENTS:
Applications:
Bridges, Susie
Cane, Chuck
Gray, Dallas
Hemme, Robert
Jenkins, Charles
Maurice, Nancy
Pelonero, Constance
Perry, William
Reed, Bonnis
Walton, Ron
Taylor, Robert
JSG
M4R, 0 9 f992
March 6, I 992
David Dixon, City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Dear David,
The Temecula Town Association has appointed Susie
Bridges, a Director and Treasurer as our applicant for
appointment to Redevelopment Old Town Advisory
Committee.
The Temecula Town Association is the owner/
operator of a not-for-profit business within the Old
Town Redevelopment Sub Area 2.
Thank you for considering her application.
Sincerely,
William A. Harker
General Manager
WAH/TTA
P.O. Box 435
Temecula, CA 92593
(714) 676-4718
Fax (714) 694-9216
Temecula Community Center
28816 Pujol Street
Temecula, CA 92590
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD
COMMITTEE
MAR 101~.,~
TOWN~DVISORY
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of a
Business within the Old Town Redevelopment Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY IN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Elected x Appointed
X
Susie Bridqes
NAME:
(714) 676-2941
HOME PHONE:
l:tn~?-rt M~mh~T nf q~;,m~.,la T~wn
OCCUPATION:
2881 6 Pujol St., Temecula, Ca.
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
A.A. - BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
I 3 Years
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
( 714 ) 676-2226
WORK PHONE:
A~oci ~ti on
92590
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
CITY OF TEMECULA - Seal Selection Committee
and Parade Permit Committee
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
Temecula Town Association, Temecula Chamber of Commerce
~na Ranchn Tempc,]~ T.ionesseS
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if
necessary): I've served on original Redevelopment l~dvisory
Board. I am familiar with the Temecula Historical Overlay.
Worked with Temecula Town Association to preserve and
maintain Circa 1890 for Old Town. Owned own Retail (over)
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this
information for publicity purposes.
SIGNATURE.'~ j~c~ DATE: March 6, 1992
PLEASE NOTE: Applications will be kept on file for consideration of future vacancies.
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92'390 (714) 694-1989
2/form$1COM-O04
Business for 15 years and am fBmiliar w~th the needs
of the small business person.
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of a
Business within the Old Town Redevdopment Sub Area 2.
· CAPACITY'IN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Elected Appointed
.Cb/Uc/c
NAME:
HOME PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY ICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use add~ional paper
necessa~):
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this
information for publicity purposes.
SIGNATURE: DATE: g2_ ~/C_~ c~'/ ~ ~-~-ol
P~SE NOTE: w~l be kept ~ f~e for considerati~ of ~Nre vac~cies.
ReNm to: C~ Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecul; .; CA 92390 (714) 694-1989
21forme/COM-OO4
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD-TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITFEE
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of ·
Busineu within the Old Town Redevalopment Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY IN WHICH YOU WISH' TO SERVE:
Elected Appointed XX,
NAME:
DALLAS A. GRAY
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
15
HOME PHONE: (714) 699-5051
WORK PHONE: (714) 676-4124
OCCUPATION:
Businessman
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: RANC~ TEMEGEA ESCR3W; CHAPARRAL CENTER; CHAPARRAL ANTIQUE
MALL; 28465 Front Street, Temecula, CA 92590
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
Artended San Diego public schools, graduating from high school in 1962.
Artended San Diego State College and received a B. S. Degree in Busbass
Management in 1967.
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
Old Town Historical Overlay emmittee, 1990-1991
Director-Rarcho California Water District, 1982-1987
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professio.al, technic .~community. service):
Tenecula To,in Association, Old Town Merchants Association, Temecula Chamber
of Camerce, Riverside County Escrow Association
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC IUse additional paper if
necessary):
I have been a strong supporter of Historic Old Town through my
involvement in the Temecula Historical Society, tba Historical Overlay Ccmnittee
and my own building oonstnEtions, and have a great desire to see Old Tc~n
preserved and enhanced. My own business experience and my past involvement with
the water district gives my the knowledge and tools to be an asset to this ccemit~.
SIGNAiUjE:
DATE: September 27, 1991
2/forrt~/COM-OO4
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPBENT OLD TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Ternecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of a
Business within the Old Town Redevelopment Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY IN,~/HICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Elected Appointed
NAME:
HOME PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
WORK PHONE:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
: r sin , i , ' ice): q
'. , ~ ~ ..~ ~,. ~-~ ~ ~ Z ~. , .
