Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061191 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL ,4 REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER- 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE JUNE 11, 1991 Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-22 Resolution: No. 91-55 EXECUTIVE SESSION: 6:30 - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. 9 (c). CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM - Mayor Ronald J. Parks Invocation Pastor Gary Nelson Calvary Chapel Flag Salute Councilmember Lindemans ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Proclamation - Amateur Radio Week 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 listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state Your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 21agendi/Oe 1290 1 06JO7/e 1 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 3 4 Standard Ordinance Adoorion 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 May 28, 1991, 1991 as mailed. Claim for Damages - James Forsvth RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Deny the claim for damages filed by James Forsyth. Claim for Damages - Greg Baker, et al RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Deny the claim for damages filed by Greg Baker, Eisa Wong and Kiefer James Baker. Claim for Damages - Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Deny the claim for damages filed by Kaufman and Board of San Diego, Inc. 2/Ioe~ll/Oe 12~0 2 0e/07/~1 6 Claim for Damages - Charles H. Finelli RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Deny the claim for damages filed by Charles H. FineIll. Resolution ADorovinQ List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. 8 City Commission Resignation and Reappointment Policv RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the proposed Policy and Procedure Resignations and Reappointments. for Commission 9 Change Title of Assistant to the City Manager to Senior Mana(~ement Analyst RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Change the title of the Assistant to the City Manager job classification to Sr. Management Analyst. 9.2 Reclassify one existing Management Analyst position (Finance) to the new job classification of Senior Management Analyst. 10 Community Services Funding Criteria for 1991-1992 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt the proposed policy as displayed in Attachment "B" for the Community Service Funding Application process for the Fiscal Year 1991-1992. 2/a~emla/0612~0 3 06/07/91 11 Resolution ReQardinQ California Environmental Quality Act RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOl-UTION NO. 91- A RE$Ol-UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF TEMECUl.A ADOPTING PROCEDURES TO IMPI.EMENT THE CAI.IFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAl. QUAl.ITY ACT. 12 Cooperative A(~reement with CalTrans for Landscaoing - Rancho California Road RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve an agreement with CalTrans for Landscaping of the Rancho California/I-15 overcrossing and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 13 Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 20130-6 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 20130-6. 13.2 Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds and accept the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts. 13.3 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 14 Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21340-6 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21340-6. 14.2 Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts. 14.3 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 2/~nda/0e 1280 4 08/07/81 15 Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21340-F RECOMMENDATION: 15,1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No, 21340-F. 15.2 Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts. 15.3 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 16 Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21675-2 17 16.1 16.2 16.3 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21675-2. Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the subdivision warranty instrument of credit in the reduced amounts. Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21675-3 17.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21675-3. 17,2 Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the subdivision warranty instrument of credit in the reduced amounts, 17.3 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 18 Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21675-4 RECOMMENDATION: 18,1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No, 21675-4. 18.2 Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the subdivision warranty instrument of credit in the reduced amounts. 18,3 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 2/Igende/Oe 1200 6 08/07/gl 19 Second Annual 4th of July Parade RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve the temporary closure of Front Street between 6th and 2nd Streets on July 4th, 1991. 19.2 Waive the fee for Encroachment permit in the amount of $25,000. PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 20 Business Registration Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM 20.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS CER TIFICA TES 21e~nd~0612~O 6 06/07/91 21 Tentative Tract MaD No. 25603, Amendment No. 3 and Plot Plan No. 227 (A proposal for a 54-1ot multiple family subdivision and construction of 54 four-plex units, one per lot on 20.8 acres located on the south side of Margarita Road approximately 1,000 feet east of Moraga Road) RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 54 MULTIPLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD 21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO. 227 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 54 UNIT FOUR-PLEX ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370-005. 22 Zone Change No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852 and Plot Plan No. 224 (A proposal for a zone change from R~R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S on 24 acres, located at the northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads, and subdivision of 97 acres into 13 lots with two remainder parcels and construction of a 149,000 square foot commercial center on 19.7 acres.) RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Continue the public hearing to the meeting of June 25, 1991 2/~lend~/081290 7 06/07/~ 1 23 First Extension of Time - Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23103 RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI.A APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23103, AN 18 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 29.2 ACRES LOCA TED WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD BETWEEN LA SERENA WAY AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-010 24 Plot Plan 69 (Rev.) - Pactel Cellular (A request to add cellular telephone equipment to an existing radio transmission tower located west of I-15 and South of Front Street) RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Grant Pactel Cellular an exemption from the provisions of Ordinance No. 91-01 for antenna expansion. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESO!. UTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI.A APPROVING PLOT PI.AN NO. 69 (REVISED) TO PERMIT THE PI.A CEMENT OF CEI.L UI.AR TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT ON AN EXIS TING RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER, LOCA TED ON ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-220-013. COUNCIL BUSINESS 25 Ordinance EstablishinQ Prima Facie Speed Limits on Certain City Streets RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Approve the Engineering and Traffic survey of April, 1991 as submitted. 290 8 08/07/91 25 Ordinance Establishing Prima Facie Speed Limits on Certain City Streets (Continued) 25.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 12.02 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS. 26 Reouest for Funding - Old Town Temecula Farmer's Market RECOMMENDATION: 26.1 Approve a contribution to the Farmer's Market equal to the cost of City application fees (minimum of $3,231) and provide City departmental support as appropriate. 27 Memorandum of Understanding - Johnson Ranch RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Johnson Tractor Company and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 28 Memorandum of Understanding - RanDac French Valley RECOMMENDATION: 28.1 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Won S. Yoo and Insook Yoo for property known as Ranpac French Valley and authorize the Mayor to execute same. 29 Reconsideration of Temecula Valley HiQh School Scholarship Donations (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mur~oz) 21agenda/OS 12~O 9 06/O7/g 1 30 Air Traffic - French Valley Airport (Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mu~oz) CITY MA NA GER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: June 25, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 2/~ge~d~O~l 12~0 10 Oe/07/~ 1 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at'8:0'O) CALL TO ORDER: President J. Sal MuQoz ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz PUBLIC COMMENT: 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. DISTRICT BUSINESS 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1991 as mailed. 2 Consideration of Ordinance Creating Temecula Community Services District Service Level Zones RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. CSD 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN ZONES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting June 25, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 211gendl/O~ 12~O 11 08/07/91 TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING : '." CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Peg Moore AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks Moore, PUBLIC COMMENT: AGENCY BUSINESS 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. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1991 as mailed. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting June 25, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 21agenda/O~81290 12 06/07/91 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has a substantial number of licensed Amateur Radio operators who have demonstrated their value in public assistance by providing emergency radio communications; and WHEREAS, these Amateur Radio operators donate their services free of charge to the City, in the interest of the citizens of the City as well as the world; and WHEREAS, these Amateur Radio operators are on alert for any emergency, local or world-wide, and practice their communication skills during the American Radio Relay League, Inc., Field Day exercise; and WHEREAS, this year's Amateur Radio Field Day will take place on June 22-23, 1991; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald J. Parks, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby declare the week of June 17-23, 1991 as AMATEUR RADIO WEEK in recognition of this important emergency preparedness exercise, and call upon all citizens to pay appropriate tribute to the amateur Radio operators of our City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 11th Day of June, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk FROM: Golden Triangle Amateur Radio Club 27533 Jefferson Avenue Temecula CA 92390 714-676-2999 Fallbrook Amateur Radio Technological Society 2233 E. Stage Coach Lane Fallbrook CA 92028 619-728-8319 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE On Saturday, June 22, a complete working Amateur Radio field station wil 1 be set up on the grounds of the Pactel microwave tower site in the Santa Rosa mountains just east of Temecula. Over a 24 hour period, Golden Triange Amateur Radio Club and Fallbrook Amateur Radio Technological Society Amateurs, in a joint effort, will race to contact thousands of other amateur stations set up across North America! During the devastation of Hurricane Hugo and the San Francisco earthquake, the world depended on radio amateurs, using emergency power, to get reports into and out of the sticken areas. All are invited to visit the working amateur radio station in operation and learn about the role "ham radio" plays right here in Temecula. Maps including instructions on how to reach the site may be obtained at Radio Shack in Temecula (near Payless Drug and Starer Bros). Youth groups are encouraged to pack a lunch and make this a field trip visit. Amateur Radio operators are licensed by the Federa! Communications Commission. More information about this exciting community event is available by cal ~ing John Belcher at 676-4701 or Ron Perry at 714-676-2999. ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD MAY 28, 1991 A Budget Workshop of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:07 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. BUDGET WORKSHOP Annual Operating Budget FY 1991-92 City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE OPERA TING BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENT BUDGETS The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 1 - 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 2. Consideration of Funding Sources - County Health Office in Temecula Councilmember Mu5oz introduced the staff report and requested the Council consider facilitating the opening of a County Health Office in Temecula by an agreement with the County to loan funds for this purpose. City Manager Dixon stated 98% of funding for these types of clinics come from the Federal and State government and explained that as cut-backs occur, the County makes cuts where it feels appropriate. He suggested contacting the County and stressing the need for such a facility in Temecula, stating that this area should be the last cut, as it is 30 to 40 miles from the County Seat, making it difficult for residents to use the facility in Riverside. Councilmember Moore recommended that the City express its concerns to Wait Abraham, but stated she is opposed to expending City funds on something the City has no control over. She said she is not opposed to a loan if the City could be certain to regain these funds. Councilmember Birdsall stated she questions the $94,000 lease figure because the County owns the building. Mayor Parks stated he would like to see this facility open but that he feels it would service not only Temecula but Murrieta and Lake Elsinore and suggested that the three cities work together to put pressure on the County, or to perhaps jointly loan the County money to get this facility opened. It was moved by Councilmember Mu5oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to refer this matter to staff for further discussion with the County Officials and adjacent cities for recommendations. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 2- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 RECESS Mayor Parks recessed the City Council meeting to accommodate the Temecula Community Services Budget Workshop at 5:40 PM. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula was reconvened at 7:07 PM. INVOCA T/ON The invocation was given by Pastor George Simmons of the Temecula Valley House of Praise. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall. PRESENTATIONS/ PRO CL A MA TIONS None given. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mary Jo Helmeke, 30540 Avenida Buena Suerte, representing the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley, informed the Council that the Festival on the Green has been set for June 30th and the Arts Festival is scheduled for the last two weekends in August. She presented the Council with a flyer on the events and asked for their support. Dee Renner, 31130 S. General Kearney Road, #92, representing the Temecula Valley Rose Society, presented the City Council with a poster announcing "An English Rose Garden", to be held on June 23, 1991. Kelly J. Sik, representing the Temecula Association of Pool Builders, requested that the City Council consider adopting an ordinance with the same requirements as the County of Riverside regarding construction of pools, stating the current requirements make pool construction $12,000 to $15,000 more expensive for home owners. City Manager Dixon stated this would be referred to staff for discussion. Joe Ashcraft, 40397 Calle Medusa, asked that Item No. 12 regarding Calle Medusa, be continued. He stated that new information has been obtained from other cities dealing with similar problems and asked that this be reviewed before a decision is made. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 3- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Dixon requested that Consent Calendar No. 7 be continued to the meeting of June 11, 1991. Councilmember Lindemans stated he would vote "no" on Item No. 10. Councilmember Mu~oz requested the removal of Items $ and 9 for discussion. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve consent calendar Items 1-7, 10 and 11, recording Councilmember Lindemarts' "no" vote on Item No. 10. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes 2.1 2.2 Approve the minutes of May 7, 1991 as mailed. Approve the minutes of May 14, 1991 as mailed. Resolution Approving List of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4\Minutes\05\28\91 -4- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes 4. City Treasurer's Report 4.1 Receive and file report. May 28, 1991 o Reduction in Public Improvement Faithful Performance Bond Amounts - Tract No. 23483 5.1 Authorize reduction in Public Improvement Faithful Performance Bond amounts and accept Faithful Performance Bonds in the reduced amounts. 5.2 Approve subdivision agreement rider. 5.3 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Procedures for Adoption of Development and Pre-annexation Agreements 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R£SOL UTION NO. 91-52 ,4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF T£MECUL,4 REG,4RDING DEV£L OPMENT ,4 GRE£MENTS ,4ND THE PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDER,4 TION THEREOF e Reclassification of Two Currently Authorized City Positions 7.1 Continue to the meeting of June 11, 1991. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 -5- 06105/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 10. Change of Zone No. 5 10.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-20 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 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3, R-4 AND R-5 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARGARITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-016- 002, 003 012, 017 AND PORTIONS OF 926-016-025 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11. Change of Zone No. 12 11.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-21 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. 12, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM ,4-2-20 (HEAVY AGRICULTURE) TO I-P (INDUSTRIAL PARK) AND R-5 (OPEN AREA) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY 4\Minute=\05\28\91 - 6- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 8. Rejection of Vehicle Bids Councilmember Mu~oz requested that staff research converting one or two City vehicles to use of clean burning fuel, and by so doing take the lead in improving air quality. City Manager Dixon stated staff would research this matter. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to reject the bids received resulting from the invitation to bidders of May 9, 1991 (Bid Number 91-015). The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 9. Proposed Goals of the Traffic and Transportation Commission for FY 1991-92 Councilmember Mu~oz stated that with respect to goals, the Traffic Commissioners are interested in development of the circulation element of the General Plan and would like to add the wording "to include neighboring community roadways", in Item No. 1. Mayor Parks stated he is in agreement with the proposed goals but would like to add the following: 6. Review and evaluate public transportation systems and routes. 7. Encourage ride sharing, i.e. Dial a Ride, car pools, bussing, etc. Review general circulation elements such as driveways, no parking zones, traffic signals, properly lighted intersections, striping, signage, street names and addresses. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 7- 06/06/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemarts, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve staff recommendation with the addition in goal #1 of the language, "to include neighboring community roadways" and with the following additions as goal #6, "Review and evaluate public transportation systems and routes"; goal #7, "Encourage ride sharing, i.e. Dial A Ride, car pools, bussing, etc."; goal #8, "Review general circulation elements such as driveways, no parking zones, traffic signals, properly lighted intersections, striping, signage, street names and addresses." The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Public Hearing No. 60 - Calle Medusa Tim Serlet, City Engineer, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:38 PM. Evonne Taylor, 40811 Calle Medusa, asked that the City install an arterial access road to correct the problem on Calle Medusa. She stated that painting yellow lines and other minor improvements will not solve the problem on Calle Medusa. Paul Serao, 31675 Leigh Lane, asked that the City not redirect traffic to other nearby streets which will only create further problems. He asked that the City re-think rerouting traffic to Walcott Lane, but in favor of completing Butterfield Stage Road. Nelson Betawcourt, 40835 Calle Medusa, stated that other surrounding streets do not have houses facing the road. He asked that the Councilmembers spend time on Calle Medusa to see the problem first hand. 4\Minute=\05\28\91 - 8- 06/05191 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 Brian Sampson, 40655 Calle Medusa, stated he would like action taken quickly to improve the situation on Calle Medusa. He stated he endorses staff recommended Items 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3. Alan Maslowski, 40409 Calle Medusa, thanked the City Council for obtaining vehicle weight restrictions on Calle Medusa but asked that this be enforced. Rick Sayre, Chief of Police, stated this ordinance is being enforced to the extent possible, however it is difficult to dedicate a car to exclusively wait for this type of violation. He stated if it is Coun¢il's desire to dedicate a car for eight hours once a week or once every two weeks, this could be done. Linda Ashcraft, 40397 Calle Medusa, stated the homeowners association has asked for a continuance because information has been obtained from other cities who have faced similar problems. She expressed her concern for school children walking down Calle Medusa to school in the morning and asked for stricter enforcement of speed limits. Jay Vandermal, 992 Carnation, Costa Mesa, stated he is a property owner on Calle Chapos and Walcott and said he is in favor of all four staff recommendations. He said he would be in favor of an assessment district to pay for improvements. Ron Henderson, 31832 Poole Court, asked that Butterfield Road be completed which will solve the problem. He also stated there is only half a barrier at the end of La Serena Way which causes a traffic hazard. Knox Johnson, Chairman of the City's Traffic Commission, stated that the design on the barrier has been done, however it has not yet been implemented. He suggested contacting the Public Works Department for further details. Michael S. Browning, 31752 Poole Court, asked that traffic not be diverted to other streets creating a problem for those homeowners. He stated that a permanent solution needs to be found. RECESS Mayor Parks called a short recess to change the tape at 8:06 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:07 PM. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 -9- 06105/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 Pam Tennant, 39942 Amberley Circle, voiced her opposition to recommendation 12.4, stating that the extension of these roads would destroy the rural nature of homes in that area. Michael Smith, 40601 Calle Katerine, requested that a permanent solution be found for Calle Medusa. He said Lay Lane is not a good alternative for traffic because it is also a residential street and homes do face the street. James Estock, 40420 Calle Medusa, requested that speed limits on Calle Medusa be more strictly enforced. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:11 PM. Councilmember Lindemans stated that since only recommendation 12.4 has been requested to be continued, he suggested moving forward on 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3. He said he does not feel 12.4 is a good solution, stating Butterfield Road needs to be opened to relieve this problem. Councilmember Birdsall recommended this go back to the Traffic Commission for further review. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve staff recommendations 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 as follows: 12.1 Install 4-way stop control at Calle Medusa and Kahwea Road/Windsor Road. 12.2 Encourage future land use studies in the Calle Medusa vicinity to give careful consideration toward minimizing traffic impacts in the Calle Medusa corridor until alternative parallel roads can be developed. 12.3 Request the General Plan Study consultant to give special and specific consideration to the Calle Medusa corridor during the Circulation Element formulation process. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 1 O- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES' 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None May 28, 1991 Lindemarts, Moore, It was moved by Councilmember Mudoz, seconded by Lindemarts to continue recommendation 12.4 and refer Commission for additional study. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Councilmember to the Traffic NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:23 to accommodate the scheduled Community Services District Meeting. The meeting was reconvened following the CSD Meeting at 9:00 PM. 13. First Extension of Time - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:03 PM. John Moramarco, P.O. Box 906, stated approval of this project will cause a need for wind machines to protect the vineyards. He explained that the grading necessary would create a dam which would trap the flow of cold air. He stated the Council needs to be prepared for complaints from adjacent property owners when wind machines go off at 2:00 AM. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 11 - 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 Mr. Gary Fatland, representing Marlborough Construction Company, stated that the construction of an arterial road would necessitate the level of grading proposed. He stated that the noise element from wind machines would be disclosed to property owners prior to the sale of homes. Councilmember Lindemans requested this item be continued for two weeks to allow the Council to personally see the site and make a decision. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:18 PM. RECESS 14, Mayor Parks called a brief recess to change the tape at 9:23 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 9:24 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to continue Item No. 13 to the meeting of June 11, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mudoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Electrical Code Adoption Tony EImo, Chief Building Official, introduced the staff report. Councilmember Birdsall asked if there is a way for a homeowner to have their home inspected at a nominal fee to make sure they are up to code. Mr. Elmo stated that any individual may have an inspection done for a $30 fee. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:28 PM. Hearing no requests to speak on this item, Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:29 PM. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 12- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation 14.1 as follows: 14.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-19 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1990 EDITION, INCLUDING THE APPENDIX THERETO, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS AND THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISIONS FOR THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODES, 1990 EDITION WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation 14.2 as follows: 14.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1990 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE ARE REASONABLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 13- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: 15. May 28, 1991 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance Adoption Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Moore, Councilmember Mu~oz asked what abatement procedures would be followed. Tony Elmo, Chief Building Official, stated that first voluntary compliance would be sought, however citation authority has been given to the Code Enforcement Officer, Alan Marshall. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:36 PM. Brad Giagne, 42602 Remora, asked for a further definition of "site". He asked if this means an entire business complex, (i.e. Target Center), or individual businesses. City Attorney Field recommendecl .';ontinuing this public hearing for two weeks to clear up the language on the word "site". Councilmember Moore expressed her opposition to the use of balloons for advertising, stating they were unsightly. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to continue the public hearing to the meeting of June 25, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 14- 06105/91 City Council Minutes 16. May 28, 1991 Ordinance to Provide for Expedited Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation from Vacant Lots or Parcels Tony Elmo, Chief Building Official, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:58 PM. Having no requests to speak, Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:58 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-18 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6. 14 AND ADDING CHAPTER 6. 16 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR EXPEDITED ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION FROM VACANT LOTS OR PARCELS 17. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Location of Temecula Unified School District Bus Storage Facility Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Councilmember Lindemans stated that Los Angeles uses a scattered approach for parking their school buses and suggested looking into this solution. He also stated that he was told by John Brooks of the Temecula Unified School District, that the problem has been temporarily solved. He stated the busses have been moved and will remain off-site until June 21, 1991. Mark Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager, stated the District's intent is to store the busses off-site until the end of the school year as a temporary solution and allow more time to find a permanent solution before the start of 4\ Minutes\05\28\91 - 15- 06105/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 the next school year. He recommended allowing staff to continue working with the School District to achieve this goal. Ben Madison, 31241 Corte Alhambra, asked that a refueling truck be taken to the temporary site so busses would not have to return to the yard daily for this purpose. David Ciabattoni, 41646 Avenida de la Reina, read a letter from John Brooks of the school district. He thanked the City Council for their aid in this problem and asked that continued efforts be made to find a permanent solution. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Joe Seguin, 41640 Avenida de la Reina, asked that the City Council make sure the School District follows through with its promises. Laverne Staffard, 41652 Avenida de la Reina, asked that the City Council continue its efforts to resolve this issue permanently. She also complained that the School District employees use this facility as a place to wash personal cars. Mayor Parks suggested voicing these types of complaints to the School Board. RECESS Mayor Parks called a brief recess at 10:24 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 10:25 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve staff recommendations as follows: 17.1 Encourage School District to work expeditiously to relocate bus facility. 17.2 Authorize City Staff to continue to work with TVUSD to identify and select an alternate site for the relocation of the bus maintenance facility. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 16- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Mudoz, Parks Moore, NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. Community Service Funding Criteria It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue this item to the meeting of June 11, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. 20. Requests for Funding - Temecula Museum Foundation, Temecula Valley High School Civic Scholarships and Rancho Temecula Community Pantry Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer, introduced the staff report. Linda Rosie, representing the Temecula Valley High School, requested that the suggested number of scholarships be increased due to the increased number of applicants, and the need for higher education. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve six $250 scholarships for the Temecula Valley High School Civic Scholarships and authorize the City Manager to assign staff to do the selection of the recipients. The motion was unanimously carried. Margie Hammersley, 41999 Via Del reconsidering support of the pantry. area need help. Monte, thanked the City Council for She stated many hungry people in this Councilmember Lindemans asked if businesses are being solicited for support. He suggested giving a grant of $5,000 until the end of fiscal year (June 30, 1991) and approving up to $1,000 a month of matching funding during FY 1991-1992. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve a $5,00 grant from the 1990-91 Fiscal Year budget with an additional grant for 1991-92 of matching funding in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per month. The motion was unanimously carried. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 17- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 Becca Nakaya, 45788 Creekside Way, addressed the City Council regarding the need for assistance in housing the Temecula Museum. She explained that a new site has been found since they have been asked to vacate the present location. Councilmember Moore asked when construction on the new museum is scheduled to begin. Ms. Nakaya stated a two year lease in a new building would give adequate time to decide what will be done with the museum. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to extend the meeting until 11:30 PM. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Lindemarts requested that Item 21 be considered concurrently. 21. Request for Funding - Temecula Tourism and Visitors' Center William A. Harker, 31130-85 General Kearny Road, stated he is in full support of the 'remecula Museum and the Visitors Information Center in Old Town. Michael Thesing, 30291 Via Brisa, addressed the City Council stating that the Temecula Museum and the Temecula Tourism and Visitors' Center would be more beneficial if they were linked together and located in Old Town. Bonnie Reed, 1721 Ascend Road, San Marcos, representing the Old Town Temecula Merchants Association, spoke in support of a Museum and Tourism Center located in Old Town. She suggested that an full time employee be hired to staff the museum so it could be open daily 10-5. She also suggested having souvenirs available for tourists to purchase at this site. Margaret Jones, 39037 Camino Hermosa, Murrieta, spoke in support of the Visitors Center. 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 18- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 RECESS Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 11:24 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 11:25 PM. Gloria Seever, 30105 Cabrillo, stated she is the owner of the proposed building in Old Town and asked that the Council make a decision as soon as possible because she has been holding the property for the museum, and cannot continue to do so. She stated it is in a excellent location for a Visitors Center/Museum. Councilmember Lindemans suggested continuing this item for two weeks for further review. Councilmember Birdsall stated the Museum is looking for an interim place for a two year period to house museum artifacts. She stated the old church cannot be fire rated and is, therefore, not a suitable location. She said at the end of the two year period, other forms of funding, such as room-tax fees could be worked out. She stated she did not have a problem with continuing this for two weeks. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he has a problem with contributing $30,000, stating the City has many other organizations requesting funding. Mayor Parks stated that part of the mission statement is to promote tourism, but would be in favor of continuing this item for two weeks. He said bed taxes for hotel rooms may be a much more appropriate funding source. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to continue consideration of the Temecula Museum funding request, and Item No. 21, request for funding the Temecula Tourism and Visitors' Center to the meeting of June 11, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4\Minutes\05\28\91 - 19- 06/05/91 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue the meeting until 12:00 AM. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu5oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18. Award of Franchise - Waste Management Joe Hreha, Manager of Information System, introduced the staff report. A. J. Moore, 1300 Wilson Avenue, National City, representing Bay Cities, stated the facility at Perris has been described to the City Council as something it is not. He cautioned the Council to be careful in its franchise agreement. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUIA GRANTING AN EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CR&R INCORPORATED, DBA TEMECUI A ENVIRONMENTAL, FOR THE COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, RECYCLING, COMPOSTING, AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND FOR PROVIDING TEMPORARY BIN/ROLL OFF SERVICES IN ALL COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, CONS TRUC TION, AND INDUS TRIAL AREA S WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Linderoans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 4\Minutes\05\28\91 -20- 06/05191 City Council Minutes May 28, 1991 22. Main Street Revitalization Committee It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue to the meeting of June 25, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. RECESS Mayor Parks recessed the City Council Meeting to accommodate the RDA Meeting at 11:54 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the RDA Meeting at 12:04 AM. CITY MANAGER REPORTS None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS City Attorney Field requested the meeting be adjourned to a 6:30 Executive Session to discuss impact fees. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember MuRoz announced the RTA single line service is on schedule and will be operating as of June 17, 1991. Councilmember Moore asked staff to look into stricter enforcement of the illegal right of way signs. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Mudoz, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adjourn at 12:07 AM to a meeting on June 25, 1991 at 6:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk Ronald J. Parks, Mayor 4\Minutes\05\28\91 -21- 06/05/91 ITEM NO. 3 CARL ~VARREN & CO. Insurnr, ce :kdlu~ters _:4.,~5 x,.~erehou~e Dn,.e ~an D~e~o, CAfforma 92121 TAX: .P-45%~475 NEXT REPORT DUE DATE: 30 DAYS REPORT 92 May 22, 1991 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Temecula CA 92390 Drive Attention: Gus Papagolos Client: Claimant: Claim: Incident Date: Our File: City of Temecula State Farm Insurance 55N200-302 February 24, 1991 F-91-006 AP Dear Mr. Papagolos: PREVIEW: The insured of State Farm, identified as James Forsytn, alleges he was directed into traffic by an unidentified traffic control officer and subsequently struck a pedestrian. Bakersfield ~S05~ S31-17B Covina Fresno (209~ 233-~500 Glendale tLos .Angeles Area ~213/ Long Beach F213) Sacramento (~i6) ~31-8551 San Bernardino (714) (714) ~S4-,4~69 5an Diego ~019~ 45L3500 San ~rnando ~S18~ a~-4094 San Francisco ~415) ~38-a~40 Sa~ Luis Obispo Santa Ana ~714) a72-314v Santa Barbara { 805'~ %3-0695 %%ntura PREVIEW: In order, as submitted with assignment. OTHER INSURANCE: 1.) Client: S.J. Petrakis Insurance Services 2.) Claimant: Self DATE-TIME-PLACE: February 24, 1991; unknown time; unknown location near the vicinity of the Temecula Car Show allegedly in the City of Temecula, California. GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1.) Date of Incident: February 24, 1991. 2.) Verified Claim Filed: April 15, 1991. 2 3.) Action Taken by Entity: We recommended the claim be returned as insufficient for failing to state the amount of damages and location of occurrence. 4,) Applicable Statute Date: The claimants would have until six months from the accrual of the claim in which to file an amended claim correcting the insufficiency. FACTS IN BRIEF: The insured of State Farm, identified as James Forsytn, alleges he was directed into traffic by an unidentified traffic control officer and subsequently struck a pedestrian. CLIENT VERSION: We have not been advised whether or not this was a law enforcement agency directing traffic or whether it was a private security service. In any event, if there are any contracts held with the party directing traffic, we would appreciate being forwarded copies of it. If there are any Certificates of Insurance naming the City as an additional insured, we would also appreciate copies of those° If this was a contracted service, we presume there would be some type of indemnity agreement available to the City of Temecula which we will need to review which should be included as part of the contract. CLAIMANT VERSION: The claimant is identified as State Farm Insurance Company who insures a James Forsytn Their claim apparently is for liability, meaning the injury to the pedestrian but no damage to their vehicle. Since the claim is insufficient, we have no information as to the circumstances of the claim or the amount of damages claimed. POLICE REPORT: Since we do not know the location of this incident, we have been unable to determine whether a police report exists for this accident. If you have any information in this regard, please provide. PHOTOGRAPHS/DIAGRAM: Depending upon the contract the City held with the party directing traffic, we may wish to photograph and diagram the scene once we have learned its location. LIABILITY: Liability is unknown at this time since we have virtually no facts of this accident. WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 1.) Identify location of accident. 2.) 3.) Identify party directing traffic. Obtain any contracts available concerning party directing traffic. 4.) Possibly photograph/diagram the scene~ RESERVES: We are currently maintaining a precautionary $1,500.00 bodily injury reserve. COMMENT: If in fact there exists a contractual agreement with an indemnity clause, we would certainly wish to tender this claim as early as possible to the proper party. We will await receipt of the requested information. Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & CO. Angela T. Pedlico ATP/jmc CARL WARREN & CO. 5465 Morehouse Drive. Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 457-3500 GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY PRELIMINARY REPORT TO: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92390 ATTN: Gus Papaqolos LOSS DATE: 2-24-91 FILING DATE: CLIENT: City of Temecula 4-15-91 DATE: 4-19-91 CLAI~ANT: State Farm Insurance Co. FILE NO: F-91-006AP EXCESS REPORT: YES NO 6 M0s: YES X NO COVERAGE: In order as submitted POLICY YEAR: ~91 RECOMMENDED ACTION ON CLAIM: Return the claim as insufficent for failing to state amount of damages, location of occurrance. The claim would need to be returned within 20 days of orginal filing. FACTS: State Farm's insured alleges he was directed into traffic at car show by police officer and struck a pedestrian. X POSSIBLE CO-DEFENDANTS: Unidentified traffic officer and James Forsytn (driver of vehicle.) EVALUATION: Defer pending investigation. If this was a law enforcement agency, please provide identity and if the city held any type of agreement with agency. If private security service, please provide copy of contract along with applicable insurance information. RESERVE: TYPE OF CLAIM: AMOUNT: 1. State Farm Ins. Co. BI 1500.00 2. 3. COMMENT/WORK TO BE COMPLETED: If there is a police report, we would like to obtain a copy of it. 3ur further report will follow shortly. Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & CO. BY: Angela T. Pedlico STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY DATE JOUR INSURED ~ // ,~1~ , YOUR FILE NUMBER YOUR INSURED YOUR INSURED'S Fold -- -J APR 1 5 1991 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY STATE FARM COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS IACCIDENT DATE OUR CLAIM NUMBER' · PLEASE REFER TO THE CAPTIONED CLAIM NUMBER WHEN REPLYING From: STATE FARM INSURANCE CLAIM OFFICE 11161 Magnolia Ave. ' P.O. Box 8398 Riverside, CA 92515 We have been informed that you are the insurance carrier for the party designated as your insured in the caption of this letter. Our investigation of this accident establishes that your insured was responsible for this accident. Please accept this letter as notice of our subrogation rights under J---J Personal Injury Protection (PIP) r-'J Vehicle Damage Should we be called upon to make payment under our policy, we will be looking to you for reimbursement. We have made the following payments and request reimbursement as shown below: Name of our Payee Net Vehicle Damage Other PIP/MPC Payment (Less Salvage) Payment/Expense' $ $ $ $ $ $ Net Amount Paid Insured Vehicle By Company $ Deductible $ $ $ TOTAL Attachments: G 4379,1 PRINTED IN U.S.A. Ronald J. Park~ Mayor Pamela H. Bird~11 Mayor Pro Tern Karel E Undemans Councilmember CounolmernDer J. Sol Mufioz Councilmember David I-. Dixon City Manager (714.) 694-I 989 FAX [7 ! 4.) 694.-199'9 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive ,Temecula, Califomia 92390 Date: April 16, 1991 Carl Warren and Company 5465 Morehouse Drive Suite 150 Santa Diego, CA 92121 Attn: Claims Department Enclosed please find the subrogation form: Claim No. Date Received Claimant 0019 4/15/91 State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Forsyth Automobile re: James Please call should' you need any further information. Sincerely, June S. Greek City Clerk v/cc: Finance Officer STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY J OUR INSURED YOUR FILE NUMBE~ JYOU~ INSURED YOUR INSUREO'S APR 1 5 1991 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY STATE FARM COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS ACCIDENT DATE OUR CLAIM NUMBER' Fold -- I_ 'PLEASE REFER TO TNE CAPTIONED CLAIM NUMaER WHEN REPLYING. From: STATE FARM INSURANCE CLAIM OFFICE 11161 Macjnolia Ave. ' P.O. Box 8398 Riverside, CA 92515 ;~/~- $~-/- .~ _ We have been informed that you are the insurance carrier for the party designated as your insured in the caption of this letter. Our investigation of this accident establishes that your insured was responsible for this accident. Please accept this letter as notice of our subrogation rights under [--'] Personal Injury Protection (PIP) ~ ~ Medical Payments Coverage (MPC) ~-~ Vehicle Damage Other: ~ Should we be called upon to make payment under our policy, we will be looking to you for reimbursement. We have made the following payments and request reimbursement as shown below: Name of our Payee Net Vehicle Damage Other PIP/MPC Payment (Less Salvage) Payment/Expense' $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ Net Amount Paid Insured Vehicle 8y Company $ Deductible $ TOTAL Attachments: G 4379.1 PRINTED IN U.S.A. ITEM NO. 4 CARL WARREN & CO. Insurance Adjusters Claims Management and Administration 5465 Morehouse Drive Suite 150 San Diego. California 92121 (619) 457-3500 FAX: o1~-457-0475 NEXT REPORT DUE DATE: 30 DAYS REPORT %2 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula CA 92390 Attention: June Greek Client: C1 a imant: Date of Incident: Our File: Dear Ms. Greek: June 3, 1991 City of Temecula Greg Baker, et al. November 15, 1990 F-91-009 AP PREVIEW: The claimant alleges she was directed into traffic by a traffic control officer and was subsequently involved in a collision with another vehicle. CLIENT: City of Temecula, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92390. Bakersfield (805) 831-1703 Covina (8]8) 915-586l Fresno (209) 233-0~00 Glendale (Los Angeles Areal (213) 245-0800 Long Beach (213) 596-3539 Sacramento (916) 631-8551 San Bernardino (714) 824-I~60 (714) 884-866q San Diego (619) 457-35£~3 San Fernando Valley (818) 999-4094 San Francisco (415) 938-0640 San Luis Obispo (805) 544-7%3 Santa Ana (714) 972-3146 Santa Barbara (805) %3-0695 Ventura (805) 656-0811 (805) o58-0855 COVERAGE: This accident occurred prior to the inception of the policy period. OTHER INSURANCE: 1.) Client: Unknown. 2.) Claimant: None. 3.) Co-Defendants: Jacqueline Douglas; AAA Insurance Company, policy %G4275732. All City Management; unknown. DATE-TIME-PLACE: November 15, 1990; 1:10 p.m.; SR-79 at Ynez Road in Temecula, California. GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIR~ENTS: 1.) Date of Incident: November 15, 1990. 2.) Verified Claim Filed: April 26, 1991. 3.) Action Taken by Entity: claims be rejected. We recommend that the 4.) 