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use addMortal paper
"'"""~: ~ ~ ~ Z~'-- ,'-~ ~/~/ ~ ,'~Z / D ~ ~,~ ~
I understand ~at any or dl bfo~ati~ on ~i~ form may be verified. I cons~t to ~e release of ~is
~formation for public~ purposes. ~ ~ ~' ~
SIGNATURE:,, ~ , ~ _ DATE: ~ / t ' 9 /
PL~SE NOTE: ~plications wMI be kept ~ f~e for consideration of ~mre vac~cbs,
ReNm to: C~ Clerk's Office, 43172 ~s~ess Park Drive, Temecula, CA 9239(' (714) 6~49~
2/fon'~elCOM-O04
CITY OF TEMECULA ,i ~'l '
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPM ENT OLD T
COMMITTEE
Qualifmation Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of ·
Business within the Old Town Redevelopmerit Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY IN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Elected /~p~) Appointed
NAME:
He PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
WORK PHONE:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if
necessary):
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this
information for publicity purposes.
Return to: City Clerk's Office, Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989
2/forms/COM-O04
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of a
Business within the Old Town Redevaloprnent Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY IN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Elected , Appointed yyyy
Nancy J. Maurice
NAME:
(714) 676-6685
HOME PHONE:
~nmmp~'r'iR1 P~"inl-p'r
OCCUPATION:
42327 Rio Nedo Ave.. Suite B.
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
HiRh School Graduate plue 2
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
46
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
(714) 676-1871
WORK PHONE:
Temecula. CA 92590
years of college, Business &
Journalism
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
General Plan Technical Subcommittee, Community Design· 1992
i-~
o
o
::::1
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, aervice): ~
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Temecula Museum Foundation ~
Temecula-Murrieta EDC, Printing Tndustries o£ America, Tem. Valley=
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU>
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC {Use additional paper if~
necessary): ~
O
Temecula is my home, and has been £or a very long time. Z love the ~,
community and its people. My Father was the community historian 1962=-
1979. T have ~aken up h~s mission to attempt to preserve the per- ~.
O
sonna o£ the vaZley in conjunction with the constant growth and change.=
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this
information for publicity purposes.
SIGNATURE: DATE: Mar. 20, 1992
PLEASE NOTE: Applications will be kept on file for consideration of future vacancies.
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 {714) 694-1989
2/formelCOM-OO4
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD-TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITFEE
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of a
Business within the Old Town Redevelopment Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY IN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: /~/
Elected Appointed
C~A) </~/v~'~. ~/r~J ~-'~R o //
NAME: (~'~- 3-~,,~,k, -'~.~,. YEARS RESIDENT
a~ I~o OF TEMECULA:
HOME PHONE:/~/~77,s~//~/,/.//~c/tT~~,~~' PHONE:
OCCUPATION: ' ';P'/,,~'~'~ Sb,'T/,'~,,,:~<z,7_(;',(///-,~
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OT|';ER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (ProfessionS, techniC, community, ~e~ice):
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if
necessary): ,,~1,~ h ,~-~,~o 7'/~,~'/q~'~,,~E,~/' ~/"' ~D ~,~ 7~J~ Z ~ ~,~=~
SIGNATURE: /' t >; DATE:/_G ""r-~/'
PL E;;Z/PP;li'c~ ~;~11 ~ kept on fie for consideration of future vacancies.
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714I 694-1989
2/form~/COM-004
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY IN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Elected ~ Appointed
NAME:
HOME PHONE:
OCC~N:.q-I T"Z---'T_--T' -
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
I~-~-- i~IL~!
OU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR Q SERVICE: _ ~~
ELIWE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Us~ addffional paper
i~~. T~ ~!~ ~ ~~T~w k ~~p~
I understand ~ ~y or all ~formation ~ ~i form may be verffied. I consent to ~e release of ~is
informsion for public~ ~rposes.
RetumPto:LE~ity Clerk's Office, 43172 Businasst~a~r~e, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989
2/fo~nslCOM-O04
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE -
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Am or Owner/Operator of a
Business within the Old Town Redevelopment Sub Area 2,
. CAPACITY' IN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Bected Appointed
.Bnnn e, kl
NAME:
tz, lq 044-Lt(z, Hq
HOME PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
YEARS RESIDENT
WORK PHONE:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, ~ervice):
BRIEFLY STATE WHY Y(JU Wlll-i TO SERVE ON THi& COMMISSION, Ar';D WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if
necessary): "I: hCLO~ k3~e. Ft In 01d ~bccn '~h~,,~-t dG~/prlDr" +D "HG~.., Fg-J~UBIOprY1~.FLT'
O_~nt.~met:~ v'n~.z--~l.~' pr,rr~,.,i,~ ~;+t> 'q-v',e_ prF,~2,,.ZL+[cn r._.A Oir,~lbu,.;,3 t'~%-lev'-~,,',~j
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified, I consent to ~e release of this
information for publicity purposes,
ill · for consideration of future vacancies.
Retum to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Pad; Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989
2/formelCOM-O04
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of a
Business within the Old Town Redevelopment Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY IN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Elected X OR Appointed
X
NAME: YEARS RESIDENT 3 YEARS RESIDENT
RON WALTON OF TEMECULA: 4 YEARS BUSINESS
HOME PHONE: (714) 694-0324 WORK PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
OWNER - TEXAS LIL'S MESQUITE GRILL AND BOTTOMLINE
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
26605 MADISON AVE., MURRIETA, CA 92562
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
2 YEARS COLLEGE
COURSES IN RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT & REAL ESTATE.
(714) 677-3345
BUSINESS BROKERS
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
NONE
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
OTTMA - OLD TOWN TEMECULA MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION
TEMECULA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; RANCHO/'TEMECULA/MURRIETA BOARD OF REALTORS
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if
necessary):
SEE ATTACHED
· ~ p~r~of:;~. may be verified. I consent to the release of this
PLEASE NOTE: Applications will be kept on fie for consideration of future vacancies.
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Ten.,.~cula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989
2/fonnslCOM-O04
RON WALTON
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT
OLD TOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
I am a strong advocate for the preservation and restoration of
the Old Town historical area. Having been in business in Old
Town for over four (4) years, I have an appreciation for the
value that Old Town can bring to the greater Temecula area,
both in tourism and the exposure of the area to potential
employers and/or residents.
I am sensitive to the issues that need to be addressed to
create a harmonious environment for the longtime local
resident, development of vacant properties, and the local
merchants.
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT OLD TOWN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula Old Town Area or Owner/Operator of a
Business within 1he Old Town Redevelopment Sub Area 2.
CAPACITY JN WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Bected /-/ O,~,~ Appointed
NAME: YEARS RESIDENT
'~_/~-,~7"..~.B" ~ ~J..~./~. OFTEMECULA:
HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE:
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
HIGH ScHooL
Book ~,o~ ~ 50 YeA~
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
SAR~'~NT
IEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if
necessary):] K~O~ TH ~ H I 5~o~ ~ 0 f T~eCU ~ ~ ] ]
ALrVE. KNo~ every
HoLe. J ~V{ PLAN5 ~ CoNcepTs To ~ Ke o~D
~ i-~ TD~)cA L / C U LTU~ t ~ e N T~/N~ {'NT ceNTe~
I understand that any or all ~formation on ~is form may be ver~ied. I consent to ~e release of
information for publicity purposes.
PLEASE NOTE: Applications will for consideration of future vacancies.
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 1714l 694-1989
ITEM
3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT
Redevelopment Agency Members
Scott F. Field
April 14, 1992
Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report.
DISCUSSION: This report is in response to the request of Member Parks
for a summary of the responsibilities of the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory
Committee.
The Stipulated Judgment settling the Redevelopment litigation included a provision
requiring the Agency to establish the Old Town Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
(A copy of the relevant provisions of the Judgment is attached.)
The Advisory Committee consists of seven members who are either residents of the
Old Town area, or own or operate a business which has its principal place of business
within the boundaries of Old Town. For purposes of the Advisory Committee, the
boundaries of Old Town are those contained in the attached Map.
Of the seven members, four are elected, and three are appointed by the Agency.
The Executive Director of the Agency also serves as Executive Director to the
Committee. The Committee may request that the Agency authorize additional
staffing, but the decision of the Agency whether to provide such staffing is left solely
to the discretion of the Agency.