'Applicable Statute Date: Six months from the date of the mailing of the rejection letter. Please provide our office copies of the rejection letters so we may ascertain the statute date. FACTS IN BRIEF: The claimant alleges they were directed into traffic by a traffic control officer and subsequently involved in a traffic collision with another vehicle at an intersection. CLIENT VERSION: In a preliminary report we had inquired if the traffic control officer, Braxton, is an employee of the City or contracted by the City through a private security service. In any event, we would like to meet with Braxton in order to obtain his statement. We note from. the police report Braxton is denying he directed the claimant into traffic. If Braxton is contracted by the City to direct traffic, please provide any copies of contracts you hold with the service in addition to any indemnity agreements and/or insurance information of the service. CLAIMANT VERSION: The claimant is identified as Elsa Wong of 30660 Milkyway Drive, Apartment S-146, Temecula, California 92390, ~(714)695-9153. She was born on April 10, 1957. Her California driver's license number is N9462403. Ms. Wong was traveling eastbound on SR-79 attempting to make a left turn onto ¥nez Road. She alleges a traffic control officer situated in the center of the roadway directed both her and other the driver into the intersection causing the two to collide. The other driver, identified as Jacqueline Douglas, was traveling southbound on Ynez Road, intending on traveling straight through the intersection. CO-DEFENDANT VERSION: The co-defendant is identified as Jacqueline Charlotte Douglas of 1961 Nuevo, Hemet, California 92343, %(714)652-1098. Ms. Douglas was born on April 18, 1921. Her California driver's license number is Yl155558. As mentioned previously, Ms. Douglas was found to be the primary cause of this collision for failing to obey a traffic officer. We contacted Ms. Douglas by telephone to ascertain her version of this accident. Ms. Douglas advised she was traveling northbound on SR-79 (she was actually traveling southbound) and was in the #1 lane stopped at the intersection. She observed the claimant's vehicle opposite hers in the left turn lane to enter Ynez Road. traffic control officer was in the center of the intersection directing traffic. Ms. Douglas stated his traffic control directions were quite confusing. She recalls he had waved her into the intersection and after she started into the intersection he then waved the other vehicle (Ms. Wong's vehicle) into the intersection. The two then collided. A We may follow-up with a formal statement of Ms. Douglas after we have been able to ascertain the employment of the traffic officer. We have contacted Braxton and confirmed he had worked for All City Management at 6820 La Tijera Boulevard, Suite 211, Los Angeles, California 90045 at the time he was directing traffic. We will need to obtain a copy of the contract the City held with this service, including any indemnity agreements and/or insurance information. OCCUPANTS/CLAIMANT VEHICLE: 1.) Elsa Wong; driver; injured. POLICE REPORT: Provided with our assignment was a copy of the CHP Traffic Collision Report %90-110116. The seven page report concludes Douglas was the primary cause of this collision, in violation of California Vehicle Code 21100.3, failure to obey a traffic control officer. There was no negligence attributed to the claimant in this accident. BODILY INJURY: Ms. Wong, in her claim form, stated she was seven months pregnant at the time of this accident. According to the claim, she is alleging her child was born premature and "sustained injuries and complications, the extent of which is still unknown." According to the traffic collision report, Ms. Wong complained of pain to her lower abdomen and was transported by ambulance to Inland Valley Hospital in Wildomar. It is noted Ms. Wong was not wearing either a lap or shoulder harness at the time of this accident. She advised the investigating officer her abdomen struck the lower part of the steering wheel. Ms. Wong's husband, Greg Baker, is also presenting a claim for severe emotional distress as a result of the alleged complications of the birth of their son, Kiefer James Baker. They allege their claims rest within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court which would exceed $25,000.00. ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION: The claimants are represented by Attorney Clay R. Sides, 41950 Sixth Street, Temecula, California 92390, #(714)676-7866. WITNESSES: Unfortunately, the police report does not list any witnesses to this accident. In discussing this with Ms. Douglas, she advised there were other vehicles at this intersection and we note the traffic control officer, Braxton, stated that all of the vehicles on SR-79 had stopped in both directions except for Ms. Douglas' vehicle. None of those drivers have been identified. PHOTOGRAPHS: We will be obtaining photographs of the intersection once we are able to set up an appointment to meet with Braxton. DIAGRAM: scene. We will also be preparing a diagram of the LIABILITY: Liability 'is questionable at this point. If in fact Braxton was not a regular employee of the City and contracted through another service and an indemnity agreement exists, we would wish to tender this claim to them as soon as possible. WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 1.) Obtain signed statement of Braxton, the traffic control officer. 2.) Obtain copy of traffic service contract, including insurance information and any indemnity agreements. 3.) Photograph/diagram scene. 4.) Additional investigation as needed. COMMENT: Our further reports will follow. Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & CO. AngeI]a T. Pedlico ATP/jmc ITEM NO. 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk June 11, 1991 Claim for Damages - Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. RECOMMENDA T/ON: Deny the Claim for Damages BACKGROUND: This claim was reviewed by the City's Liability Insurance Carrier who recommends the City Council deny the Claim filed by Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc,. JSG STRACHOTA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. Established 1931 28468 Front St//121 Temecula, Ca 92390 (714) 676-2229 Fax - (714) 676-7391 P.O. Box 151 Colton Ca 92024 (714) 825 4860 Fax - (714) 825-3762 May 30, 1991 City Of Temecula P O Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Anita, We have submitted your claim for Kaufman & Broad to Western Heritage. They have given the City the authority to decline. Please give us a call if you have any questions. Thank you. Best Personal Regards, Angelica Caldwell Received by crry OF ct.rcA., ' CL,,UM FOg APR 0 9 1991 (For Damages to Persons or Personal Property_,_Tl~l_~lA t.J L._"?* :'.,,' Via [ v~]-U.S. Marl [ ]-Over the Counter A CLAIM MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS AFrER WHICH THE INCIDENT OR EVENT OCCURRED. BK SURLY. YOUR CLAnV[ IS AGAINST THE CITY OF TEMECULA, NOT ANOTHER PUBLIC ENTrrY. Where ipace is insufficient~ please use additional paper and identify information by paragraph number. Completed claims must be mailed or delivered to: The City of Temecula Attention: City Clerk 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council, The City of Temecula, California The undersigned respectfully submits the following claim and information relative to damage to persons and/or personal property pursuant to the provisions of Section 900 through 915.2 of the Government Code. 1. NAME OF CLAIMANT: Kaufman & Broad of San Diego, Inc. Address of Claimant: 12520 High Bluff Drive Suite !20 San Diego, California 92130 b. TelephoneNumbers:(213) 443-8050 daytime evening c. Date of Birth: N / A. d. Social Security Number: N / A e. Ddver's License Number: N/A Claim for D~mn~es Pa~e 2 Name, telephone and/or post office address to which claimant desires notices to be sent if other than listed above: Thomas W. Crawford Es . CRAWFORD BLASDELL ~ RE'MANN 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Occurrence or event from which the claim arises: a. Date: January 21, 1991 Date of Accident: February 6, 1990 b. Place (exact and specific location): City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California State Highway 79 Time: N/A Intersection of Pala Road and How and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? Specify particular occurrence, event, act or omission you claim caused the injury or damage: See Attachment "A" What particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury: See Attachment "A" Claim for Damages Page 3 Give a description of the injury, property damage or loss, so far as is known at the time of this claim. If there were no injuries, state 'No injuries'. See Attachment "A" Give the name(s) of the City employee(s) causing the damage or injury: unknown Name and address of any other person(s) injured: Paul Stuart 3effrey B. Kincaid Babette Stuart Gerreld G. Kinraid Nicholas Stuart Roger W. Quilalang Francisco 3avier Gutierrez For addresses see attached police report Name and address of the owner of any damaged property: See attached police report Damages claimed: a. Amount claimed as of this date: b. Estimated amount of future costs: c. Total amount claimed: d. Basis for computation of amounts claimed (include copies of ~11 bills, Defense Costs Unknown Undeterminable at this time invoices, estimates, etc.) $ see 4 above Claim for Damages Page 4. Names and addresses of all witnesses, hospitals, doctors, etc. See Attached police report 10. Any additional information that might be helpful in considering claim: Plaintiff's complaint presently pending in Superior Court for the City of Riverside. Case No. 208980 ~~ & ~EIPL~NN CBAWPOBD BLAS~ELL Attorneys for Claimant KAUPMAN ~ BBOAD of SAN DIEG0, INC. WARNING: 1T tq A CRIMINAl, OFF'J~SF~ TO FII,F. A FAI.qF. CI.AIM. (PENAL CODE SECTION 72; INSURANCE CODE SECTION .~6.L). CLM-020 Attachment "A" 3(c) and (d) On or about January 21, 1991, a complaint was delivered to Kaufman and Broad indicating that a lawsuit had been filed by Paul Stuart in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside against Kaufman and Broad and other defendants including the State of California and the County of Riverside. Said complaint alleges.that an accident occurred on or about February 6, 1990, at the intersection of Pala Road and SH 79 in the County of Riverside in what is presently known as the City of Temecula. Complaint alleges that as a result of the accident, plaintiff Stuart suffered personal injury and property damage and, further, plaintiff Stuart's wife died in the accident and his minor son was injured. Stuart brings the complaint in his individual capacity, as administrator of the deceased, and as guardian for the minor son on theories of wrongful death and negligence. Kaufman and Broad denies the allegations of plaintiff's complaint and will deny any claims or cross-complaints against it arising out of this accident and plaintiff's alleged injuries. However, if Kaufman and Broad is found liable in the above-stated causes of action or any related actions, Kaufman and Broad asserts that it is entitled to full indemnification, equitable indemnification, contribution and/or damages from the City of Temecula for any liability, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred. These claims are based on the fact that the liability of Kaufman and Broad, if any, arises as a result of the actively negligent, wrongful or otherwise culpable conduct of the City of Temecula in it creation, control, supervision, maintenance and/or approval of the roads, signals, warnings or development at the intersection in question and the roadways and intersection referenced in. plaintiff's complaint. Kaufman & Broad is informed and believes the City of Temecula had responsibility for or control over the intersection of Pala Road and SH 79 including warnings, signs, signals, improvements, lighting or other conditions complained of by plaintiff as alleged causes of accident. (4) Kaufman and Broad is presently unable to ascertain the current or prospective amounts due and owing by the City as a result of these claims. However, Kaufman and Broad believes that said amount will be determinable when any judgment is entered or settlement agreed upon which imposes upon Kaufman and Broad any liability, obligations, costs, and expenses. In addition, Kaufman and Broad is currently incurring attorney's fees and costs associated with defense of plaintiff's action for which it is entitled to reimbursement or indemnity from the City. AFFIC COLLISION REPORT ,_. · TRAFFIC COLLISION CODING S~FETY EQUIPMF-NT U. klOe~ IJl YT~HJlC~.I W- C:OTHER T~AN O~v~ · D UNJOCWN · · EJECTED FROM VEHICLE, O- NOT ~EC~O t - AA,LY F. UECTF~ C CROSSING IN CROSIW&LX. NOT AT INTLqSEC?JOli ~' ~'~ '~_I/ITN ESS Es / PASSENGERS .-'.;- - ' I ~'o~S · EXTENT OF INJURY ( "X" ONE ) ~ 0 0 0 INJURED WAS ( "X" ONE ) o I a I n I~ ta Inl [] t~I , i,~ I~ I ~ FACTUAL DIAGRAM ALii Id~AS~JIE(M[NTS Alii APtl)NOXIlld&TE~ ANO NOT TO KA INJURED I WITNESSES / PASSENGERS EXTENT OF INJURY ( "X" ONE ) p&y~L ~IB~ ~ '~ILI C~ INJURED WAS ( "X' ONE ) ~0 0 w 0 TIV~ I [] IololoI [] ?ddLtl I I o Iol [] ! o IololoI o o Iol o o ioIoloi [] TrLfJI~Obi ._J7 _":. ', FACTUAL DIAGRAM ' ..............'""'-1"~7~i"~'~'~'; I-"' ... 'Z.- ... ~, ...qo I F'ACTUAL DIAGRAM t 10. 24. 25. 26. 27 29. :32. CI-iP .~Se (Fle~. 74/) OPl 04:~ ~. ~I~.~'I'VE~S U PPL EM ENTA L lO. ~ ~ ~' ~..~ It&;I My ~V...,J r !O 11. ;2. 13. 14. j7. - \1-~ 1~. 21. 22. 2::3. 25. 26. 27 28. 3O. ~1. CH~ ~5~ (Rev. 7-a~ OPI 042 S. $. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ~2. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 2~ 25. 26. 28. 29. 30. · _~1".~ ~I'~'~/E./SU PP L EM ENTA L o 9. 10. 11. "" 12. 1S. 16. 18. 20. 2~.. 26. 27. 28. 29. :30. CHP 556 (Rev. 7-G7) QPI 042 ~_8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ~. 13. 14. .,, . 15. 16. 17. 18. 23. 27. ~-~ 28. ~3o. AC~m-~. 32. CHP S5~ (Rev. 7-a7) QPI J~ o 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ~7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.' 23. .~4. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 32. .A I E 5~ · -,...,.,--, /,., Clip 556 (Rm¢. 7-~7) OPl 042 ,1. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 2~. 2S. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 32. '.~ )5' 9. 23. 22. ~4 25. 26. 27¸ 29. 29. 31. 32. C, HP 5,56 (Rev. 7-87) OPt 042 '~ ~ ~,~'i'VE/$UPPLEM ENT A L 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 7. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27, 28. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 1'9- 22. 23. 25. 26. 27 29. 30. 31 32. ~;*~P 55~ (Rev. 7-~ OPl 042 18. 19. ,20. 21. 22. 23. 24 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 32. CHp 556 (Rev. 7..~3T~ OPl 042 i~'~ t~ ~.~,~'I"VE/$ U PP L EM ENTA L .1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. tl 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. C...^ %t= ~.- 16. 17. 2c. 22. 24 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. """"'"'-' CHP 556 (Rev. 7-87) OPl 042 15. 16. !7 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 2'3. 24 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 22. CMP 55& (Rev. 7-47) OPl 042 z - IOq>5\ 3. - L-i¢~t,, 9~-- 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. .20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. :31. 32. ~HP S56 (Rev. 7.07) OPl 042 ITEM NO. 6 ? 1991 CARL WARREN & CO. C~atms >,!an~emenr and Adm:r,:strar:on 54~,5 Morehouse Dnve San Diego. C~lffornia 92121 (619~ 45%3500 7AN: ,) NEXT REPORT DUE DATE: 30 DAYS REPORT %2 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Temecula CA 92390 Drive May 13, 1991 Attention: Gus Papagolos Risk Manager Client: City of Temecula Claimant: Charles H. Finelli Incident Date: November 10, 1990 Our File: F-91-002 AP Dear Mr. Papagolos: PREVIEW: The claimant alleges his heel caught in the metal grate in a private parking lot causing him to injure himself. Bakersfield ,$05~ 531-iA~3 Covina (8181 Fresno (209) 233-q500 Glendale ILos Angeles Area~ (213) 245-0800 Long Beach 1213) 5%-~53~ Sacramento (916) ~31-8551 San Bernardino (714) 824-1oo0 (714) $84-gbbq San Diego (619~ 457-3500 San Fernando {818) ~9q-4094 San Francisco (415'~ 938-v040 San Luis Obispo ($05) 544-~o3 Santa Aria t7!4) C72-314~ Santa Barbara (805) 963-a095 Ventura ~805) ~5v-08t I (805) v5~-0855 CLIENT: City of Temecula, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92390. COVERAGE: This claim occurred prior to the inception of the SANDPIPA policy. OTHER INSURANCE: A. ) Cl lent: Unknown. B.) Claimant: Unknown. C.) Co-Defendant: owner. Yet to be identified property DATE-TIME-PLACE: November 10, 1990. GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS: A.) Incident Date: November 10, 1990. B.) Verified Claim Filed: February 22, 1991. c.) Action Taken by Entity: The claim was returned as insufficient and was amended on March 11, 1991. We would now recommend Ithe claim be rejected on merit. D.) Applicable Statute Date: Two years from the date of incident or six months from the date of the mailing of the rejection letter. FACTS IN BRIEF: The claimant alleges as he was walking toward a business from his vehicle across a parking lot, his heel caught in a metal drainage grate causing him to lose his balance and fall. CLIENT VERSION: From inspection of the scene it does not appear the location of this drain grate would be within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula. It is actually located in a parking lot of a business at 28677 Front Street in the older portion of Temecula. As requested, we attempted to obtain the information on the ownership of this property from the County of Riverside. Unfortunately: we did not receive much in the way of cooperation and ended up by forwarding a letter requesting the information. In addition to obtaining the owner of this property in order to place them on notice of this claim (the claimant's attorney advises he has already placed them on notice of the claim) we also need to ascertain whether or not the County required the property owner to place this drain grate on his property or whether or not it was the owner's discretion to do so. Since the grate is on private property, we doubt if the City/County maintains it but we would like to verify that information with your office. We have also inquired of the County whether or not there are codes requiring grates to be certain widths for safety reasons since this is an area with regular pedestrian access being that it is located in a parking lot. CLAIMANT VERSION: The claimant is identified as Charles Finelli of P.O. Box 459, Murrieta, California 92362, ~(714)699-8487. Mr. Finelli was born on November 29, 1947 and his social security number is 547-68-7848. Mr~ Finelli alleges as he exited his vehicle and was walking toward the Rocky Mountain House Mercantile, the heel of his left boot sunk into the open slat of the grate causing him to injure his left ankle, hip and back. Mr~ Finelli is represented by Attorney W. Michael Sweeney of William K. Sweeney, 11440 West Bernardo Court, San Diego, California 92127, #(619)487-5876. We have discussed this claim with Mr. Sweeney. It is his opinion since the owners of the property deny any knowledge of this grate that the City should now be held responsible. Mr. Sweeney confirmed he had no information indicating the City required the replacement of the grate, maintained it or in fact owned it. BODILY INJURY: As advised, Mr. Finelli is alleging injuries to his left ankle, left hip and back. He has apparent medical specials of $1,222.30 and is claiming estimated future costs of $5,100.00. His total amount claimed is $30,000.00. The attorney claims his client may also require future surgery although we were not provided the details. PHOTOGRAPHS: Attached are the original photographs of the area which are captioned and self-explanatory. WITNESS CANVASS: We contacted Marvin Zeldin at ~(714)676-6388. He has been working at the mercantile for the past three years. He does not recall any prior complaints of people falling in the grate. He recalls hearing about Mr Finelli's incident but did not see it occur. We also spoke with Helen Berger who has been working at The Chocolate Florist store for the past year. Her business borders the north end of the parking lot of 28677 Front Street. In fact, the drain grate is located on the northeast corner of the parking lot which is adjacent to the south wall of her building. She was also familiar with the incident of Mr. Finelli but advises that he had never come into her store to complain he had fallen. She advised that she was open and working on November 10: 1990. It was her opinion the drain grate is open and obvious and there is no way anyone could have tripped on it. She is not aware of any prior incidents involving- this grate. PHOTOGRAPHS: Attached are copies of the photographs of the scene which are captioned and self-explanatory. LIABILITY: Liability is questionable at this point since we are uncertain as to whether or not the City in any way maintains this drain. It does appear it flows into the City's regular storm drain. As soon as we have received a response from the County of Riverside, along with any additional information your Public Works Department may have concerning this grate, we will be in a better position to evaluate liability. It would still be our reco~endation to reject Mr. Finelli's claim in order to institute the statute date. CO-DEFENDANT: As soon as we have ascertained the identity of the property owners, we will forward a letter tendering the claim to their carrier. We do wish to point out, however, due to the age of this property, it is a possibility the records may not be able to be located as to whether or not the design of this grate was required by the County at the time of its construction. WORK TO BE COMPLETED: 1.) Obtain requested information from County of Riverside/City of Temecula. 2.) Tender property owner once identified. ENCLOSURES: Copies of Five Photographs of Scene COMMENT: Our further reports will follow. ATP/jmc Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & CO. Angela T. Pedlico ity of Temecula IFik' Numtw,'r F91-002AP CARL WARREN & CO. Insurance Adlustcr$ C:lalm$ Administrators 11o10-90 IDalc & T~rm' l'a~.cn 4-23-91 9:30AM #1 Depicts the view of the parking lot facing westbound. the location of the drain grate at 28677 Front St. The arrow shows , --" ' , -::." ' 7.r' -iT ~2 CW035 Depicts the wider view_of the parking area. The arrow shows the location of the drain. I~T~' Angela T. Pedlico Canon E0565C ~ty of Temecula F91-002AP #3 CARL WARREN & CO. I'nsurance Adlu,tcrs C~a~ms AdmJnlstrators [o.,t 11-10-90 4-23-91 9:30A~,~ ~ .... ---... . ;/ .. :. '. - ~ __ ,:.., , ~i ~ .-- ~. ._ - Depicts a closer view of the drain grate. #4 Depicts a close up view of the metal grate. CW035 Angela T. Pedlico Canon EOS65 In.,un.d of Temecula IFik' Num~rr F-91-002AP CARL WARREN & CO. Insurance Adluuers Cla~rns Administrators °"t 11_10_90 I)alt' & 'rime ! ~kt'n 4-23-91 9:30AM ~5 Depicts the measurement of_~he width of the metal grate of 3/4 of an inch. CW035 [~o~T.~'~, Angela T. Pedlico Canon EOS6_: ~ ..._~..2.~ '?~"..~~' ~nsur~n<., ',.d~,.~ - mr~ 9an D:e:4,~. C.dt/,,rma "2!2~ ~lm 't57-35 ~0 EAX. o !a-4574~475 count~ Rive=side Asse~o~. s _office 40~.~Lemon Stree%~ Ninth Floor R?~f side CA C! ient: Claimant: Incident Date: Our Fxle: May 13, 1991 City of Temecuta Chaties Finelii }~ovember !0, 7.990 F-91-002 AP Dear Sir/Madam: We are the claims administrators for ~he City of Temecula: The City has received a claim from Mr. Finelii as a result of an incident where he alleges he cauaht the heel of his shoe in a metal drainage qrate located in the parking ict at 28677 Front Street in Tomecuba. We are requesting you provide our office with the following information: The assessor's number of this property 2.) The identity of the owners of the property Whether or not a drainage grate was requi~ed by the County at the ~ime of construction. if it was not required by the Countyr wa~ this an improy .emen~ ccmpieted solely by the property owner. Please advise if there are any regu].at]ons as to width of the drainage gra%e by cod~ for those implemented in a parking lot area. We thank you for your assistance in this matter Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & CO, ATP/jmc cc: City of TemZla Attn: Gus ~apagolos Angela T. Ped llco City of Temecula Ronald J. Parks Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor Pro Tern Karel E Undemans Counalmember DATE: Peg Moore Councilmember 'TO: J. Sal Mufioz Counalmember David E Dixon Qty Manager 1714} 694-1989 ~F_.: FAX {714} 694-1999 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED March 1, 1991 Law Offices of William K. Sweeney W. Michael Sweeney 11440 West Bernardo Court, Ste 290 San Diego, California 92127 Charles FineIll - Claim For Damages NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY The claim which was received by the City Clerk on February 22, 1991 failed to comply substantially with certain Government Code Sections. It was insufficient for the following reasons: Failure to state the amount of damages. For your infomation, consult Sections 910, 910.2, 910.4 and 910.8, and other sections of the Government Code pertaining to the filing of claims against a public entity. Due to certain time requirements for filing these deficiencies this should be corrected immediately. Sincerely, .rune S. G~~-' City Clerk Finance Director Carl Warren & Co. CI.J~-004 SUITE S~ DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127 SUITE 120 TEL: (714} March 7, 1991 Our File No. 824 June S. Greek city of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Re: My Client: Charles Finelli Date of Loss: November 10, 1990 Dear Ms. Creek: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 1, 1991, requesting the amount of damages for Mr. Finelli's claim. Damages claimed are: Amount claimed as of this date: Estimated amount of future costs: Total amount claimed: $1,222.30 $5,100.00 $30,000.00 Please be advised that Mr. Finelli is currently undergoing treatment and may need surgery. Therefore, the above figures may not represent the total amount of damages that Mr. Finelli will sustain. If you have any questions, please call. WMS:aem Very truly yours, City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive .Ternecula, California 923~0 Ronald J. Parks Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor Pro Tern Kaml E I.indernans Councilmeml~er Peg Counc]lmeml:~r J. ~al Mufioz Councilmeml:er David E Dixon Q~y Manager 1714) 694..I g89 FAX {7141694-1999 Date: February 25, 1991 Carl Warren and Company 5465 Morehouse Drive Suite 150 Santa Aria, CA 92121 Atto: Claims Department Enclosed please find the following claims: Claim No. Date Received Claimant 0014 2\22\91 Finelli, Charles Please call should you need any further information. Sincerely, .Tune S. G~k City Clerk ~: Finance Officer February 19, 1991 Our File No. 824 June S. Greek City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Re: My Client: Charles Finelli Date of Loss: November 10, 1990 Dear Ms. Creek: Enclosed please find the completed Claim for Damages Form signed by Mr. Finelli. Mr. Finelli is currently being treated for his injuries and has not yet stabilized. Please advise me of the name of the individual who will be handling this file on behalf of the City of Temecula if it is someone other than yourself. If you wish to discuss this matter feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, LAW ~P~ICES OF : k.o, WMS:aem Enclosure CITY OF 1taMECULA, CALIFORNIA CLAIM FOR DAMAGES {'For Damages to Persons or Personal Property) Received b~-~-- ./~/g{.. ~) Via [5/-.]