Any proposed redevelopment action undertaken within the area of Old Town shall,
prior to any final action by the Redevelopment Agency, be submitted to the Advisory
Committee for its review and comment. The City Clerk who will serve as Executive
Secretary to the Committee, shall call a meeting within thirty days following
submission of materials to the Committee. The Committee may then review the
materials and provide a written report to the Council within the thirty day period. The
Report of the Committee is then submitted to the Agency as part of the Staff Report
for consideration and approval of the proposed action. The Agency and City Council
must consider the Report, but the final decision is left to the sole discretion of the City
Council and Agency Board.
ITEM 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
REDEVEL OPMENT A GENC Y
A GENDA REPORT
Redevelopment Agency Members
David F. Dixon
April 14, 1992
Agreement to Purchase Property
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Members (1) authorize the opening
of escrow on property west of Diaz Road and south of Cherry Street and authorize the
purchase of 40 acres of property with a right of first refusal on an additional 17 acres.
The total purchase price is $3,484,800 which is $2 per square foot. It is further
recommended that you (2) authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to handle
and finalize the transaction and acquisition, (3) appropriate $3,484,800 for RDA land
acquisition, and (4) authorize an advance of $3,484,000 from the General Fund
revolving fund which will be repaid from RDA bond proceeds.
STAFF REPORT:
For many years there has been a need in this area to establish a permanent location
for major events (i.e., the tractor race, rodeo, and similar activities). Since
incorporation, the City has been acquiring strategically located properties to expand
our park system. We have been successful in obtaining specific properties over the
past two years.
Recently we started negotiations on a 100 acre parcel of property in the northwest
part of the community, specifically located west of Diaz Road and south of Cherry
Street. We have determined that 57 of the 100 acres would be desirable for a major
park facility. With the attached agreement we are seeking authorization to purchase
40 acres now with a right of first refusal on an additional 17 acres. The property has
been appraised and the City is purchasing the property under appraisal value.
The property will be used as a major recreation facility with active sports facilities.
It will also be designed to host major community events such as the tractor race,
Agenda Report - Property Purchase
April 14, 1992
Page 2
sanctioned rodeos, andother similar activities. Development of this major recreation
project will help diversify the City's park development program and will benefit current
and future residents of the community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The purchase price for the 40 acres is $2 per square foot or $3,484,800, whichever
is less. It is necessary to appropriate $3,484,800 for RDA land acquisition and
authorize an advance from the General Fund revolving fund which will be repaid from
bond proceeds. The purchase agreement has been reviewed by the Finance
Department.
· Land
· Groves
· Industrial
Dendy Real Estate
Investment Co., Inc.
MARCH 30, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
MR. DAVID F. DIXON
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
P.O. Box 460160
Escondido, CA 92046-0160
(0191 749-8221
FAX (619) 7496235
This attachment ise
for information only.
A final agreement
will be attached to
the Agenda Report
when the Council
packets go out.
Dear David,
Enclosed please find a copy of t~e Draft of Agreement for
Acquisition of Real Property. Please note that I have made
some minor changes. As I have discussed with you prior I
must close escrow by April 26, 1992 in order for this price
to be good. I'm submitting all other information to Escrow
and am in a position to close as soon as you get Permission
from the City Council.
If I can be of any help please don't hesitate to call me.
· cerely,
'/"'~endy~/~G' ~/',,/./"'~
B3D/pa
Enclosure
AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY
AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS FOR
AN APPROXIMATELY 57 ACRE SITE WEST OF DIAZ ROAD,
SOUTH OF CHERRY STREET, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
THIS AGREEMENT. is entered into this 'if"-" · day of
~ (-C, ~ , .1992, by and between City of Temecula, a municipal
corporation formed under the laws of California, or Assignee
("Buyer"), and 50 Center City Associates, a California limited
partnership ("Seller").
IT IS HEREBY MUTU~T.T.Y AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:
1. AGREEM~NT TO S~T.T. AND PURCHASe. Seller agrees to sell
to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, upon the
terms and for the consideration set forth in this agreement, all
that certain real property and fixtures commonly'known as the
~..
W~t Forty (40) acres of the Fifty-seven (57) acre site West of
Diaz Road and South of Cherry Street, Temecula, California
(hereinafter referred to as "Parcel A") and legally described in
,
Exhibit B, attached hereto.
2. PURCHASE PRICE. The total purchase price for Pa[cel A
i. -~
("Purchase Price") shall be the sum of $2.00 per square fo6t/or
Three Million, Four Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand, Eight Hundred
Dollars ($3,484,S00), whichever is less. The Purchase Price
shall be paid in cash at close of escrow.
3. CONV~.YANCE OF TITLE. Seller agrees to convey by grant
deed ("Grant Deed") to Buyer marketable fee simple title to
Parcel A free and clear of all recorded and unrecorded liens,
encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases and taxes, subject
only to those exceptions approved in writing by Buyer.
4. TTTT.~ TNSUR~NC~ .POT.TCy. Escrow Agent (as defined
below) shall, concurrently with the recording of the Grant Deed
to Buyer, provide Buyer with a standard formALTA Owner,s Policy
of Title Insurance in the amount of the Purchase Price issued by
~ .... \'T'~" "' q; T~tle Insurance Company (- 'i~.
Titles), showing the title to Parcel A vested in Buyer and
insuring against any and all Mechanics, and Materialmen,s liens
now or hereafter filed against Parcel A relating to work
performed or materials delivered to Parcel A before Close of
Escrow, subject only to the exceptions approved by Buyer pursuant
to Paragraph 3.
5. ~SCROW. Buyer and Seller agree to open an escrow in
accordance with this Agreement ate"" " = T~'n, :.:=" i'~ ..... i;
("Escrow Agent"). This Agreement, together with such standard
provisions as may be required by the Escrow Agent, constitutes
the joint escrow instructions of Buyer and Seller, and Escrow
Agent to whom these instructions are delivered is hereby
empowered to act under this Agreement. The parties hereto agree
to do all acts reasonably necessary to close this escrow.
6. D~POSTT. Buyer will deliver to escrow a deposit of Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) by check upon opening of Escrow to
apply to the Purchase Price.
7. DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY SET.T.ER. Promptly after'the
opening of escrow, Seller, at Seller's expense, shall furnish
Buyer with the following:
dy/l lOT2~TL,,a:m (3-23-92) - 2 -
(a) A Preliminary Title Repor~ on Parcel A issued by
Title together with copies of all Exceptions to
Title set forth in such Report ("PTR").
(b) Original of all leases affecting Parcel A
(,,Leasean). '("".;3 ....
(c) An Assignment of Leases and Security Deposits,
duly executed by Seller assigning to Buyer all of Seller's right,
title and interest, as lessor, under all of the Leases including
a cash transfer of all security deposits and prepaid rents
("Assignment of Leases and Security Deposits"). 'C'.iTM 4TM
(d) Copies of all contracts, agreements,
understandings end commitments, affecting any part of Parcel A.
(e) All plans, specifications, as-built drawings
(collectively, the "Plans") and any other information or
documents in possession or control or available to Seller
relating to the design and physical characteristics of Parcel A,
and all permits relating to the operation of Parcel A ~'~ i,
(sintangible Property").
(f) Seller shall deliver to Buyer Mechanics' Lien
releases in form satisfactory t~ Buyer signed by each person who
has provided labor or material to or on Parcel A within the
ninety (90) day period prior to Close of Escrow. ~ } '~
8. CONDTTIONS PRECEDENT TO CONSUMMATION OF SALE. Buyer's
obligation to complete the purchase hereunder is conditional upon
the following:
(a) approval by Buyer of the PTR; if Buyer shall
disapprove or conditionally approve any item in the PTR, Seller
shall, within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of such
disapproval or conditional approval, advise Buyer in writing
whether or not Sel'ler shall cause to be eliminated any such
disapproved item or items~ if Seller elects to eliminate such
disapproved item or items,. the escrow shall remain open; if
Seller elects not to eliminate such item or items, the escrow
shall be cancelled upon written notice from Seller to escrow;
upon such termination, thereafter neither Buyer nor Seller shall
have any further liability hereunder, except that Buyer shall be
entitled to the prompt return of all funds deposited by Buyer
with Escrow Agent;
(b) approval by Buyer of Leases, including any new
Leases entered into during the escrow period.
(c) Buyer obtaining and approving a Phase I
Environmental Report for Parcel A which will be paid for by
Seller; .~ .-. .-- 2- '~ ._ ' "~ = ~/?-/.:j ~.
(d) performance by Seller, on or before the applicable
time deadline, of each and all 'of its obligations pursuant to
this Agreement;
(e) receipt and approval by Buyer of all documents
listed under paragraph 7 hereof; ' ..