-U.S. Mail [ ]-Over the Counter A CLAIM MUST BE FILED WITH TI-IE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF TF_.2VlECULA WITHIN SIX (63 MONTHS AFTER WHICH THE INCIDENT OR EVENT OCCURRI::.D. BE SURE YOUR CLAIM IS AGAINST THE CITY OF T~M2ECULA, NOT ANOTHER PUBLIC ENTrrY. Where space is insufficient, please use additional paper and identify information by paragraph number. Completed claims must be mailed or delivered to: The City of Temecula Attention: City Clerk 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council, The City of Temecula, California The undersigned respettily submits the following claim and information relative to damage to persons and/or personal property pursuant to the provisions of Section 900 through 915.2 of the Government Code. 1. NAME OF CLAIMANT: Charles H. Fineill Address of Claimant: P.O. Box 459 Murriet~. cA be Telephone Numbers: daylime Date of Bh'th: 11/29/47 Social Security Number: Driver's License Number: 547-68-7848 Same evening e. P0079737 Claim for Damages Page 2 Name, telephone and/or post office address to which claimant desires notices to be sent if other than listed above: Michael Sweeney, LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM K. SWEENEY, APC (6i9) 487-5876 11440 W. Bernardo Court, Suite 290, San Diego CA 92127 Occurrence or event from which the claim arises: a. Da~: November 1O, I990 Time: 1:00 o.m. b. Place (exact and specific location): A metal 9r~te located in the walkway near 28657 Jefferson in Temecula, California. How and under what circumstances did daxnage or injury occur? Specify particular occurrence, event, act or omission you claim caused the injury or damage: As Mr. Finel!i exited his vehicle and turned to proceed to the Rocky Mountain House Mercantile, the heel of his le~t Doo~ sunk ln~o an openin9 in injured his left an~!e, left hip and back. What particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury: Mr. Finelli is informed andbelieves that the City of Temecula negllgen~£y cons~ruu~ed and subject grate which 9roximatley causeG nzs ~n3uries. Claim for Damages Page 3 Give a description of the injury, property damage or loss, so far as is known at the time of this claim. If there were no injuries, state "No injuries". Personal injuries: injured left ankle, left hip and back. Property damage: Boots. Give the name(s) of the City employee(s) causing the damage or injury: Unknown at this time. Name and address of any other person(s) injured: Not applicable. Name and address of ~e own~ of any damaged property: Claimant: Charles H. Fine!Ii ~. O. Ro~ 459 Murrieta, CA 92362 Damages claimed: a. Amount claimed as of this d~m: b. Estimated amount of future costs: c. Total amount claimed: d. Basis for computation of amounts claimed (include copies of all bills, Unknown at this time. Unknown at this time. Unknown at this time. invoices, estimates, etc.) Claim for D-m-ges Page 4. Narn~ and addrests of all wimesses, ho~itals, doctors, era. Lora Casper Dr. Mvren - Roa daiston Te~cu~ V~ll~y Chiropractic 10. Any additional information that might be helpful in considering claim: Signed this Claimant's Signature WARNING: IT IS A CRIM/NAL OFFENSE TO FII,E A FALSE CLAIM. ~ENAL CODE SECTION 72; INSURANCE CODE SECTION 556.L). CLM-020 ITEM NO. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $498,885.18. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTI~B, this 1 lth day of June, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 184 ~i~?! 0S/]~/9! 0!90 05/~/9! [~ ~'O~IT ON NE~ ~LT ~11619! DIXON DAVID F. DIXON 051491 05114191 05/i4/91REI~;D.D. 5,~2'J. O0 0.O0 5,625.~3 !98. O0 0.00 I~.O0 ~eck Totals: !98.00 ?06951 05/16191P~SSENT PI~SS E]~ERPRISE lW~ 04ZOlFff-So024----O2705791'OJ~lPi~ PJi~:t~.zSJ~Y 951.99 19395--t 04/01/91 lo063 03/22/91AD FOR RECSEATION LEAI)EF(;FEB. 70.98 0.O0 198.00 0.00 951.99 0. O0 70.98 X)6952 05/20/91 ONlYLOBE UNI{3LOBE B~IE.D TRAVEL 051591 05/~/91 06/03/91 -OTO0 -I ,0~. 97 0.O0 88.00 Check To,,aLs: 88.O0 'X~953 05120t91 HiCKI~{ BiC2V34:q.L T~V~ CENTER 051598-' --0571079I 051 ~19 I ~ I .RF T4RE}; ~ SlY: .q 2{32. ~- ~ Y-I O---------?,d37(XT C~ecK To~azs: 2~. >,~595~-0'$121-/9i ~Fu~ -~3VT~! NPA{3E -{3FF I CERS-ASS{3C7--. ' 051691 ~/!6/91 05/16/91 PURCI4ik,qE F,J~LIC Ih"VESTOR ............................ Cnec~'-~o~i.s:-- -- ~,~, ..~. (35121191 PERi 052191 04/01191 04/01/9I PER$ P~,MIb~.: ~RiL & ~¥ 18.~37.69 Cnec~ To:ils: 18.~7.49 5~--~"91- ....0~/.~/91 ...... ¢~/~/9!-1 ~TRUCTC~ffJ 0.00 258.0O 0.00 50. O0 ---O;.Oq- 0.00 4).O0 18,8o-7,.49 '~ec~ Tc:ai~: · ~7029-~/2¢~?r'DEP~qTCO 13~TI'[NT l~~ =~,~ .................. 052~91 05/2~/9i 05i2~/91 I~SK;~.IF.LiC~SF PA'iI)BI~ I~.O0 o.<.~ 1~0,O0 007030 05/24/9! ~ITHB ~2491 :00903i 05/28/91 PK]<B~DN ~Y W..i*ERt~ ...... ~-----c':'ORT{2 04101191- ~eck Totals: ........... 30;~' 0700 05t10/91 10%'3 051¢~191 TE}~'t]~¥ S{9~/I~$ ~¥ 1991 &14.~ 0.O0 614.~ Check Totals: b1~.88 0. O0 614.88 04/01/910..~IN6IPAYMENT-RE~JEST}APR!L-- ..... 41§:32 ....... 0.~ 115~2 ~eck Totals: ::~'L~70~'O5/2B/91-RAI2DISON RADDiSON HOTEl_ ~ .............. 5.'~3~ 1 05/28/9i 05/~191 RESE~'W. CI~F,I$.lH;51730-61b 415. ?,2 O. O0 415.32 704.97 O. O0 704.97 ...... ~eck Tatals: '- .... · ~ 05/~/9: ~aENTS P. EG~TS ~ ~JalV. OF 05099i C512@Ri 06,104191 '~A,'KS,~P ~/~-6/~ ....... 704,97 ....... 0;00 ....... 704.97 -- - 295. (~ O. O0 ~. O0 2'5. W O. 00 2~, O0 5neck Date Venoor ~ Invoice Dare P/O 52891 ~l~l?l ~i=y =? Temec~ia Description 8ross Discoun~ 051~191 ~ A~ANCE:BFOA CONF;5/30 200.00 051~191 UNL~ 042¢91 C~eck TotaLs: 05/01/91 05101191 LO~8 TERM DISABILITY; MAY 91' 0.00 0.00 200.00 1,126.5~ ~k Totais: <~70~ ~1~191STA~CI]M STA~ ~Ti~ 1~. ~ ~491 ~/01/91 ~lq311~l-~ CO,~. ~Y 91' ~k Totals: :~IOJV vol~19I r~IiLI~L ~2491 05/~/9i 06/01/91 IN~t~CN~E PYMT; JOl'E 91' 6,0;5.74 447.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,12&5~ 6,045.74 6,045.74 447.00 0~0191 ,~07041 05129/9i ~EN~:T BF.~-rIT AI~RI~ O~Z~Vl ~101791 1,109.03 ~eck lo~ais: 1,109.0~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~7.00 1,10%03 I,~89.52 ~e~k TotaLs: LIFE'& ~:~-'- ~i01/91 I,~. ,~.!U~; JU~E 91' 1,LB9.52 0.~ 1,5q~9.52 49¢.5 0.0~ 49~.25 ....... l:heck-Totll s: ;94;.'~5 ........... OTO0 .-,X)7045 05/~19', CAU%~I '-J~.IFORNi/4 'I~iCIP~. riSINESS ,~9, 05/28/9i ~1~191 ~TA L'~ON;JW~ 7 20.00 O.gO Cneo: Tarais: SYSTEM SYSTEM SOU~..., ~. 2!8,548..~ 0.00 218.548.~ 5~! 05/~/91 10217 05114191 STOR~S C~ ~ PROI)~T 700.00 0.00 700.00 20.00 0.® ~.00 !BO~60 --0.~9 1~.~0 7.i~5.80 0.¢,0 '~4.90 "' ' 450.70 O. C~O 7, ~J,O. 70 ...... 51~.75' .~/9: Jlzy ~ Temecu.~ F'~e: : ~¢IF--]at~ - ¥,n~or .......... ~, ..................................................... ,~/~2-~I'/91-'TF.~SCHO TE~CbtA-VAI i' FY' HI~-SC~' 0~191 05/31191 6~/~1191 SCHOLA~iP~ Ai~DED~ 0.00 1,~®.00 )07063 06111/9I A-I SiGN A-i $1~ CO. 05/15/91 101h7 ....... --C~e¢~-T~'~is; 04/~191 ~ SiGN INSTALLATION !,278.00 '0'~ 0.00 1:278.00 C~ec~ Totals: )07064 06111191 ACCURATE ACC1FtATE LANDSCAPE 2!4~ 05t5/71-1011)7 O$I15/9!-RAIN~IiUI-NtTi~DRAtN-U~t~'-- 21~23 05115191 1010~ 03100191 REPAIR ~IN LINE ~,27B.00 0.00 t,278.00 B92. i6 OrO0 8~2.16 919.96 0.00 91%96 Checr-T~ais: .~07065 06111191 A~ICRED fi~[Cftf. gIT ACCePTAnCE CORP. 6741809162 05101191 0177 03/14/91 nAY AND JUNE (?.!a, SE PY~T i,8!2;12 1~672.40 ~,812.12 1,672.~ D~eck To=ais: 1~672.~ JQ70~ 06/11/91BE~Fi.'IP~ 'F:~D-.'OF~D PROF.'~TiES. iNC. C~2~9I ~/24/71' O~/24~91-F,F. FIIND WID Fq..FqlITFOCT.~ .......... 0.00 !,672.~ 0.00 -- t~bOO~50 Totals: I~60~.5~ 0.00 1.600.50 8.372.70 O. O0 8.~2.70 ' ~ '~ 0.00 21.~B3.79 312184801 05/i¢191 10164 04/501~1 (~lAl'll~ P!~ UPBRADE 2S~I~J! C~/01/91 ~/01/91 ~AI~R F~ ~!L ~ ~101/91 ~/01/71 ~,S~I~S F~ ~'RIL 2~1018 ~/0~/91 0~/01/91 ~.~v.~ia:~'~. LiT. .~ ............................. ~k Totals: ...... g~!O~O-- ~/01/9I 01~2 03/!)/9i EX~'~-~TH.~i6~5/I/91 ~i0 ~/02/91 0170 05/26/9i i~T~ ~ 2 TOT C'~T ~ ~i~1( ~/C~/9! 0162 03/13/91EX~ ~ ~TH, 4/~/91 --~1~)--'~/0~/9~ 0162 .... ~3/I~/9~'~T~-~.~/3~9~ 34,772.58 0.00 34,772.58 :~JQ7070-O6111t9~IFDR~"CJ~iFDR~IAN---- Check Totals: 1989-~ 0~/03/91 0127 12118190 A.I~,'X;55~;50~2'9801 5103191 1989-,.~. 04/~/91 0127 12/18t~ ~,I~2~ q~/91 I~76~' ~/03/91-01~--- !21t81~-F~~tN~TK'S1319! 19~-1~9 ~/03i91 0127 12/!8/~ ~1~,~ 5/~/91 i9~-32~ 05/01/91 0127 12118/90 ~ ~,7B19; ~ 5/1-15 0.00 8O.88 ~;45 -- '0.'~) ~; 45- ........... 64.08 0.00 71.72 0.00 71.72 266.06 Ch~ck TotaLs: 2~.0~ iNC FATI~'h- Pt~FR~ON~t 1 \~,! \91-- ~2 ..... 1,954. O0 ........ 270.15 0.00 270.13 1~2.00 0.00 152.00 invmce Date P/O Da~e Description Discount 0.0(7 70wO?l)? ~06-;1 I-/91~ I ~OFBF.~ I ~ .~-~ ffJ2471 ~/07/71 Check Totals: 06107191 CDNF~RtE~'¢.~B M, JUliE 7 ~5.10 O. 0O 57~. 10 17.5 0.00 17.75 Y007075 0~/11/91 CMTA CMTA. ~ 04/01/71 1015t 04/01/91 C~FA HA~I)I~K ~ I)INDER;3/26 17.73 O. O0 17.75 ~.~ 0.0O )0~7076 06/11191 CC~DRT 0~0!9i 05~!71-1 0~I-~1--I01 O0 10175 4L~_ O,~JO 45,2 10~.~ 0,0O 105,25 y)07077 06/11191 CDPYLINE C~oY LiNE CDFffq~TiD~ 32319 04101191 10171 03/27/7! $F.~ICE ~711----o~/17~v-r01~ O. 0O 1.'29. !5 O. O0 I~, 15 ~ 1,.~H80 0.00 7!9.4-6 0;~ '" -tTI07;5~ O.~t) !50.00 0.0O 150.00 ~.~ 0.00 15.~ 0.0O 4&0O ~.75 ;0. 76 0.0O ~0.76 ............... C~c~ Totals: 0007083 06/11/9i GILLIS-: C, n, 'hAl' 6ILLIS APRIL 91 CM/OI/gl 0107 ::/02/%~ ~,~:~, '~R~L 91 ....... ~!91 -' (~/01191" O~/OI/~i-~:T;'~ ~:!ti-2/I --- ~0!9!-1 c~/01/91 ~/01/9! C~iT:~S ~:3/!-~/:! ~h~ Das~ Venoor Name 60"J~'2AFT-CI -04101/91''' bO4.lAPF~. 04/01/91 04/0i191 ~-~Ri~ ~TTS Cl.~(CiS; CiTY 9007085 0611~191 HAFELiTH ThtlMAS MAFELi 051791 05117191 ---~ec~Totais; .... 05i!7/91 MILEABE RE1MB. DELIVE~!ES;MAY C~eck Totals: 0~/11191 INLAN!)D2 INLAND DISPOSAL, INC 1000472 06101191 06101191 JUNE SERVI~ CIi~G.b'PQRTS PARK 881~06----~/0,~/~' Q6/01771-j UNE -~_Ft~I ~'~-. MORENO -- 2016~ 06/01/91 ~b/01/9i JUNE S~¥ICE CHR8.MARGARITA ),)07087 0b/11/9! JSA JDLENE S. iNITF.%~.li ~9! 05/24/91 ~/24/9! I/2 PA~ ~LDR A~;MAY Check Totals: )007088 06/11/91 LEAGUE-2 LEAGUE OF CALiFORNiA CITIES ............................ Cnec~'Tota£s: ............ Cx907090 06/11/91 ~IC~OA~F. ~ICRO ~.~E COl'PUT~.9~ ~l'~ 0~/~4,91 10212 ,.~,~o~ LAPTOP C0~7~$: FINANCE Discount 0.-00 1,~I'7.-82-- 0.00 1,275.19 I~.00 0.00 1~.00 592..00 O. OQ 5~.00 --';~/~--- --- O. O0 49. ,5 44.~. O~ 0.00 ~"J. 08 !:(7'75.00 0.00 1,0~/5.00 .'rt~;00--- 0.-00- 1~.-~0 1~9. O0 0.00 l~.OO Z~. !3 O. ~ 34b. 13 8,062.65 0.00 8,062.05 o~'~J- 0~1~1~ I0209' '-05II;I9t' MIBH'SF-~F.D-Pl!INTER;-FINA~E ..... 2~84~.06 Check Totais: ......... NEWPORT ~T ~ ~T~ .......... ~5~ 65/2i/91 0152 02/C1/91. ~T~ OF ~7~I~;~Y ~.72 ~I ~130/91 0152 021~/91 ~ '~ ~ C!~ ~ 426.~ ~ ..... ~/~/g1' 0152 .... 02/~/~i ' I~T~-,~; ~'CITY '~' ---43,070. ~ -- ~eck TotaLs: 0~0191 00/01/~i 0~/01/91MOItTHI. Y b'ERV.CHR6) MAY 10,9i0.61 0.00 58.72 0.0~ ~.~ ..... 43,~.47 0.00 .... Cneck'-Totals: ............. ~.00 ......... :0007093 06/11i91 0~'027 05/09/9! 90296 01/Si/91 !2 ~Z~ SOFTBALLS ;85.00 0.00 :(Y00709~ 06/ii19! PACIFSOD PAC?IC SOD ............. 2705~ "- 0510819I"10206 0~091 00/01/9i '~ec~ Totals: 05/08191 ~D FOR ~,~'~'L'RANS PARK Cnec~ To;a~s: 06i0i/9i CASH 0.00 O. 2CQ. O0 O. O0 :, j~:.. ~ :j ';. '..! 485. O0 2, Sz-C, .-7 S~ec~ Da~e VetlOOK Invosce Date P/O Da~e Descr~.~::on 011170~02'04/02/9i Olll70O(Y/2 04/02i9i 0111700032 04/02/91 onT70~?.-O(702Yvl 0111700012 04/02/91 0110503842 ..... 04/02/91-LNDSCP[ ~12':-4,r'J'Q - - 04/02/91 iJDSCP; 412 - 4150 04102191W~SI7,P; 4/2 - 4/30 04/02/?I-LNI~JCP;-;/2 - 4yoO 04/02/91LNI)SCP; 4/2 - 4/30 04/02/91 ~; 4/2 - 4/30 .~007097 06111191 ROBERTS MARIA E. R~BS~T$ 051491 0~/14/91 Check Totals: ~i~.MikFaASE;CJ)~. 5/~6/91 Check Totaks: MI'~EAGE RE!MB. 5/14/914 D: sc~ .un.t Nes ~0,. ~4 O; O0 2~-'- ~22.3~ 0.00 1,.~,. '~ oO. 20 O. O0 60.20 55.~5 0.00 ~'-- 49.19 O. O0 49.19 ~.8~ 0.00 ~.8~ 1,870.52 0.00 !,870.52 0.00 52.~ 0,00 52,25 26.4O 0.00 26.40 XX)I(F/9 06111191 SO CAL-2 C8 CALIF TELEPHOltE CO INC 345-7419 04/01t9t 04101191 'C~,J.ULAR CFTC; APRIL 91';A.E. ~-~00~-- 04101i~1' ~,4/0II~l'CELiitI.T-8;'MAF(O-I-&-APRIL;-~ 44.~ 0.00 46.58 583,-5,I' '0;00 -~.IT54 Chec~ Totals: 630.12 0.00 630.!2 F.I.ECT.C}~I). I/1/91 - 717191 !9.50 ELECT.CtiRS; 4/kxHgl - 5/;3t9! 4.20 ELECT.C~$;-¢/!'!/9I'~- 5/10/9I- ....... 8.70 8.ECT.CHRS; ,1/~1/91 - 5/10/9! 8.70 ~-100917 04/1!/91 203-005624 05/0!/91 N17-o12~i2 '- "TM ,,'X)8',132101 05/01,%9!- -- 208-343010 ~,~7-9130! 04/01i9! 04/1!/9! m, LECT.CI~: 4/!1/91 - 5/!0/91 9.41 04! 1.2/91' -N.L.ECT.-C)'~;' ~.11.2/91-- 5/ · ~/01/9! -ZLECT.~; ~¥ 91 ~9.B2 ~101/91 c~.ECT.CnFiS~; MAY 91 C~/01/91 E].~CT.CI.~'~: M~Y 91- -' 6~10~191 F.J..ECT.C~.~S) MAY 9!. 2!~.-.~. 04/01/9! ~ ~rT Q-RSt ~/71 - 0.00 0.00 ......... 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..... -. - -0.00 0.00 0.00 ~-879b'7 04101191 04/01/9i r.;.rCT.CH~8; 19.50 ,1.20 9.41 ~:~) ......... 259.~ ' 0.-00 ........ 2~.'~.', .... 0.00 21' ~ 0.~ O~ .... 2L~-' -- :',007101 06/1i/9! STRAND · 0007102 0~111/9t TEMEt)C 05207I C)leck -To~al~: .............. M~,~iE Si-~ 04/24/91 04124191 ~ CANC~q ~;~;APR!L Check Totals: ~ E~[C ~~ - ~I~/91 ,.,g,,.,, ~ ......... 0;'00- ' 1.075.04- 7~.00 0.00 36.00 0,00 05/~/?I"I'J'8~BP;MAYOR;C~ 7t~;EXP~9,1 ---~0~000~00 ......... 0.00-- '- -i0..-000.00 ---- 0007103 06/I t 19r' TR ICOVEH- ~103- VEHIC~-CJJP?LY--- 17~ 05/10/91 I00~9 05/~/91 EQUIPI~ FOR POLICE MOT~CY 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 3,565.95 0.00 -0.00 -- ~00.00 0.00 .z~c~ .... ~a~e~-Venaor ........... t~ame 470.00 0.00 470.00 2~,00 O.OO X)~7107 06/ll/~! V Ch~:t Totals: O~lt¢l~l 101~ 04129191C}--Fi~ 70~.00 0.00 705.00 lO~, ~2 O, O0 I0~, ¢2 06111191 ~ ~ ~ 0510ql 0412~171 0181 0~t0~/7!-I01'!6-- 05/2~t?.~t..~YOR~t~-~iXffF~Y ~,~ 0.00 ~.00 21 ~-ff~,'~ 0~00 21,~0.00 0.00 2L~.00 I~!.'.5 0.~ 151.:~ ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL ~~.~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~U TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk June 11, 1991 City Commission Resignation and Reappointment Policy RECOMMENDA T/ON: Approve the proposed Policy and Procedure for Commission resignations and reappointments and direct the City Clerk to forward the approved document to all City Commissioners. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of April 23, 1991, the Council directed staff to prepare a policy to address the method to be used for reappointment of City Commissioners. Staff also felt it would be appropriate to address the way in which the Council deals with appointments, in the event a City Commissioner resigns. The attached Policy and Procedure outlines staff recommendations, and has been checked for legal conformity by the City Attorney. It is staff's recommendation that this procedure be implemented and that Council appoint an alternate liaison to each Commission to review applications prior to interviews by the full Council. JSG Pro. //02 Admin Date 6/11/91 Dept. City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA Policies and Procedures City Commission Resignations and Reappointments The Municipal Code of the City of Temecula, Chapter 2.06, contains the general provisions which govern the City's commissions. The matter of resignations and reappointmerits however, has not been addressed and the purpose of this Policy and Procedure is to provide direction in dealing with these circumstances. RESIGNATIONS In the event a commission member resigns before the expiration of his/her term, Government Code Section 54974 requires that a Notice of Vacancy (form No. COM-002) be posted for a minimum of 10 days prior to filling the position. The City of Temecula will also place a legal notice in an adjudicated newspaper of local circulation to advise the public that a position is available (Exhibit A attached). The following steps will then be initiated: Applications should be submitted on the Application for Appointment to Commission (form No. COM-001), which will be available and accepted in the City Clerk's Office. e The City Clerk will provide a set of copies of the applications to the City Councilmembers assigned as the Commission liaison and alternate for review and interviews if they so desire. The top candidate(s) selected by the review panel will be invited to an interview by the City Council. The successful candidate will be appointed by the City Council (a 4/5 majority is required) at their next regular meeting and will be sworn in by the City Clerk. w The newly appointed Commissioner will assume the vacant position at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting and will complete the unexpired term of office. Policies and Procedures Administrative Pro. 6-11-91 Page 2 REAPPOINTMENTS The term of each commission member shall be three (3) years. Three months before a commission term expires, the City Clerk will post a Notice of Expiration Date (form No. COM- 003) and will cause this notice to be published in an adjudicated newspaper of local circulation. The City Clerk will also provide the incumbent commission member(s) with an Application for Appointment to Commission (form No. COM-001) and a letter from the City Council inviting them to apply for reappointment. Applications received will then be processed in the following manner: Applications should be submitted on the Application for Appointment to Commission (form No. COM-001), which will be available and accepted in the City Clerk's Office. The City Clerk will provide a set of copies of the applications to the City Councilmembers assigned as the Commission liaison and alternate for review and interviews if they so desire. The candidate(s) selected by the review panel will be invited to an interview by the City Council. The successful candidate will be appointed by the City Council (a 4/5 majority is required) at their next regular meeting and will be sworn in by the City Clerk. CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: NAME: HOME PHONE: OCCUPATION: EMPL 0 YER/ADDRESS: EDUCATIONAL BA CK GROUND/DEGREES : YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA: WORK PHONE: LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HA VE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, servica): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE OUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper ff necessary): I understand that any or all informab~n on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for publicity purposes. $1GNA TURE: DATE: PLEASE NOTE: Applications will be kept on file for consideration of future vacancies. Return to: City Cierk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 2/formsICOM-001 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMISSION POSITION ,4 VAILABLE The Temecula City Council invites interested residents to apply for a position on the Commission for a term to expire Application forms are available and will be accepted in the City Clerk's office through The City Council will consider an appointment at the Council meeting. Additional information on the Commission is available in the City Clerk's office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. [(714) 694-1989] Exhibit A CITY OF TEMECULA NOTICE OF VACANCY Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Government Code Section 54974, that a vacancy exists on the , due to the resignation of , whose term was to expire Application forms are available in the City Clerk's office for those interested in serving on this Commission/Committee. Date Posted: June S. Greek City Clerk City of Temecula, California 2/forrnt/~OM-002 CITY OF TEM£CULA NO TIC£ OF EXPIRATION DATE Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Government Code Section 54974, that avacancy will exist on the Commission, due to the expiration of the term(s) of: On Application forms are available in the City Clerk's office for those interested in serving on this Commission/Committee. Date Posted: June S. Greek City Clerk City of Temecula, California 2/forms/COM-003 ITEM NO. 9 APPROVAL city A ORNE¥ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 11, 1991 City Council Mark J.'-~'~enduszko, Assistant City Manager CHANGE TITLE OF ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER TO SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST RECOMMENDA T/ON: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Change the title of the Assistant to the City Manager job classification to Sr. Management Analyst; 2) Reclassify one existing Management Analyst position (Finance) to the new job classification of Senior Management Analyst. DISCUSSION: There are two positions which are currently budgeted and vacant which must be staffed as soon as possible. One is the Assistant to the City Manager position (serves as Personnel Coordinator), and the other is Management Analyst (i.e. Purchasing/Risk Management Coordinator). It is recommended that the title of the Assistant to the City Manager classification be changed to Senior Management Analyst. Further, it is suggested that the Management Analyst position in Finance be changed to the level of Sr. Management Analyst (a 12% increase). There are several factors which support this action. With the recent staffing of the Assistant City Manager position, the employment of an individual at the Assistant to the City Manager level is not required. The two vacant positions are quite similar, and should be staffed at the same level. Both require senior level job skills (as opposed to entry level), and functional expertise as both will serve as program coordinators. The level of independence of action is similar between the two positions, as each will have independent program responsibility (personnel, purchasing/risk management) under the direction of a senior level manager (Assistant City Manger, Finance Officer). Finally, this action will allow the City to offer management track career professionals the opportunity to rotate between the two offices for career growth. Recent salary surveys demonstrate that the existing salary levels for Assistant to the Manager and Management Analyst are relatively low (see attached). The creation of a Sr. Management Analyst at the Assistant to the City Manager salary level will not remedy the problem, but will improve the situation by placing a less senior level job classification at this salary range. It should be noted that no upward placement of this job classification should be made at this time, as salary surveys for all major job families will be conducted (and adjustments will be recommended as necessary) just prior to the new calendar year. The practical effect of approving this recommendation is that the personnel position will be staffed at its current level but with a different title, and that the finance position will be staffed at a level that is approximately 12% higher than the level at which it is currently allocated. FISCAL IMPACT.' The minimum step of the position in Finance will increase by $309 and the maximum step will increase by $384 per month. Sufficient monies exist in the Finance Department budget to provide for this change. ATTACH: SALARY SURVEYS Assistant to the City Manager City Carlsbad Riverside Corona Moreno Valley (Redevelopment) 4% package additional life Banning Perris Oceanside Temecula Top Step Monthly $6422 $6164 $5159 $538O $4867 $4166 $4143 ~34.95 No Comoarable Positions Escondido Hemet Norco San Jacinto San Marcos None None None None None MEAN - $5,185 MEDIAN - $5,380 % DIFFER FROM MEAN - 18% % DIFFER FROM MEDIAN - 19% - 0 - car allowance - 0 - car allowance - 0 - car allowance $200 car allowance $200 car allowance - 0 - car allowance - 0 - car allowance City Lake Elsinore Riverside Escondido Carlsbad Moreno Valley (BA- 5 yrs.) Corona Temecula Assistant to the City Manager No Comparable Positions Banning Hemet Norco Oceanside Perris Riverside San Jacinto San Marcos MEAN - $4,724 MEDIAN - $4,759 % DIFFER FROM MEAN - % DIFFER FROM MEDIAN - St. Management Analyst Top Step Monthly $4849 $4829 $4759 $4626 $4261 $4245 $3495 None None None None None None None None 17% 17% ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFIOE~,,,~W~_~ mNA ER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer June 11, 1991 Community Service Funding Criteria RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed policy as displayed in Attachment "B" for the Community Service Funding Application process for the Fiscal Year 1991-92. DISCUSSION: In accordance with your request we have accumulated the funding criteria from eight (8) organizations who fund various community programs. This criteria is listed on Attachment "A". From this listing staff has incorporated what appears to be criteria appropriate for the City of Temecula for the Fiscal Year 1991-92 Community Service Funding Program/Policy, see Attachment "B". The funding criteria for Fiscal Year 1990-91 is included at Attachment "C". FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" - Criteria List Attachment "B" - Fiscal Year 1991-92 Attachment "C" - Fiscal Year 1990-1991 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING CRITERIA Attachment "A" 1. Non-profit organization 2. Evidence of satisfactory service provided to City' citizens 3. Does not discriminate based on race, color, creed, nationality, sex, marital status, disability, religion, or political affiliation 4. Does not require attendance or participation in any political, religious or social activity 5. Provides financial statements prepared (in accord with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)) to demonstrate sound financial management 6. Provides budget for fiscal year of request demonstrating cost-effectiveness 7. Does organization have other funding sources (i.e. minimum of 20% funding from non-City sources) 8. Does request increase service levels 9. Does not compete with service of other organization(s) 10. Provides evidence of effective response to a documented need 11. Provides a high level of access to services offered 12. Possesses on going program evaluation tools 13. Demonstrates fiscal and administrative capacity to support program 14. Exhibits a high level of community support through its ability to retain a broad based Board of Directors 15. Bylaws