(f) the truth of each and every warranty and
representation made by Seller in this Agreement as of the date of
execution thereof and as of the Closing Date;
DRAFT
(g) on the Closing Date, Title shall be
ready, willing and able to issue to Buyer (or other entity
selected by Buyer at least three (3) days prior to the Closing)
its standard form ALTAOwner's Policy of Title Insurance insuring
Buyer in the amount of ~he Purchase Price that good and
marketable title to Parcel A is vested in Buyer subject only to
the exceptions to title set forth inthe PTR;
(h) no destruction, damage or loss of or to Parcel A
having occurred on or before the Closing Date from any cause or
casualty whatsoever;
(i) at any time or times before the Closing Date,
Buyer may be allowed to inspect, and approve, in Buyer's sole and
absolute discretion, Parcel A and to make any investigations
Buyer or'U-:,'- i"~.-- ..'Title may desire with respect to the
physical condition of ParCel A or any other aspect of Parcel A,
including, without limitation, the environmental condition of
Parcel A, the condition of title to Parcel A, and all matters
related to compliance of Parcel A, with all applicable laws~
9. LIOUIDATED DAMAGES. IN THE EVENT THAT SELLER SHALL
HAVE PERFORMED ITS OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO ESCROW AS HEREIN
PROVIDED, AND BUYER SHALL DEFAULT BY FAILING TO PAY THE PURCHASE
PRICE AT CLOSE OF ESCROW THEN SELLER SHALL RETAIN THE TEN
THOUSAND DOT.TARS ($10,000) DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGE~, WHICH --'
SUM THE PARTIES AGREE IS REASONABLE CONSIDERING ALL OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE 'DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SUM TO THE RANGE OF HARM TO SELLER THAT
REASONABLY COULD.BE ANTICIPATED AND THE ANTICIPATION THAT PROOF
OF ACTUAL DAMAGES COULD BE COSTLY OR INCONVENIENT. IN PLACING
THEIR INITIALS AT THE PLACES PROVIDED, EACH PARTY SPECIFICALLY
CONFIRMS THE OCCURRENCE OF THE STATEMENTS MADE ABOVE AND THE FACT
THAT EACH PARTY WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL WHO EXPLAINED THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION AT THE TIME
THIS AGREENR~TWAS MADE.
B~YER SELLER
10. NOTICES. All notices called for herein shall be in
writing and shall be delivered to Seller, Buyer and Escrow Agent
at the addresses set forth. in this document. Notices shall be
deemed delivered two (2) days after first-class mailing, or one
day after facsimile or personal service.
11. OP~NTNG AND C~OSTNG.
(a) Escrow shall be deemed opened upon full execution
of this Agreement.
(b) Escrow Agent shall close escrow ("Close of
Escrow") ~'/-,:~ ~- (; ) days after opening of escrow.
(c) Seller shall deliver or cause to be delivered to
Buyer through escrow:
1. The Grant Deed in proper form duly executed
and in recordable form conveying to Buyer fee title to Parcel A,
subject only to the exceptions approved by Buyer pursuant to ..-
Paragraph 3 hereof.
2.
Insurance issued by
standard form ALTA Owner's Policy of Title
~,
~.--' ~... Title in the full amount of the
dY/110~07IGR ~-23-~/) -- 6 --
Purchase Price insuring title vested in Buyer
exceptions approved by Buyer pursuant to Paragraph 3 hereof.
(d) Buyer shall deliver or cause to be delivered to
Seller through escrow the Purchase Price as set forth in
Paragraph 2.
(e) Both parties shall execute and deliver through
escrow any other documents or instruments which are reasonably
necessary in order to consummate the purchase and sale of Parcel
A.
12. ~P~S~FTATTONS AND WARRANTT~S OF SELL~T~. Seller
hereby represents and warrants as follows:
(a) Parcel A is free and clear of all liens, claims,
enc-mhrances, easements, encroachments or rights of way of any
nature whatsoever other than the matters set forth as exceptions
in the PTR.
(b) Until the Closing, Seller shall maintain Parcel A
in its present condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
(c) Seller has no knowledge of any order or directlye
of any applicable Department of Building and Safety, Health
Department or any other City, County, State or Federal authority,
relating to Parcel A.
(d) Seller has complied with, and has no knowledge of
any pending, threatened or potential investigation, proaeedingor---"
action (including legislative action) relating to the failure of
Seller, or the improvements on Parcel A, to comply with, any and
all statutes, laws, ordinances, regulations, rules and orders of
subject only to the
·
governmentaZ authorities having or cZaiming jurisdiction relating
to the ownership, operation and use of Parcel A and the
construction, completion and occupancy of improvements thereon
including, but not limited to, compliance with any and all
zoning, health, safety, building and fire regulations and the
obtaining and compliance with any and all necessary permits,
licenses and certificates of authority.
(e) Parcel A is in compliance with all zoning and land
use reguirement_S.
V.~,~e-.~
(f) Se~ler has no obligations to any finder or broker
in connection with the sale of any or all of Parcel A.
(g) No Hazardous Materials (as defined below) are or
have been used, present, released, stored, manufactured,
generated or disposed of on, under or about, or transported to or
from, Parcel A (including, without limitation, the soil and
groundwater thereunder). To the best of Seller's knowledge, no
Hazardous Materials have been incorporated into or used in
constructing any improvements in or on Parcel A. As used inthis
Agreement, the phrase "Hazardous Materials" shall mean any
hazardous, toxic, corrosive, reactive, ignitable, carcinogenic or
reproductive toxic substance, material, product, compound,
chemical or waste (including, without limitation, petroleum,
including crude oil or any fraction thereof, asbestos
asbestos-containing materials, flammable explosives, radioactive
materials, and polychlorinated biphenyls) as 'defined in or
regulated by any federal, state or local law, ordinance,
s~v~ao'raoo7 .AOR ~23-~ -8 -
regulation or code regarding the environment or health,
~-~
welfare ("Environmental Laws"). To the best of Seller's
knowledge, Parcel A (including, without limitation, the soil and
groundwater thereunder) is not in violation of any Environmental
Laws. No above-ground or'underground tanks exist on, under or
about Parcel A.
(h) Parcel A consists of approximately L 7~'!~ ~'
gross square feet of land. There are now and, at the time of the
Closing Date, will be no material physical or mechanical defects
of Parcel A, including, without limitation, the plumbing,
heating, air conditioning, roof, HVAC systems, elevators,
ventilation and other building systems, and Seller has maintained
Parcel A in good operating condition and repair and in compliance
with all applicable governmental laws, ordinances, regulations,
and requirements.
(i) All of .the documents, information and records
provided by Seller to Buyer in accordance with this Agreement
shall contain true and accurate information and do not omit any
material fact.
(J) Seller has no knowledge of any pending, threatened
or potential litigation, action or proceeding against Seller or
any other party before any court or administrative tribunal which
is in any way related to Parcel A. ' " ---"
(k) All contracts, agreements, understandings and
commitments, written or oral, affecting any part of Parcel A, are
disclosed.
~fna0u0~ox ~e~ -9 -
(1) As of the ;time of the Closing Date, Seller shall
have paid and settled all outstanding debts, claims and other
obligations owed by Seller in connection with the ownership of
Parcel A, the construction of improvements thereon or the
maintenance thereof ("Debts"). Buyer is not assuming any Debts.
Seller will indemnify and defend Buyer from all actions relating
to collection of Debts.
13. PRORATTONS ~NDFXp~S~S.
(a) Real Property taxes shall be prorated as of the
date of Close of Escrow, beseduponthe latest tax bill
available. Assessments of record shall be paid by Seller.
Rentals, utilities, operating expenses and premiums for fire and
extended coverage insurance on Parcel A, as handed to Escrow
Agent, shall be prorated as of the date of Close of Escrow.
Security Deposits shall be delivered to Buyer at Close of Escrow.
Seller shall be responsible for the CLTA portion of the Title
Insurance premium, and Buyer shall be responsible for the excess
cost for the ALTA policy.
(b) Buyer and Seller shall 'each pay one-half of the
usual escrow fees, and Seller Shall pay the usual recording fees
and any required documentary transfer taxes.
14. POSSESSTON. Possession of Parcel A shall be delivered
to Buyer at, and the rents, issues and profits of Parcel A shall..."'
accrue to Buyer from, Close of Escrow.
15. ATTORN~Y,S F~S. In the event of any litigation
between the Buyer and Seller, concerning this transaction, the
-10-
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys,
Disputes shall be submitted to binding arbitration before the
American Arbitration Association in Riverside, California.