must define organization's purpose and functions, organization and duties 16. Board of Directors meets at least quarterly, establishes and enforces policy, represents community 17. Maintains current written personnel policies and procedures and written job description for each staff position 18. Requested amount is reasonable in comparison to services and number of City residents served 19. Requested amount is not to include amount to fund debt service 20. Requested amount is not to include amount to fund fellowship Attachment "B" CITY OF TEMECULA Community Services Funding Program/Policy The City of Temecula, in its Fiscal Year 1991-1992 budget, has allocated $300,000 to fund community service programs within the community. Purpose To establish a process and evaluation criteria for funding requests received by the city from community based organizations (CBO'S) throughout the year. General Policy The City receives requests throughout the year for financial assistance from various organizations which provide a variety of services within the community. It is the City's policy to channel such requests through the normal City budget process, thereby ensuring that all requests are evaluated equitably and consistently; to enter into agreements for specific measurable services; and, to ensure that recipients are held accountable for providing the agreed upon services within the appropriate time frame. Fundin~ Philosoohv Requests for funding received from CBO's will be considered during the regular budget process along with City department requests for funding. Due to limited resources, not all requests received can be funded. Therefore, it is not the city council's intention to fund each CBO request received; but rather, to evaluate each proposal and, based on available funds, provide money and other forms of financial assistance to those organizations which most effectively serve the needs and improve the well-being of the residents of Claremont. Special consideration will be given to proposals which replace or enhance services the city is responsible for providing. The City Council encourages a goal of self-sufficiency for all local CBO's. The council supports providing seed money to new programs that will provide needed services to the community, but discourages an over-reliance on city financial assistance to maintain such programs on an on-going basis. Therefore, all CBO's requesting funding from the city should continue efforts to develop stable private funding sources. ELIGIBILITY Applications are accepted from tax exempt, nonprofit organizations and individuals for the funding of projects which occur during the fiscal year, excluding normal operating expenses and deficit funding. Services should benefit the City of Temecula. A written report should be presented to the City Council thirty days after the completion of the project. In the case of an extended project, interim reports may be required. DEADLINES November 16, 1991 - Applications available from the City of Temecula. November 30, 1991 - Deadline for application submittal for second funding period. Award recipients will be announced in December, 1991. CRITERIA In making its recommendations to the City Council for funding, the Adhoc Finance Committee will consider the following criteria: Does organization provide Community service excellence What is the size and make-up of the community service organization Community Services Funding Program/Policy (Continued) Attachment "B" Page 2 c. What is the public and critic reaction to the group d. Does the organization have a high quality of fiscal management e. Will the organization have longevity in the City of Temecula f. Non-profit organization g. Evidence of satisfactory service provided to City's citizens h. Does not discriminate based on race, color, creed, nationality, sex, marital status, disability, religion-, or political affiliation i. Does not require attendance or participation in any political, religious or social activity j. Provides financial statements prepared (in accord with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)) to demonstrate sound financial management k. Provides budget for fiscal year of request demonstrating cost-effectiveness I. Provides high level of access to services offered m. Possesses ongoing program evaluation tools Applicants will be notified of date, time and location for a five (5) minute presentation to the Committee and answer questions Committee may have. CITY OF TEMECULA Community Services Funding Program Attachment "C" The City of Temecula, in its Fiscal Year 1990-1991 budget, has allocated $125,000 to fund community service programs within the community. ELIGIBILITY Applications are accepted from tax exempt, nonprofit organizations and individuals for the funding of projects which occur during the fiscal year, excluding normal operating expenses and deficit funding. Services should benefit the City of Temecula. A written report should be presented to the City Council thirty days after the completion of the project. In the case of an extended project, interim reports may be required. DEADLINES November 16, 1990 - Applications available from the City of Temecula. November 30, 1990 - Deadline for application submittal for second funding period. Award recipients will be announced in December, 1990. CRITERIA In making its recommendations to the City Council for funding, a Community Service Committee will consider the following criteria: a. Community service excellence b. Size and make-up community service organization c. Relevance to the City's community service interests d. Public and critic reaction to the group e. Quality of fiscal management f. Longevity in the City of Temecula g. Percentage of request to organization's annual budget h. Community leadership and support Applicants will be notified of date, time and location for a five (5) minute presentation to the Committee and answer questions the Committee may have. Thank you for participating in the City of Temecula's Community Service Funding Program. !C~, ITEM NO. 1 1 .~-. , . · ~.~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTOR~. EY FINANCE OF~I CER"---- CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager June 11, 1991 Resolution implementing California Environmental Quality Act PREPARED B~ City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDA T/ON: Receive and file report BACKGROUND: The attached staff report was prepared for the meeting of May 28, 1991 and continued by the City Council to this date. JSG APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT.' CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Scott Field, City Attorney May 14, 1991 California Environmental Quality Act RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 91- adopting procedures to implement the California Environmental Quality Act. DISCUSSION: The California Environmental Quality Act or "CEQA" was adopted in 1970 primarily to require public agency decision makers to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions. Probably the best known aspect of CEQA is its requirements that public agencies prepare an environmental impact report ("EIR") whenever a proposed project may cause significant adverse affects or impacts on the environment. In order to implement CEQA, the Legislature authorized the California Resources Agency to adopt a CEQA guidelines. The guidelines provide local agencies with specific direction on how to follow both the statutory mandates of CEQA as well as the many judicial decisions interpreting CEQA. In Addition, Public Resources Code Section 21082 also requires each public agency to adopt its own objectives, criteria and procedures for implementing CEQA in a manner consistent with comprehensive, local guidelines can also provide further detail, particularly in the area of designating specific responsibilities to specific offices. The attached resolution is recommended to the Council in order to comply with Section 21082. Briefly, it assigns the bulk of the responsibilities under CEQA to the Planning Director. It also provides further guidance on the following activities: Identifying exempt activities; Conducting initial studies; Preparing negative declarations; Preparing draft EIR's Consulting with and obtaining comments from other public agencies and the public; Assuring adequate opportunity and time for public review and comment; Evaluating and responding to comments; and Providing time periods for performing functions under CEQA. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council adopt Resolution No. 91-_ adopting~c procedures to implement CEQA. A TT, ACHMENTS: Resolution Adopting Procedures to Implement CEQA. FISCAl. IMPACT: None. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TItE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Authority. These procedures are adopted to implement the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et ~ , and the State CEQA Guidelines ("State Guidelines'), 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. All time periods set out herein shall be calendar days unless otherwise indicated. SECTION 2. Relationship to State Guidelines. The procedures established herein implement and tailor the general provisions of the State Guidelines to the specific operations of the City of Temecula. This Resolution is not intended to replace the State Guidelines. If any section of this Resolution is in conflict with or contrary to any provisions of the State Guidelines as they now exist or may be amended hereafter, the State Guidelines shall control. SECTION 3. Delegation of Re,~ponsibili~y to Planning Director. The Planning Director ("Director') shall be responsible for the following CEQA functions: (1) Determining whether a project is exempt; (2) Conducting an Initial Study, and deciding whether to prepare a Negative Declaration or Draft Environmental Impact Report ('EIR'); (3) Preparing a Negative Declaration or Draft EIR; (4) Determining that a Negative Declaration has been completed within a period of one-hundred and five (105) days or an EIR within a period of one (1) year from the date when the City accepted an application as complete; (5) (6) this Resolution; 5 /r~ao183 Preparing responses to comments on environmental documents; Filing notices required or authorized by CEQA, the State Guidelines, or -1- ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL R"%~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER . ~-~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 11, 1991 Cooperative Agreement - Landscaping PREPARED BY: Douglas Stewart, Deputy City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the Mayor to execute the Cooperative Agreement with CalTrans for landscaping of the Rancho California Road/I-15 overcrossing. DISCUSSION: Attached you will find a Cooperative Agreement from the State of California. The Cooperative Agreement specifies the responsibilities of the City and the State of California regarding landscaping of the ramp widening to occur on the Rancho California Road/I-IS overcrossing. The City of Temecula, throuqh Developer Contributions, is funding the design and installation of landscaping a~ljacent to the ramps and is agreeing to maintain the new landscaping for a four year period. The State agrees to provide project oversight and issue permits to the City at no cost. At the end of the four year maintenance period, the State will accept the control and maintenance of the landscaping within State right-of-way. This agreement is last in a series of four Cooperative Agreements necessary to widen the on- and off- ramps and install traffic signals at this intersection. The previous agreements covered the design of ramp improvements, the construction of the ramp improvements and the construction of traffic signals. DS:ks A:COOPAGMT 1 1-15/Rancho California Road I.C. Improvement District Agreement No. 8-734 LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This Agreement entered into on , is between THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and CITY OF TEMECULA a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as CITY RECITALS 0 STATE and CITY, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 130 are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for improvements to State highways within CITY. Portions of the Freeway roadside through CITY are presently landscaped; however, the proposed ramp widening will require the removal of a portion of landscape and irrigation. In order to enhance the safety, welfare, convenience, and enjoyment of the public using the Freeway, it will be to STATE's benefit for portions of the landscape to be replaced. CITY desires State highway improvements consisting of relandscaping STATE's right of way on Route 15 between Post Miles 4.83 and 5.11 on the north and south side of the off ramps as detailed on Exhibit A, attached and made a part of this Agreement, referred to herein as PROJECT. CITY is willing to fund one hundred (100) percent of all capital outlay and staffing costs through developer contributions, except that costs of STATE's oversight may be borne by STATE. The parties hereto desire to define herein the terms and conditions under which said PROJECT will be developedi designed, awarded, constructed and maintained. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 SECTION I CITY AGREES: To fund one hundred (100) percent of all preliminary and design engineering costs, including, but not limited to, costs for preparation of contract documents and advertising and awarding the construction contract. To have a Project Report (PR), Environmental Document (ED), and detailed Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) prepared at no cost to STATE and to submit each to STATE for review and approval at appropriate stages of development. Final plans shall be signed by a Civil Engineer, and Landscape Architect registered in the State of California. To permit STATE to monitor and participate in the selection of personnel, if such personnel are used to provide preliminary, design, and/or construction engineering services. CITY also agrees, if requested by STATE, to discontinue the services of any personnel considered by STATE to be unqualified on the basis of credentials, professional expertise, failure to perform in accordance with scope of work or other pertinent criteria. CITY staff and/or personnel who prepared the PS&E will be available to STATE, at no cost to STATE, through completion of construction of PROJECT to discuss problems which may arise during construction and/or to make design revisions for contract change orders. Not to use funds from any Federal aid program for design of PROJECT. e To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities within PROJECT area, and protect or otherwise provide for such utilities, all in accordance with STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way". To advertise, award, and administer the construction contract for PROJECT in accordance with the requirements of the State Contract Act and the California Labor Code, including its prevailing wage provisions. Workers employed 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 in the performance of work contracted for by CITY, and/or performed under encroachment permit, are covered by provisions of the Labor Code in the same manner as are workers employed by STATE's Contractors. CITY shall obtain applicable wage rates from the State Department of Industrial Relations and shall adhere to the applicable provisions of the State Labor Code. Violations shall be reported ~o the State Department of Industrial Relations. To apply for the necessary encroachment permits for required work within State Highway rights of way, in accordance with STATE's standard permit procedures· To require that the construction contractor furnish both a payment and performance bond, in CITY's name, with both bonds complying with the requirements set forth in SECTION 3- 1.02 of STATE's current Standard Specifications. 10. To construct PROJECT in accordance with plans and specifications of CITY, to the satisfaction of and subject to the approval of STATE. 11. Contract administration proceedures shall conform to the requirements set forth in STATE'S Construction Manual, Local Programs Manual and Encroachment Permit for construction of PROJECT. 12. Construction shall conform to the State Construction Manual and standard methods of practice in conformance with State Standard Specifications and special provisions for PROJECT, to the satisfaction of and subject to the approval of STATE. 13. At CITY expense, to provide a field site representative, subject to approval of STATE to perform the functions of a Resident Engineer. The Resident Engineer shall be a registered Civil Engineer in the State of California independent of the construction contractor and of the design consultant. 14. The STATE representative shall have authority to accept or reject work and materials and approve all change orders related to public safety or convenience and design or specification changes for work within STATE'S right of way. Such approval shall be obtained in advance of performance of work. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 15. To pay one hundred (100) percent of the actual costs to satisfactorily complete construction of PROJECT, including changes pursuant to contract change orders .concurred with by the STATE representative. 16. At CITY's expense, to furnish support staff, subject to approval of STATE, to assist the Resident Engine,er in, but not limited to, measurement and computation of quantities, testing of construction materials, preparation of estimates and reports, preparation of as- built drawings and other inspection and staff services necessary to assure that the construction is being performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. 17. To make progress payments to the contractor using CITY funds and pay all costs for required staff services. 18. Within sixty (60) days following the completion and acceptance of PROJECT construction and plant establishment contract, to furnish STATE a complete set of acceptable full-sized film positive reproducible as- built plans and all contract records. 19. Upon completion of work under this Agreement, CITY shall assume maintenance and the expense thereof for PROJECT for a period of 4 years, under the terms contained in Schedule II of the Agreement. 20. If CITY fails to complete the construction contract or maintain PROJECT, STATE may require CITY, at CITY expense, to return right of way to its original condition or to a condition of acceptable permanent operation. If CITY fails to do so, STATE reserves the right to finish PROJECT or place PROJECT in satisfactory permanent operation condition. STATE will bill CITY for all actual expenses incurred and CITY agrees to pay said expenses within thirty (30) days or STATE, acting through the State Controller may withhold an equal amount from future apportionments due CITY from the Highway User Tax Fund. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 SECTION II STATE AGREES: To provide oversight of PROJECT and to provide prompt reviews and approvals, as appropriate, of submittals by CITY, and to cooperate in timely processing of PROJECT. To issue, at no cost to CITY, upon written application, by CITY, an encroachment permit to CITY authorizing entry by CITY'S staff and consultants onto STATE'S right of way to perform survey and other investigative activities required for preparation of the PR, ED, and/or PS&E. To issue, at no cost to CITY and CITY'S contractor, upon proper application by CITY and by CITY'S contractor, the necessary encroachment permits for required work within the State Highway rights of way. To provide, at no cost to CITY, a qualified STATE representative who shall have authority to accept or reject work and materials or to order any actions needed for public safety or the preservation of property. and to assure compliance with all provisions of the Encroachment Permits issued to CITY and to CITY'S contractor. ® Changes to project plans and specifications will be facilitated through contract change orders approved by STATE'S representative and issuance of an Encroachment Permit Rider. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission. Neither STATE nor any officer of employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated 5 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 to CITY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability ocurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the CITY from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. The parties hereto will carry out PROJECT in accordance with the Scope of Work, attached and made part of this Agreement, which outlines the specific responsibilities of the parties hereto. The attached Scope of Work may in the future be modified to reflect changes in the responsibilities of the respective parties. Such modifications shall be concurred with by CITY's City Engineer or other official designated by CITY and STATE's District Director for District 8 and become a part of this Agreement as a supplement to this Agreement after execution by the respective officials of the parties. Construction by CITY of improvements referred to herein which lie within STATE highway rights of way or affect STATE facilities, shall not be commenced until CITY's original contract plans involving such work and plan for utility relocations have been reviewed and approved by STATE's District Director of Transportation, or the District Director's agent, and until an Encroachment Permit to CITY authorizing such work has been issued by STATE. 6 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 ® CITY will obtain aforesaid Encroachment Permit through the office of STATE District Permit Engineer and CITY's application shall be accompanied by five (5) sets of construction plans of aforesaid STATE approved contract plans. Receipt by CITY of the approved Encroachment Permit shall.constitute CITY's authorization from STATE to proceed with work to be performed by CITY or its consultants within STATE rights of way or which affects STATE facilities, pursuant to work covered by this Agreement. CITY's authorization to proceed with said work shall be contingent upon CITY's compliance with all provisions set forth in this Agreement and said Encroachment Permit. CITY's construction contractor will also be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit from STATE prior to commencing any work within STATE right of way or which affects STATE facilities. The application by CITY's contractor for said Encroachment Permit shall be made through the office of STATE's District Permit Engineer and shall include proof of said contractor has payment and performance surety bonds covering construction. CITY's construction contractor shall maintain in force, until completion and acceptance of their PROJECT construction contract, a policy of Contractual Liability Insurance, including coverage of Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability in accordance with Section 7-1.12 of State Standard Specifications. Such policy shall contain an additional insured endorsement naming STATE, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. Coverage shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance in a form satisfactory to STATE which shall be delivered to STATE before the issuance of an Encroachment Permit. In construction of said work, representatives of CITY and STATE will cooperate and consult,and all work pursuant to PROJECT shall be accomplished according to the approved plans, specifications, and applicable STATE standards. Satisfaction of these requirements shall be verified by the STATE representative. The STATE representative is authorized to enter CITY's property during construction for the purpose of monitoring and coordinating construction activities. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 10. CITY shall provide a claims process acceptable to STATE, and shall process any and all claims through CITY's claim process. The STATE representative will be made available to CITY to provide advice and technical input in any claim process. Said claims process shall include a provision for arbitration. 11. If existing public and/or private utilities conflict'with the construction of PROJECT, CITY will make all necessary arrangements with the owners of such utilities for their protection, relocation or removal. CITY shall inspect the protection, relocation or removal of such facilities. If any protection, relocation or removal of utilities is required, such work shall be performed in accordance with STATE policy and procedure for those utilities within STATE's right of way and in accordance with CITY policy and procedure for those utilities outside STATE's right of ways. Total costs of such protection, relocation or removal shall be borne by CITY in compliance with the terms of the Highway Encroachment Permits, Case Law, Public Utility Regulations and Property Rights. CITY shall require any utility company performing relocation work in STATE's right of way to obtain a STATE encroachment permit prior to the performance of said relocation work. Any relocated or new utilities shall be correctly located and identified on the as-built plans. 12. Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 591 of the Vehicle Code, STATE has determined that within such areas as are within the limits of PROJECT and are open to public traffic, CITY shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code. CITY shall take all necessary precautions for safe operation of vehicles and/or vehicles of personnel retained by CITY and for the protection of traveling public from injury and damage from such vehicles or equipment. 13. Upon completion of the 4 year maintenance period, STATE will accept control of and maintain, at its own cost and expense, those portions of PROJECT lying within STATE's right of way. 8 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 14. Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership and title to materials, equipment and appurtenances which are installed within STATE's right of way will automatically be vested in STATE. 15. Prior to award of a construction contract, CITY may terminate PROJECT and this Agreement in writing, provided CITY pays STATE for all PROJECT oversight costs incurred by S~ATE prior to termination. STATE will bill CITY for the amount due STATE within thirty (30) days after said termination notice and CITY will pay said amount within thirty (30) days after receipt of such billing. 16. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 17. Those portions of this Agreement pertaining to the construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of PROJECT construction contract by CITY or on October 23, 1996, whichever is earlier in time; however, the ownership, operation, maintenace, and claims clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. , STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation ROBERT K. BEST Director Of Transportation · By By KEN STEELE District Director Approved as to form and procedure Attest Mayor City Clerk Attorney, Department of Transportation Certified as to funds and procedure District Accounting Administrator 10 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 1-15/Rancho California Road I.C. Improvement District Agreement No. 8-734 SCHEDULE 2-LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE TO THE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DATED THE DAY OF o 1991, BETWEEN STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CITY OF TEMECULA The work to be done consists, in general, of establishing existing highway planting and maintaining existing irrigation systems during the life of the contract. Irrigation facilities are to be checked and repaired; backflow preventers are to be tested; plants are to be watered, inspected, pruned and replaced; erosion damage and plant basins are to be repaired; litter, weeds, rodents and other pests are to be controlled; pesticides and fertilizer are to be furnished and applied; and other work performed as determined necessary by STATE. All other work and materials that are required, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these special provisions shall be performed, provided, placed, constructed, installed, repaired and replaced. ORDER OF WORK.--Order of work shall conform to the provisions in Section 5-1.05, "Order of Work," of the Standard Specifications and these special provisions. The first order of work shall be to water the plants and, in the presence of STATE, inspect the existing irrigation facilities and existing planting areas as provided in "Existing Irrigation Facilities", "Existing Planting", and "Litter Control" elsewhere in these special provisions. DAMAGE REPAIR.--Attention is directed to Section 7-1.16, "CITY's Responsibility for the Work and Materials," of the Standard Specifications and these special provisions. Damage to slopes, plants, irrigation systems and other highway facilities occurring as a result of rain, vandalism or vehicular accidents shall be repaired when directed by STATE. The cost of such repairs will be at CITY's expense. 1 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 When, as a result of freezing conditions (as defined herein), plants have died or, in the opinion of STATE, have deteriorated to a point beyond which the plants will not mature as typical examples of their species, STATE may direct replacement of some or all of the affected plants. The cost of such replacement work · will be at CITY's expense. A freezing condition, for the purpose of this specification, occurs when the temperature at o~ near the affected area has been officially recorded below 32 F. and plants have been killed or damaged to the degree described below. When, as a result of drought conditions (as defined herein), plants have died or, in the opinion of STATE, have deteriorated to a point beyond which the plants will not mature to typical examples of their species, STATE may direct 'replacement of some or all of the affected plants. The total cost of ordered plant replacements will be at CITY's expense. Any restriction or shutoff of available water shall not relieve CITY from performing other contract work. A drought condition occurs when the Department, or its supplier, restricts or stops delivery of water to CITY to the degree that plants have died or deteriorated as described above. Any erosion damage caused by CITY's inadequate maintenance or operation of irrigation facilities, as determined by the CITY, shall be repaired by the CITY at their expense. COOPERATION.--Attention is directed to Sections 7-1.14, "Cooperation," and 8-1.10, "Utility and Non-Highway Facilities," of the Standard Specifications and these special provisions. Work by STATE forces and other contractors within the limits of PROJECT may be underway or started during the life of this Agreement. CITY shall coordinate their operations with those of the STATE forces and other contractors. ESTABLISH EXISTING PLANTING GENERAL.--The work performed in connection with establishing existing planting shall conform to the provisions in Section 20, "Erosion Control and Highway Planting," of the Standard Specifications and these special provisions. Attention is directed'to the provisions in "Order of Work" and "Cooperation" elsewhere in these special provisions. Establish existing planting work shall include, but not be 2 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 limited to inspecting, checking and repairing irrigation 'facilities; testing backflow preventers; inspecting, pruning and replacing plants; repairing plant basins; watering plants; removing litter; controlling weeds, rodents and other pests; and furnishing and applying pesticides and fertilizer. LIMIT OF WORK.--The limit of work shall be considere~ as the' area between the "Beginning and End of Work" stations and the right of way lines, unless shown otherwise on the plans. PLANS.--Plans for this project show the limit of work and areas where establishing existing planting is to be performed. Plans will be from the original highway planting contract or "As- Built" plans and, except for references made to the plans by these special provisions, are for reference only. The irrigation facilities and planting shown on the plans may differ from actual field locations and conditions. WORKING DAYS.--CITY shall perform establish existing planting work every calendar day within the time set forth in the section entitled "Beginning of Work and Time of Completion", elsewhere in these special provisions. Attention is directed to the section of these special provisions entitled "Measurement and Payment" in regard to the adjustment of compensation for days not credited as working days. Working days upon which no work will be required, as determined by STATE, will be credited as a working day towards 'the completion of the contract, regardless of whether or not CITY performs establish existing planting work, except as follows: When any electric automatic irrigation component is operated manually on a working day, except as specified in "Checking, Repairing and Operating Existing Irrigation Systems" elsewhere in these special provisions, the day will not be credited as a working day, unless such manual operation is permitted in writing by the Engineer or is within the 10-working day period specified in "Initial Inspection of Existing Irrigation Facilities" elsewhere in these special provisions. Working days when CITY fails to adequately perform establish existing planting work; including but not limited to watering plants, replacing unsuitable plants (including ordering of replacement'plants), repairing or replacing malfunctioning irrigation facilities, repairing erosion.damage or any damage 3 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 from CITY's operations, removal of litter and doing weed, rodent and other pest control; as determined to be necessary by STATE will not be credited as a working day towards the completion of the contract. EXISTING IRRIGATION FACILITIES.--Existing irrigation facilities shall include all irrigation facilities that ~re located within the limit of work as shown on the plans. INITIAL INSPECTION OF EXISTING IRRIGATION FACILITIES.--All irrigation systems shall be inspected initially by the CITY in the presence of CITY for missing or damaged equipment and for proper operation. Initial inspection shall be completed within 10 working days after starting work. Any deficiencies to the existing irrigation systems found during the initial inspection shall be repaired or replaced by CITY. Such repairs or replacements shall be completed within 10 working days after initial inspection unless otherwise permitted in writing by STATE, and will be paid for by CITY. TESTING BACKFLOW PREVENTERS.--Backflow preventers shall be tested for proper operation by a certified Backflow Preventer Tester. The tester shall hold a valid certification as a Backflow Preventer Tester from the county in which the device to be tested is located or, if the county does not have a certification program for Backflow Preventer Testers, the tester shall have a certificate from one of the following: The University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. 2. The American Water Works Association· A county which has a certification program for Backflow Preventer Testers. Testing for proper operation shall conform to the provisions of the county in which the testing is being performed or, if such procedures are not available, such tests shall conform to the provisions in the latest edition of the Cross-Connection Control Procedures and Practices manual, which is available from the 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 California Department of Health Services, Sanitary Engineering Branch, Sacramento, CA 95814. Backflow preventers shall be tested initially at the beginning of the contract and then retested approximately every 12 months-thereafter. If more than 6 (six) months have passed since the last testing, the backflow preventers shall b% tested during the last month prior to the completion of establish existing planting. CITY shall notify STATE at least 3 (three) working days prior to testing backflow preventers. One copy of all test results for each backflow preventer shall be furnished to CITY and STATE. Repair of backflow preventers will be at CONTRACTOR's expense. CHECKING, REPAIRING AND OPERATING EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEMS.-After the initial inspection of the irrigation systems, CITY shall be responsible for the routine checking, repairing and proper operation of the irrigation systems throughout the life of the contract. Checking and repairing of irrigation systems shall include, but not be limited to, checking, adjusting and repair or replacement of valves, valve boxes, sprinklers, risers and swing joints, wye strainers, valve and filter assembly units, and irrigation controllers. Irrigation facilities that malfunction, are damaged, missing or failed to operate, shall be repaired or replaced. Replacement of sprinklers, risers and swing joints that are damaged or missing and repair of irrigation controllers that malfunction will be at CITY's expense. CITY shall be responsible for water meters, booster pumps, pipe supply lines, conduits and sprinkler control conductors. Any repair work to these facilities ordered by STATE will be at CITY's expense. Any damage to existing irrigation facilities caused by CITY's operations shall be repaired at the expense of CITY. The irrigation system shall be operated automatically throughout the life of the contract. Manual operation will only be allowed to facilitate such work as plant replacement, fertilization, weed control and irrigation'repair. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 CITY shall set and program the irrigation controllers for seasonal water requirements. CITY shall clean, adjust and replace sprinklers, valves, strainers and filters as necessary. Irrigation systems shall be operated automatically a minimum of 2 (two) minutes every 2 (two) weeks during the winter season. Checking and repairing of irrigation systems shall Re made within 5 (five) working days after any malfunction or damage. If replacements or repairs of the irrigation systems are not completed within the 5 (five) working days specified, unless otherwise permitted in writing by. STATE, working days will cease to be credited towards the completion of the contract, until replacements or repairs have been made to the satisfaction of STATE. Any materials required for the replacement or repair of irrigation facilities shall be made with new materials of comparable quality and shall be reinstailed to the standards and criteria as originally installed, as determined by STATE. All irrigation systems shall be in proper operation at the time the contract is ~ccepted. Within the last 14 working days prior to acceptance of the contract, all irrigation systems shall be checked for proper operation in the presence of CITY and STATE. Should repairs be necessary, the repairs shall be made and the systems rechecked. CITY shall also furnish STATE a list of all program schedules for each irrigation controller as currently programmed, including days and length of watering time for each station. EXISTING PLANTING.--Existing planting to be established shall include all plants that are located within the limit of work. INITIAL INSPECTION OF EXISTING PLANTINGAREAS.--All existing planting areas to be established shall be inspected initially by CITY in the presence of STATE, for plants that are dead, missing, diseased or unhealthy, for proper placement and adjustment of plant stakes and ties, for condition of planting basins and for the need of weed control. Determination of the need for weeding' shall conform to the requirements for "Weed Control" elsewhere in these special provisions. Initial inspection shall be completed within 10 working days after starting work. Any deficiencies to the existing planting found during the initial inspection, including the initial control of weeds, shall be corrected by CITY, as directed by STATE. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 Except for replacement of plants, all other corrections to the planting areas shall be completed by CITY within 10 working days after initial inspection. All correction work, ordered by STATE as a result of the initial inspection, will be paid for by CITY. Plant replacement ordered by CITY as a result of the~initial inspection, shall conform to the provisions in "Plant Replacement" elsewhere in these special provisions. Attention is directed to the section of these special provisions entitled "Damage Repair" in regard to erosion damage. PLANT REPLACEMENT.--Replacement and planting of plants shall conform to the provisions in Section 20-4.07, "Replacement," and .Section 20-4.05, "Planting," of the Standard Specifications. The spacing requirements for replaced plants shall be as shown on the plans. If the plant to be replaced is mulched, then the replacement plant shall be remulched as shown on the plans. Unless larger plant sizes are shown on the plans, the size of replacement plants shall be one gallon for shrubs, vines and Eucalyptus trees, and 5-gallon for other trees. Replacement plants for ground cover shall be as shown on the plans. Removed plants shall be disposed of outside of the highway right of way as provided in Section 7-1.13, "Disposal of Material Outside the Highway Right of Way," of the Standard Specifications. Replacement planting of plants that are readily available nursery stock plants shall be completed within 14 days from the date of STATE's order to replace such plants. An order to vendors for replacement plants that are not readily available nursery stock plants shall be made by CITY within 10 days from the date of STATE's order to replace such plants. CITY shall furnish to STATE, within 10 days after ordering plants, a copy of the order to vendors and a statement from the vendors stating, that the order has been received and accepted, and the date when the ordered plants will be shipped. If CITY fails to replace plants that are readily available or furnish STATE with a copy of the order and statement from the vendor, as stated and within the time specified above, then the 7 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 days following such period will not be credited towards the completion of the contract as specified under "Working Days" elsewhere in these special provisions. Crediting of working days will resume when satisfactory plant replacement operations, as determined by STATE, has been performed. PRUNING.--Trees and shrubs shall be pruned: (1) when ordered by STATE, or (2) for regularly scheduled pruning as deemed necessary by CITY and approved by STATE. STATE's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Such ordered pruning will be paid for by CITY. Ground cover plant growth which extends to the edge of shoulders, sidewalks, curbs or dikes, or to within 2 (two) feet of walls, fences, trees or shrubs shall be killed or removed 2 (two) feet back of shoulders, sidewalks, curbs or dikes, or 4 (four) feet back of walls, fences, trees or shrubs by pruning or by pesticides. Vines next to fences or walls shall not be pruned and shall be kept tied to the fences or secured to the walls. REPAIRING PLANTING BASINS.--Planting basins shall be kept in good repair, including silt removal and shall be repaired as often as necessary to provide sufficient containment of water for healthy plant growth. If plants were mulched prior to basin damage then basin repair shall include replacing the mulch. Plant basins may be temporarily modified during the wet season to prevent plant and basin damage due to excessive water. WATERING.--All planting to be established shall have water applied at the rate and as frequently as necessary to maintain healthy plant growth. Water conservation shall be practiced at all times. Excessive use of water resulting in runoff will not be allowed. Water for establishing plants and electrical energy for irrigation facilities will be furnished by CITY. Attention is directed to the provisions in Section 7-1.01, "Laws to be observed," of the Standard Specifications concerning water restrictions that may be required by cities and counties. Precautions shall be taken to prevent water from wetting adjacent properties, vehicles, pedestrians, and pavement. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 If water becomes unavailable and the stoppage is not caused by CITY's operations, or a drought condition and such lack of water prevents CITY from performing the required work, then STATE may require CITY to furnish water from a new source at CITY's expense. When reclaimed water is used, watering shall comply/ith STATE and local health code requirements. Hours of watering may require adjusting normal working hours due to inadequate water supply and to prevent wind drift or overspray onto the traveled way and adjacent properties. Attention is directed to the provisions in "Damage Repair" for drought conditions and "Existing Irrigation Facilities" for malfunction of irrigation systems elsewhere in these special provisions. FERTILIZING.--Two applications of commercial fertilizer shall be applied to trees, shrubs, vines and ground cover during each 12-month period of the contract when directed by STATE. Additional commercial fertilizer applications requested by CITY and approved or ordered by STATE within a 12-month period will be paid for by CITY. Commercial fertilizer shall be applied to replacement plants at the time of replacement. Commercial fertilizer shall conform to the requirements of the California Food and Agricultural Code, shall be in pelleted or granular form, and shall have a minimum guaranteed chemical analysis of 21 percent nitrogen, 8 percent phosphoric acid and 8 percent water soluble potash. Commercial fertilizer shall be applied at the rate of 1/4 pound for each tree, shrub, shrub ground cover and vine and at the rate of 15 pounds per 1,000 square feet for ground cover areas per application. Commercial fertilizer applied to ground cover areas shall be spread with a mechanical spreader whenever possible. Immediately following each application, commercial fertilizer shall be watered into the soil. 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 CONTROLLING WEEDS, RODENTS AND OTHER PESTS.--Controlling weeds, rodents and other pests shall be performed as often as necessary to maintain the areas specified below in a neat appearance throughout the life of the contract. WEED CONTROL.--Weed control shall consist of killing weeds or limiting the height or length of weeds. i Attention is directed to the section of these special provisions entitled "Existing Planting" in regard to initial inspection of areas in need of weed control. Killing weeds shall be performed by hand, with the use of pesticides, or by any other method approved by STATE. Limiting the height or length of weeds may be done by mowing, mechanical whipping or by the use of growth regulators. Weeds killed by hand shall be removed and disposed of outside the highway right of way as provided in Section 7-1.13 of the Standard Specifications. Where pesticides are used to control weeds, weeds shall be killed before they reach the seed stage of growth or exceed 6 (six) inches in length. Weeds shall be killed within ground cover areas and within the areas extending beyond the outer limits of such ground cover areas to the adjacent edges of shoulders, dikes, curbs, sidewalks, walls and fences. Weeds shall be killed within an area 6 (six) feet in diameter centered at each plant location and within 4 (four) feet of all fences and pavement outside of ground cover areas. Where weeds are not required to be killed, weeds shall be controlled by mowing or controlled by growth regulators. Mowing will not be required on slopes 3:1 or steeper. When weeds are to be controlled by mowing, the areas to be mowed shall be mowed a minimum of 2 times per year when directed by STATE. 10 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 Areas to be mowed shall be mowed when weed height exceeds 18 (eighteen) inches and shall be mowed to 6 (six) inches or less in height. Growth regulators used for weed control shall be applied before weeds exceed 12 inches in height. Disposal of mowed material will not be required, unless ordered by STATE. Disposal of mowed material, as ordered by STATE, will be paid for by CITY. A preemergent pesticide to control weeds, as provided in "Pesticides" elsewhere in these special provisions, shall be applied to all ground cover areas within the last 3 (three) to 4 (four) months prior to acceptance of the contract. RODENT AND PEST CONTROL.--Rodents and other pests shall be controlled to prevent damage to irrigation facilities and plants during the life of the contract. Attention is directed to the provisions in Section 7-1.01H, "Use of Pesticides," of the Standard Specifications. Pesticides used to control rodents and other pests shall be approved by STATE prior to application. PESTICIDES FOR WEED CONTROL.--Pesticides used to control weeds shall conform to the provisions in Section 20.4.026, "Pesticides," of the Standard Specifications. Except as provided in this section, pesticide use shall be limited to the following materials: Glyphosate Diquat Cacodylic Acid Fluazifop Oxadiazon - 50 percent WP (Preemergent) Oryzalin (Preemergent) Diphenamid (Preemergent) Trifluralin (Preemergent) Ammonium Sulfate Magnesium Chloride Chlorflurecol-Methyl (Growth regulator) Melfluidide (Growth regulator) CITY may request the use of other pesticides. The request for the use of other pesticides shall be submitted by CITY to STATE. Such other pesticides shall not be used or 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 applied until CITY has received written approval for their use from STATE. Growth regulators shall not be applied within 6 (six) feet of trees, 'shrubs or vines. Replacement plants shall be planted at least 30 day~ and irrigated prior to the application of oxadiazon, oryzalin, diphenamid or trifluralin. Ammonium sulfate and magnesium chloride shall be used only in areas with Carpobrotus or Delosperma. A minimum of 100 days shall elapse between applications of oxadiazon, oryzalin, diphenamid or trifluralin. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth above with respect to pesticides, CITY's use of pesticides will be based upon recommendation by a State licensed pesticide control advisor. LITTER CONTROL.--All planting areas within the limits of work shall be inspected initially for litter by CITY in the presence of STATE. Litter shall include trash and debris. Order removal of existing litter by the Engineer as a result of the initial inspection and removal of litter as a result of a highway accident or spill shall be removed and disposed of outside the highway. right of way at CITY's expense. After the initial inspection and removal of litter as provided above, any subsequent litter, including litter generated by CITY's operations within the limits of work shall be removed and disposed of outside the highway right of way as provided in Section 7-1.13 of the Standard Specifications. Litter generated by CITY's operations shall be removed daily. Litter, except from CITY's operations, within paved drainage facilities, unplanted medians and pavement areas will be removed by STATE forces. Removal of litter shall be performed as often as necessary to present a neat and clean condition at all times. MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT.--Any working day not credited toward the completion of the contract shall extend the contract one 1:1 ratio. 