16. FTRPTA. Sellershall deliver to Buyer through escrow
an affidavit executed by Seller under penalty of perjury stating
Seller's United States taxpayer identification number and that
Seller is not a foreign person, in accordance with Internal
Revenue Code 1445(2).
17. ASSIGNMENT. Buyer may assign its rights under this
Agreement or may designate a nominee to acquire title to Parcel A
provided, however, that any such assignment or designation shall
not relieve Buyer of any of its obligations under this Agreement.
18. RTSK OF LOSS. Risk of damage, destruction or loss of
Parcel A, prior to the Closing Date, shall be borne by Seller.
19. NOTICE OF PROPOSRD S~T.~ OF P~RCRT. B. Should Seller
desire at any time until December 31, ~2~, to sell, assign, }C~
grant, or otherwise dispose of all or any portion of the East
Seventeen (17) acres of the Fifty Seven (57) acre site West of
Diaz Road and South of Cherry (hereinafter referred to as "Parcel
B"), and legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto, it
shall first serve written notice on Buyer in the manner
prescribed in Section 23(e) of this Agreement of its desire to do
so. The notice must specify: (1) the name and address 0f the -.
person or firm to whom Seller intends to sell, assign, or grant
Parcel B, (2) the portion of .Parcel B Seller proposes to sell,
assign, or grant, (3) the price to be paid to Seller for the
proposed sale, assignment,
conditions of the proposed
20. BUY~'S OPTTON TO PURCHASE. Buyer shall have thirty
(30) days, after receipt of notice given pursuant to Section 19
of this Agreement, to purchase that portion of Parcel B,
specified in the notice at the price and according to all other
terms and conditions specified in the notice. Buyer shall
exercise its option in writing. Thereafter, Buyer shall purchase
from Seller that portion of Parcel B specified in the notice
according to the terms and conditions specified in the notice.
Seller hereby consents to Buyer recording this option on Parcel
B.
21. FAILURE OF BUYER TO EXERCISE OPTTON. Should Buyer.
fail to purchase within the time and in the manner specified in
Section 20 of this Agreement that portion of Parcel B specified
in any notice given Buyer pursuant to Section 19 of this
Agreement, Buyer shall promptly give written notice, herein
called "the rejection notice," of that fact to Seller.
22. DEFAULT OF OPTION BY BUYRR. Should Buyer fail to
elect within the times specified in Section 20 to purchase that
portion of Parcel B specified in the notice given by the Seller
to Buyer pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement, the Seller is
under no obligation to sell that portion of Parcel B to'Seller, "-
but may instead sell it to the person or firm specified in the
notice given by the Seller to.the Buyer pursuant to Section 19 of
this Agreement at the price and on the terms and conditions
or grant, and (4) all other terms
sale, assignment, or grant.
sffl11072007.AGR 0-23-92)
-12-
specified in that notice. Seller may not, however, without
giving a new notice of his intention to so do, pursuant to
Section 19 of this Agreement, sell any or all of Parcel B to any
other person or firm, or at any other price, or on any other
terms and conditiohs than those specified in the notice given by
him to the Buyer pursuant to Section 19 ofthis Agreement.
23. MISC~.aN~OUS PROVTSTONS.
(a) This Agreement may be executed in any number of
counterparts which together shall constitute the contract of the
parties~
(b) The paragraph headings herein contained are for
purposes of identification only, and shall not be considered in
construing this Agreement.
(c) The contract resulting from the execution of this
Agreement by Buyer and Seller supersedes any and all agreements
between Seller and Buyer regarding Parcels A and B.
(d) Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
(e) Wherever Notices are required to be given pursuant
to the provisions of this Agreement, the same shall be in written
form and shall be served upon the party to whom addressed by
personal service or by deposit of the same in the custody of the
United States Postal Service or its lawful successor, postage
prepaid, addressed to the parties as follows: '
TO THE BUYER:
TO SI~-T.T.'EI:~.,'
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attn: City Clerk
50 Center City Associates
Notices shall be deemed, for all purposes, to have been
given on the date of personal service or three (3) consecutive
calendar days following the deposit of the same in the custody of
the United States Postal Service.
"Seller"
50 CENTER CITY ASSOCIATES,
a California Limited
Partnership
By:
Name
Title
"Buyer"
CITY OF TEMECULA, a
municipal corporation
DRAFT
By:
Name
Title
ADDRESS OF SELLER:
ADDRESS OF BUYER:
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590