12 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 The contract for establish existing planting shall include full compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and for doing all the work involved in establishing existing planting, complete in place (including watering outside normal working hours when necessary and maintaining existing irrigation systems), as shown on the plans, as specified in the Standard Specifications and these special provisions, and as directed by STATE. 13 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 SCHEDULE 3 TO THE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DATED THE DAY OF , 1991, BETWEEN STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND CITY OF TEMECULA PLAN (Attach the Plan Here) 08-Riv-15-4.83/5.11 Dist. Agreement No. 8-734 SCHEDULE 1-CONSTRUCTION TO THE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DATED THE DAY OF , 1991, BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND CITY OF TEMECULA, "CITY" CITY's PROJECT, which is the subject of the above-referenced contract, is located on Riv-15, P.M. 4.83 to P.M. 5.11 on the north and south side of the off ramps and from the edge ~f pavement to right of way fence, referred to throughout the Landscape Construction and Maintenance Agreement as "Project". ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SU BJ ECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 11, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 20130-6 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 20130-6, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the maintenance bond in the reduced amounts, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On April 21, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Kulberg Ltd. 27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 301 Temecula, CA 92390 for the improvement of streets, and the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Developers Insurance Company as follows: Bond No. 9[[2637S in the amount of $131,500.00 to cover street improvements. Bond No. 9~2638S in the amount of $15,500.00 to cover water improvements. A:TM20130-6 1 Bond No. 9t[2639S in the amount of $19,000.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bonds No. 9~2637S, 9~2638S, and 9~2639S in the amounts of $65,750.00, 7,750.00, and $9,500.00 respectively to cover materials and labor. The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected streets are Canyon Rim Circle, and a portion of Winchester Road. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff, and the Engineering Department recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows: Streets: $118,350.00 Water: 13,950.00 Sewer: 17,100.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one ~1 ) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $13,150. O0 Water: 1,550. O0 Sewer: 1,900. O0 The developer has submitted Maintenance Bonds designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of these bonds will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance bonds for these items of work. The Materials and Labor bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:ks Attachments: Location Map Maintenance Bond Subdivision Agreement A:TM20130-6 2 PROJECT lITE VICINITY MAP NO SCALE AGREEMENT REGARDING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into betwE~en the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", and K,dherg..L.tj:J~ .... · hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONI'RACIOR have entered into a series of agreements and CONTRACTOR has submitted a series of bonds in connection with consideration by the County of Riverside of final map approval Tract 2013_0-6 WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989; WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CITY has permitted subdividers to use the existing County Subdivision Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms; WHEREAS, certain references in the County forms incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. All references to the "County of Riverside" contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 20130-6 are now defined as referring to the "City of Temecula". 2. All references to the "Riverside County Road Commissioner" contained in any docu~nents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract__2.~j~O_6 are now hereby defined to refer to the "City Engineer". ~ State of c~ ] ~ ~:~,-~,~ ~ ' CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER ~ '. Coun~ of Riverside .~ m INDIVIDUAL(S) ~ ~ CO"PORATE President ~-On May 22, 1991 before me, Pennie A. Parker OFFICER(S) DATE NAME. TI~E OF OFFICER - E.G.. "J~E ~E. NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared Doug Kulberg NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence .,,~ .~ OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL ~._'~-'~.~i~l~ PENNIE A. PARKER %~,,~-~-~,~ Notary ~b-- C~a ' ~/ RIVERSIDE COUN~ '~ ~C~.Ex~ ~V~.I~ to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY TITLE(S) [-I PARTNER(S) [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] SUBSCRIBING WITNESS [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) Kulberg Ltd. ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the informat/on requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to unauthorized document. THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document Agreement/Subdivision Improvements MUST BE A'I-I'ACHED TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages 2 Date of Document May 2 0, 19 91 DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above no other signers © 1991 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Re~rnet Ave. · P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91304.7184 3. All references to any other Riverside County offices or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 20[30~6 now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions. Kulber~; Ltd. CONTRACTOR'S NAME Dated: May 20, [99[ By: g g , (Print Signatore s Name) CITY OF TEMECULA Dated: RON PARKS, MAYOR Dated: DAVID F. DIXON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY ITEM NO. 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 11, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 213q0-6 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 213q0-6, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the maintenance bond in the reduced amounts, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On May 17, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Kulberg Ltd. 27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 301 Temecula, CA 92390 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Developers Insurance Company as follows: Bond No. 960[[[[6S in the amount of $208,000.00 to cover street improvements. A:TM21340-6 1 Bond No. 960L1~7S in the amount of $ql,500.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 960~t[8S in the amount of $57,500.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bonds No. 960LIJ~6S, 960~7S, and 960~8S in the amounts of $1~0,000.00, $20,750.00, and $28,750.00 respectively to cover materials and labor. The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected streets are Ravenhill Court, and a portion of Oak Cliff Drive, Rustic Glen, and Margarita Road. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff,and the Engineering Department recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows: Streets: $187,200.00 Water: 37,350.00 Sewer: 51,750.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one {1 ) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $20,800.00 Water: q, 150.00 Sewer: 5,750.00 The developer has submitted Maintenance Bonds designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of these bonds will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance bonds for these items of work. The Materials and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:Ib Attachments: Location Map Maintenance Bond Subdivision Agreement A:TM21340-6 2 ACT 21340-6 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE AGREEMENT REGARDING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into betwE:en the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY". and Kulbej:~.LId ....... , hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONI'RACIOR have entered into a series of agreements and CONTRACTOR has submitted a series of bonds in connection with consideratiL~n I~' County of Riverside of final map approval Tract 21340-6 : WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989; WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CITY has permitted subdividers to use the existing County Subdivision Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms; WHEREAS, certain references in the County forms incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. All references to the "County of Riverside" contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 213#0-6 are now defined as referring to the "City of Temecula". 2. All references to the "Riverside County Road Commissioner" contained in any documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract '213#0-6__ are now hereby defined to refer to the "City Engineer". ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No State of California 3unty of Rivers ide On May 22, 1991 before me, Penn~e A. Parker DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER- E.G., 'JANE ODE. NOTARY PUBLIC' CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [] INDIVIDUAL(S) ~ CORPORATE Pr~.~ ~ dent OFFiCER(S) TITLE(S) [] PARTNER(S) [] A'I-rORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] SUBSCRIBING WITNESS [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR [] OTHER: personally appeared Dou9 Kulberg , .^ME(S) OF S,GNER(S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized ' ................... ' capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their ~, ..._~ OFFIClAL NOTARY SEAL signature(s) on the instrument the person(s). ,~ !~,.~._~-~~ PENNIE A. PARKER orthe entity upon behalf of which the person(s) SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: ~, ?,'~,,~.--~-~a~ Notary Public-- California NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) ~ '~."~_ _'~.~/ RIVERSIDE COUN'rS' acted, executed the instrument. } ~'"~ ,MvComm Exeires NOV061994 Kulberq Ltd 9ss my hand and official seal. SIG A URE OF NOTARY ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to unauthorized document. THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document Aqreement/Subdiv:i. sion Traproveraents MUST BE ATTACHED 2 _ TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages Date of Document May 20, 1991 DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above no other signers © 1991 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Remme! Ave. · P.O· Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91304-7184 3. All references to any other Riverside County offices or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 213~0-(~ now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions, Dated: May 20, !991 Kulberg Ltd. CONTRACTOR'S NAME Do~F~ Kulber_J~r~ .... /Print Signatore's Name) CITY OF TEMECULA Dated: RON PARKS. MAYOR Dated: DAVID F. DIXON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT F. FIELD. CITY ATTORNEY ITEM NO. 15 ,~- ~--~. APPROVAL .. ,.~"~-~ CITY MANAGER ~/ ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager ,~ Engineering Department June 11, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 213~0-F PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 213q0-F, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On May 17, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Kulberg Ltd. 27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 301 Temecula, CA 92390 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Developers Insurance Company as follows: Bond No. 960[~81S in the amount of $153,000.00 to cover street improvements. A:TM21340-F 1 Bond No. 960~82S in the amount of $25,500.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 960t~83S in the amount of $t~0,500.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bond No. 960t~81S, 960tt82S, 960~83S in the amounts of $76,500.00, $12,750.00 and $20,250.00 respectively to cover materials and labor. The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected streets are Majello Court, and a portion of Creative Drive and Knollridge Drive. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff, and the Engineering Department recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows: Streets: $137,700.00 Water: 22,950.00 Sewer: 36,~50.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one I1 ) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $15,300.00 Water: 2,550.00 Sewer: ~,050.00 The developer has submitted Maintenance Bonds designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of these bonds will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance bonds for these items of work. The Materials and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:Ib Attachments: Location Map Maintenance Bond Subdivision Agreement A:TM21340-F 2 PROJECT liTE VICINITY MAP NO ~CALE AGREEMENT REGARDING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into betwE:en the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called"CITY", and Kulber§ Lt.d_._ . hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONI'RACIOR have entered into a series of agreements and CONTRACTOR has submitted a series of bonds in connection with consideration I~,. County of Riverside of final map approval Tract 21340-F : WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989; WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CITY has permitted subdividers to use the existing County Subdivision Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms; WHEREAS, certain references in the County forms incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. All references to the "County of Riverside" contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 213#0-F are now defined as referring to the "City of Temecula". 2. All references to the "Riverside County Road Commissioner" contained in any documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract_2_L3~.O_-_F are now hereby defined to refer to the "City Engineer". ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT .o State of California · CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER ~--'qounty of Rivers ide · ~ [] INDIVIDUAL(S) :~] CORPORATEPres ident On May 22, 1991 before me, Pennie A. Parker OFFICER(S) DATE NAME. TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC' TITLE(S) [] PARTNER(S) personally appeared Doug Kulberg [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] TRUSTEE(S) J~'personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence [] SUBSCRIBING WITNESS to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR knowledged to me that he/she/they executed [] OTHER: .................... , the same in his/her/their authorized ~ ...,.,..~ ' capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their ~, OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL , ~;..r.~,-~ PENNlEA. PARKER ~ signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), · ".~,',~'~'7'~' Notary Public--California ' ortheentityuponbehalfofwhichtheperson(s) SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(ILS) i "~J/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY ' acted, executed the instrument. % ~ .... M),Ccmm. Expires NOV061994 ~ Kulberg Ltd. ........ ~ .... ~ .... : ~ ~' Witness my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY A'I=rENTION NOTARY: Althougt~ the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to unauthorized document. THIS CERTIFICATE Title or Type of Document Agreement/Subdivision Improvements MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages 2 Date of Document May 2 0, 19 91 ~- DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above no other signers © 1991 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Reinmet Ave. · P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91304-7184 3. All references to any other Riverside County offices or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract ?I~-F now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions. Dated: May 20, 1991 Kulber~l .td. CONTRACTOR'S NAME r~ou~ Kulber~-- | Print Signatore's Name~' CITY OF TEMECULA Dated: RON PARKS. MAYOR Dated: DAVID F. DIXON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT F. FIELD. CITY ATTORNEY ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULR AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 11, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-2 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer R ECOMMEN DAT ION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-2, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On February 21, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa Homes, A California Corporation 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92390 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company as follows: Bond No. 35687~9200 in the amount of $504,000.00 to cover street improvements. A:TM21675-2 1 Bond No. 3S687Lt9300 in the amount of $68,000.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 3S687~9~00 in the amount of $87,000.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bonds No. 3S687[~9200, 3S687[[9300, and 3S687~9~00 in the amounts of $252,000.00, $3~, 000.00, and $~3,500.00 respectively to cover materials and labor. The following .items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected streets are Corte Pacheco, Corte Mallorca, Corte San Leandro, Corte Madera, and a portion of Via El Greco and Rancho Vista Road. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff and the Engineering Department recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows: Streets: $~53,600.00 Water: 61,200.00 Sewer: 78,300.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one {1 ) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $50,~00.00 Water: 6,800.00 Sewer: 8,700.00 Total $65,900.00 The developer has submitted Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of this Instrument of Credit will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance bonds for these items of work. The Materials and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:ks Attachments: Location Map Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit Subdivision Agreement A:TM21675-2 2 To CoroM To San Diego Locabon Map Ic&le 1': 4000' AGREEMENT REGARDING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called"CITY", and ~[esa Homes · hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR". WlTNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONTRACTOR have entered into a series of agreements and CONTRACTOR has submitted a series of bonds in connection with consideration by the County of Riverside of final map approval 2[675-2 ; WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989; WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CiTY has permitted subdividers to use the existing County Subdivision Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms; WHEREAS, certain references in the County forms incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions: NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. All references to the "County of Riverside" contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 2[675-2 are now defined as referring to the "City of Temecula". 2. All references to the "Riverside County Road Commissioner" contained in any documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 21675-2 are now hereby defined to refer to the "City Engineer". 3. All references to any other Riverside County offices or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 21675-2 now hereby refer to the equivalent CiTY offices or positions. z- ,/ / Dated: "'//:'?. ~ ~/ By: MESA HOMES CONT RAC/T'6R'~ NAME Will,am M. R. rlar- Pre.~tR~nr I Print Signatore's I~ame~ Dated: Dated: CITY OF TEMECULA RONPARKS, MAYOR DAVID F. DIXON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS. On April 22, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared William M. Butler, President on behalf of Mesa Homes, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature OFFICIAL SEAL CYNTHIA G. ZAJD Notary Public California RIVERSIDE COUNTY c, ommbrslon expires Oct. 14, 1994 (Seal) ITEM NO. 17 · APPROVAL .~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~~.___. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 11, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-3 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-3, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On June 13, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa homes, A California Corporation 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92390 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Lumberman Mutual Casualty Company as follows: Bond No. 3S687L~9500 in the amount of $606,000.00 to cover street improvements. A:TM21675-3 1 Bond No. 3S68749600 in the amount of $89,000.00 to cover water improvements, Bond No. 3S687~9700 in the amount of $92,1)00.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bonds No. 3S68749500, 3S687496013'~ and 3S687~9700 in the amounts of $303,000.00, $44,500.00, and $46,013~.00 respectively to cover materials and labor.. The following_ items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected st~,ets are Corte Sonora, and a portion of Rancho Vista Road, Paseo Goleta, Via El Greco, and Lomas Vista. The inspection and verification process relating to ttm above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Stal~, and the Engineering Department recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows: Streets: $545,400.00 Water: 80,100.00 Sewer: 82,800.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained~for one {1 ) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $60,600.00 Water.: 8,900.00 Sewer: 9,200.00 Total $78,700.00 The developer has submitted a Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of this Instrument of Credit will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisers to release the Faithful Performance bonds for these items of work. The Materials and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:ks Attachments: Location Map Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit Subdiviskm. Agreement A:TM21675-3 2 To ¢oror~ To RiVerliCll Project Site Rancho To Sin D~ego  IIYI~OTItEl~C. AL TOIt/N511lP 75~ ,~AIV~g £~,'~ 5E_~7'/ON~ ,..(AN ~E'~VA~OItVO Location Map Oc&le 1': 4000' AGREEMENT REGARDING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", and Mesa Homes , hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONTRACTOR have entered into a series of agreements and CONTRACTOR has submitted a series of bonds in connection with consideration by the County of Riverside of final map approval Tract 21675-3 ; WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989; WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CITY has permitted subdividers to use the existing County Subdivision Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms; WHEREAS, certain references in the County forms incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. All references to the "County of Riverside" contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 21675-3 are now defined as referring to the "City of Temecula". 2. All references Commissioner" contained in any CONTRACTOR concerning Tract to refer to the "City Engineer". to the "Riverside County Road documents between CITY and 21675-3 are now hereby defined 3. All references to any other Riverside County offices or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 21675-3 now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions. Dated: ~'~ ~//~// By: MESA HOMES /z~ '~ CONTRA, C~T(~R'S N A~VIE Print Signatore's Name) Dated: Dated: CITY OF TEMECULA RON PARKS, MAYOR DAVID F. DIXON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS. On April 22, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared William M. Butler, President on behalf of Mesa Homes, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL CYNTHIA G. ZAJD Notary Public Californil RIVERSIDE COUNTY ~mmlsMon ex~res Oc~ ITEM NO. 18 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 11, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-L[ PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-q, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On June 13, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa homes, A California Corporation 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92390 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Lumberman Mutual Casualty Company as follows: Bond No. 3S687~9800 in the amount of $288,000.00 to cover street improvements. A:TM21675-4 1 Bond No. 3S68749900 in the amount of $34,000.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 3S68750000 in the amount of $52,000.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bonds No. 3S68748900, 3S68749900, and 3S68750000 in the amounts of $114,000.00, $17,000.00, and $26,000.00 respectively to cover materials and labor, The following. items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected streets are Corte Montiel and Corte Tunas. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff, and the Engineering Department recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows: Streets: $259,200.00 Water: 30,600.00 Sewer: 46,800.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one {1 ) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $28,800.00 Water: 3,400.00 Sewer: 5,200.00 Total $37,400.00 The developer has submitted a Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of this Instrument of Credit will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance bonds for these items of work. The Materials and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC: ks Attachments: Location Map Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit Subdivision Agreement A:TM21675-4 2 1'0 RiversJOE To Sin Diego Locabon Map ~:&le 1' = AGREEMENT REGARDING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY'~, and ~esa Homes , hereinafter called "'CONTRACTOR". WlTNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONTRACTOR have entered into a series of agreements and CONTRACTOR has submitted a series of bonds in connection with consideration by the County of Riverside of final map approval 21675-4 ; WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989; WHEREAS, in order to expeditiously process the acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CITY has permitted subdividers to use the existing County Subdivision Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms; WHEREAS, certain references in the County forms incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. All references to the "County of Riverside" contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 21675-4 are now defined as referring to the "City of Temecula". 2. All references to the "Riverside County Road Commissioner~' contained in any documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 21675-4 are now hereby defined to refer to the ~'City Engineer". 3. All references to any other Riverside County offices or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 21675-4 now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions. Dated: ~. B y: MESA HOME S~.~----~. CC~N, TRACTOR'S NAME Print Signatore's Name) Dated: Dated: CITY OF TEMECULA RON PAR KS, MAYOR DAVID F. DIXON, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS. On April 22, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared William M. Butler, President on behalf of Mesa Homes, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature illill -l_11__. I ~I' -1_ 11 ~l ~) OFFICIAL. SEAL CYNTHIA G. ZAJD Notary Public Callfomt~ ~, RIVERSIDE COUNTY ~_ ~';~"~/C~ ~'-'. "" ~ Seal) ,~- ITEM NO. 19 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEHECUL~ AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Rick Sayre Police Chief, Temecula Police Department DATE: SUBJECT: June 11, 1991 Second Annual 4th of July Parade RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: FISCAL IMPACT: Approve the temporary closure of Front Street between 6th and 2nd Streets on July 4th, 1991. Waive the fee for Encroachment permit in the amount of $25.00. The Temecula Town Association is sponsoring a 4th of July Parade which will involve the closure of Front Street between 6th and 2nd Streets for about 2 hours in the late afternoon hours. Last year's event was safe and successful. Approval from all City Departments will have been obtained and stipulations complied with prior to the parade. The Town Association is requesting relief from the fees associated with the event. It is Staff's recommendation that the request for waiver of the fee be honored. Encroachment permit fee is $25.00. 19 Second Annual 4th of Julv Parade RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve the temporary closure of Front Street between 6th and 2nd Streets on July 4th, 1991. 19.2 Waive the fee for Encroachment permit in the amount of $25.00/ PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 20 Business Reaistration Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM 20.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR CER TIFICA TES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS 21~mda/061280 6 06/06/9 t ITEM NO. 20 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer June 11, 1991 Business License Registration Program Prepared by: Genie Roberts, Chief Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Open the Public Hearing and accept testimony. 2. Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM." 3. Approve Resolution No. 91- , entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE APPROVING A SCHEDULE CERTIFICATES." CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS DISCUSSION: The licensing or registration of Temecula businesses is intended to provide a useful data base of information regarding the City's economic environment, including but not limited to: business type/description, date business commenced, ownership type, location, number of employees, square footage occupied and waste management information. The license is not intended to produce revenues in excess of costs for the City's general fund. The annual administrative fee is only intended to cover the costs of administering the program. In the process of registering the City's businesses we will be collecting separate building inspection and fire inspection fees. These inspection programs are performed by the respective City departments. They have been combined with the business license registration to avoid confusion in the business community and to maintain the integrity of the data base. It is recommended that the City Council open a public hearing, accept testimony, read by title the ordinance establishing a business registration program, and approve the resolution establishing fees. Although it is suggested the resolution be adopted at this meeting, it is important to note that the resolution will not become effective if the City Council does not adopt the ordinance upon second reading. FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated Administrative Fees are $38,000. Fire and Building inspection fees have not yet been determined. Software will be developed in house. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Establishing Business Registration Program Resolution 91- to establish Administrative Fees for Business Registration Program Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: PH-62 City of Temecula City Wide Business License Registration Ordinance Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge the ordinance in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed ordinance may be viewed at the public information counter, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the ordinance may be addressed Mary Jane Henry, City of Temecula Finance Department, (714)694-4343. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temi~orary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula Tuesday. June 11. 1991 7:00 PM ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapters: Business Certificates and Uniform Licensing Procedures Business Licensing-Fees Chapter 1 BUSINESS CERTIFICATES AND UNIFORM REGISTRATION PROCEDURES. Sections: 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 Purpose Definitions Certificate-Required Certificate-Required for branch offices and businesses doing business in same location Businesses or organizations exempt Exemption to fees Certificate-Application-Contents Certificate-Issuance Certificate-Term Certificate-Nontransferable or Nonrefundable Certificate-Duplicate Certificate-Denial Certificate-Appeal of Denial Investigation and inspection procedure Refusal to issue to hazardous business Unlawful operation or nuisance Certificate does not permit business otherwise Other agency review Constitutional apportionment Posting and keeping certificates Permits or franchises in lieu of prescribed certificates Enforcement authority Right to revoke Grounds for denial or revocation Penalties for failure to apply for certificate or not having current certificate Effect of regulation on existing businesses Violation-Penalty 3/Ords 21 -1- SECTION 1. Chapters 1 and 2 relating to the Business Registration Program are hereby adopted to read as follows: 1.01 Purpose. A. The ordinance codified in this document is enacted for the purpose of protecting the public interest, health, welfare and safety by providing a means to ensure that all new and existing businesses in the City are made aware of and conform to all City zoning, fire and public safety ordinances, rules and regulations by requiring them to register and procure a certificate from the City. B. This ordinance is also intended to protect the interests of legitimate businesses in the City from unfair competition with businesses operating in violation of federal, state and local laws. C. This ordinance is not intended to impose any form of taxation on the business community nor to collect in fees more money than is necessary to recover the administrative costs of processing an application for the issuance or renewal of a business certificate. 1.02 Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Business" means professions, trades and occupations and all and every kind of calling whether or not carried on for a profit. B. "Civic groups, service clubs and social organizations" means a group, club or organization that is not engaged in any profession, trade calling or occupation but is organized to provide civic, service or social activities in the City. C. "Occasional" means less than once each quarter of a year. D. "Person" means all domestic and foreign corporations, associations, syndicates, joint stock corporations, parmership of every kind, clubs, business trust or common law trusts, societies, and individuals transacting and carrying on any business in the City. E. "Profession" means the practice of doctors, dentists, attorneys, accountants, real estate agents, beauticians, barbers or any other occupation or calling requiring a specialized knowledge and a certificate to practice. F. "Peddler" Peddler shall include any person, whether principal or agent, whether a resident of the City or not, who goes from house to house or to only one house, or upon any street, sidewalk, alley, or in any park or public place in the City, conveying goods, wares, merchandise, magazines, periodicals or other publications, regularly published newspapers excepted, or any coupon certificate, ticket or card which is redeemable in goods, wares, merchandise, or services, or offering the same for sale, or making sales and delivering articles to purchasers. It shall not include vendors of milk, bakery products, produce, groceries, ice 3/O~ds 21 -2- cream or ice, and water who distribute their products to regular customers on established routes. G. "Sale" Means the transfer, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of title to property for consideration; the serving, supplying, or furnishing for consideration of any property; and a transaction whereby the possession of property is transferred and the seller retains title as security for the payment of the price shall likewise be deemed a sale. The foregoing definition shall not be deemed to exclude any transaction which is, or which in effect, results in a sale within the contemplation of law. H. "Solicitor" Solicitor shall include any person, whether principal or agent, whether a resident of the City or not, who goes from house to house or only one house, or upon any street, sidewalk, alley, or in any park or public place in the City, soliciting or taking orders for sales of goods, wares, merchandise, magazines, periodicals or other publications, regularly published newspapers excepted, or personal property of any nature whatsoever, or any coupon, certificate, ticket or card which is redeemable in goods, wares, merchandise, or services, for future delivery, or for service to be performed in the future, whether or not such individual has, carries, or exposes for sale, a sample of the subject of such order, or whether he is collecting advance payments on such orders, or who solicits, takes, or attempts to take public opinion polls, consumer surveys, or by such contracts attempts to secure similar information. Such definition shall include any person who uses any building, motor vehicle or other place within the City for the primary purpose of exhibiting samples and taking orders for future delivery, or one who, as an invitee of a purchaser or prospective purchaser, or otherwise, solicits a sale, or exhibits any sample, or gives a demonstration, or makes a delivery within this City after a purchaser or prospective purchaser has been solicited or contacted by telephone, correspondence, or other method of communication from within the City. Such definition shall also include the term CANVASSER. I. "Transient Merchant" Transient Merchant shall include any person, whether a resident of the City or not, who engages in a temporary business of selling and delivering goods, wares, and merchandise, within said City, and who, in furtherance of such purpose, leases, uses, or occupies any building, motor vehicle, public room in a hotel or shop or other place within this City for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares, and merchandise, either privately or at public auction, provide that such definition shall not be construed to include any person, firm, or corporation who, while occupying such temporary location, does not sell from stock, but exhibits samples for the purpose of securing orders for future delivery only. The person, firm or corporation so engaged shall not be relieved from complying with the provisions of this Ordinance merely by reason of associating temporarily with any local dealer, merchant, or auctioneer, or by conducting such transient business in connection with, as a part of, or in the name of any local dealer, merchant or auctioneer. 1.03 Certificates--Required. It is unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling or occupation within the City unless such person first procures a certificate from the City to do so, and complies with any and all applicable provisions of this ordinance. 3/Ords 21 -3- 1.04 Certificates--Required for branch offices and businesses doing business in same location. A separate certificate must be obtained for each branch establishment or location of the business transacted and carried on and for each separate business carried on at the same location. Each certificate shall authorize the holder to transact and carry on 'only the business certified at a given location. Any changes in the type or character of the business will require the certificate holder to submit an application for a new certificate. 1.05 Businesses or organizations exempt. A. This document shall not require that churches, civic groups, service clubs or social organizations, include churches that do not operate at a fixed location casual workers such as baby sitters, tutors, piano teachers or the like be required to obtain a certificate. Constitution or Statutes of the United States or of the State. Nothing in this document shall be deemed or construed to apply to any person transacting and carrying on any business exempt by virtue of the Constitution or applicable Statutes of the United States or of the State from the payment of fees to municipal corporation. Nor will a certificate be required of any such business. 1.06 Exemption to fees. A. Charitable Organizations. Charitable organizations meeting any of the conditions listed below shall be exempt from the payment of the certificate fee but are still required to obtain a business registration certificate. The payment of the certificate fee will not be required: 1. To conduct, manage or carry on any business, occupation or activity from any institution or organization which is conducted, managed or carried on wholly for the benefit of charitable purposes or from which profit is not derived, either directly or indirectly, by any individual, firm or occupation; or 2. For the occasional conducting of any entertainment, concert, exhibition or lecture on scientific, historical, literary, religious or moral subjects within the City, whenever the receipts of any such event are to be appropriated to any church or school or to any religious or benevolent purpose by a tax exempt nonprofit organization; or 3. For the conducting of any occasional entertainment, dance, concert, exhibition or lecture by any religious, charitable, fraternal education, federal, state, county or municipal organization or association, whenever the receipts of any such entertainment, dance, concert, exhibition or lecture are to be appropriated for the purpose in which the organization or association, was formed, and from which a profit is not derived, either directly or indirectly by an individual, firm or corporation. However, nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt any person association, or organization, institution, firm or corporation from complying with the provisions of this regulation or any ordinance of the City requiting that a certificate, certificate or permit be obtained to conduct, manage or carry on any profession, trade, calling or occupation. B. Claim for Exemption. Any person claiming a exemption pursuant to this section shall 3/O~ds 21 -4- file a verified statement, from The Franchise Tax Board stating the facts upon which the exemption is claimed. C. Certificate. The City shall, upon a proper showing contained in the verified statement, issue a certificate to such person claiming a fee exemption without requiring the payment of a fee. 1.07 Certificate--Application--Contents. A. Every person, association, organization, institution, firm or corporation required to have a certificate under the provisions of this document shall make application to the City on a form provided by the City. Completed applications and fees shall be mailed to the City Clerk and the minimal information required on the application form shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1. The name of the person to whom the certificate is to be issued; 2. The name of the business; 3. The specific type of business to be conducted; 4. The mailing address of the business; 5. The place where the business is to be transacted and carried on; 6. The name, telephone number and address of the person to notify in the event of an emergency; 7. Whether hazardous materials or chemicals will be stored at the business location to the extent permitted within the hazardous materials ordinance; and 8. The business State Board of Equalization Resale Certificate number if a resale certificate is required by the State Board of Equalization. 9. Complete the recycling and solid waste diversion forms attached to the business registration application as described in Section 1.14A3. 10. Evidence that any and all state, federal or county permit or certificate required to conduct the applicable business or profession has been lawfully acquired no application shall be deemed final until adequate evidence of such permits or certificate has been shown. B. Subject to the Public Records Act requirements, the information requested by subdivisions 6, 8 and 9 of subsection A of this section shall be considered confidential and will not be made available to the public. 1.08 Certificate--Issuance. A. A certificate will not be issued until an application for a certificate has been completed and filed with the City, all certificate fees are paid, and all City officers or departments required to investigate the application or inspect the premises or facilities to be occupied or used, have approved such issuance. However, the City shall make every attempt practicable to complete any investigation or inspection within ten working days 3lOrds 21 -5- of receipt of the application. If a certificate is not issued within ten working days of the receipt of the application, the applicant shall be informed to the reason or reasons why the certificate has not yet been issued or will not be issued. B. The issuance of a certificate shall not be deemed as evidence that a person, association, organization, institution, firm or corporation operating a business in the City is in fact in compliance with all ordinance rules or regulations of the City or that the person has applied for or have been issued all permits or certificates which otherwise may be required. 1.09 Certificate--Term, A. Certificates for New Businesses. Certificates for new businesses, whether new to the City or resulting from a change of ownership, location or type of business, shall be issued for a maximum term of twelve months or until a renewal of the certificate is required in accordance with Section B of this section. B. Renewal of Existing Certificate. All certificates which are renewed shall be valid for a twelve month term unless otherwise revoked. Certificates shall be required to be renewed. When the certificate is scheduled for renewal less than sixty days after its date of issuance, the renewal fee shall be waived and any further investigation or inspection may be waived, if there has been no major change in the operation of the business and the application has been completed and filed with the City on a timely basis. Certificate renewal date will be July 1st. 1. l0 Certificate-Nontransferable or nonrefundable. No certificate issued pursuant to this regulation shall be transferable or refundable. 1.11 Certificate--Duplicate. A duplicate certificate may be issued by the City to replace any certificate previously issued under this regulation which has been lost or destroyed, upon the certificate holder filing an affidavit attesting to such fact, and at the time of filing such affidavit, paying a duplicate certificate fee equal to the fee established for a certificate renewal. 1.12 Certificate--Denial. Any person denied a certificate shall be fully advised, in writing, of the grounds for such denial. 1.13 Certificate--Appeal of Denial. A. Any person aggrieved by the decision of an administrative officer or agency with respect to the issuance or refusal to issue a certificate, may appeal that decision to the City Manager within thirty calendar days from the date of denial or the date of certificate issuance. The appeal must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk. Following the filing of an appeal, the City Manager or designee must notify the appellant of a time and place for a hearing to review the appeal. Following the hearing the City Manager must notify the appellant of the decision in writing. B. If the person is not satisfied with the decision of the City Manager, the person may appeal to the City Council within thirty calendar days after receipt of the notice from the 3lOrds 21 City Manager's decision by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall establish a time and place for hearing the appeal within thirty calendar days of the filing of the appeal and provide the appellant with sufficient notice by serving the appellant personally or by sending the notice by registered mail addressed to the appellant at the appellant's last known address. The determination of the City Council shall be final. 1.14 Investigation and inspection procedure. All applications for a certificate shall be investigated and certified in accordance with the following guidelines: A. Applications for New Certificates. Each application for a new certificate shall be investigated for certification as noted below. The City shall make every attempt practicable to complete all required investigations within ten working days of the receipt of an application. 1. The Department of Planning Services shall review and certify that: a. The business and its location comply with the zoning ordinance of the City; b. The business and its location is a lawful use under the laws of the State and c. All buildings of the business have been issued certificates of occupancy. 2. The Fire Prevention Division shall review and certify the structures of the business are lawfully constructed pursuant to the fire, zoning and land use ordinance of the City. 3. Every business that is a first time or renewal applicant for a Business Certificate will be required to complete appropriate waste management forms. The information from these forms will assist the City to address waste diversion issues in order to comply with AB 939 reporting requirements and to encourage the implementation of systems designed to divert waste from our landfills. a. Except for the City of Temecula permitted waste management haulers, every business which engages in the business of accepting raw recyclable materials, or buying and processing for further use or sale any raw recycled product, shall keep adequate records to define the jurisdiction or origin, material type, and weight of every recycled product it receives. An aggregate report of the prior calendar year (January through December) activity shall be submitted with the new or renewal business application as Exhibits A to the application. The City's Program Manager for Waste Management will, upon receipt and determination of adequacy, notify Business Certificate Services that the applicant has complied with this requirement and is cleared to be issued a Business Certificate. If. accurate records are unavailable, the first report may be estimated. Beginning the year following the issuance of the applicant's first Business Certificate, the business shall 3/Ord~ 21 -7- submit aggregate reports on a biannual basis (i.e. periods ending in June and December) with the December report including the information for the entire calendar year and submitted with the annual Business Certificate renewal application. The June report may be submitted directly to the Program Manager for Waste Management. b. Every business operating in the City of shall keep adequate records of all waste materials that were separated and removed for recycling defining the type, weight, and disposal point of each such product. Products disposed of using a permitted hauler do not need to be reported. An aggregate report of the prior calendar year (January through December) activity, which also includes a survey of source reduction methods, shall be submitted with every new or renewal business application, attached as Exhibit B. The City's Program Manager for Waste Management will, upon receipt and determination of adequacy, notify Business Certificate Services that the application has complied with this requirement and is cleared to be issued a Business Certificate. If accurate records are unavailable, the first report may be estimated. B. Applications for Renewal of an Existing Certificate. Each application for renewal of a certificate shall be processed as follows: The Business Licensing Services of the City Administration shall receive the application and review it to determine if any changes exist which may require the review of any other department agency or official. If a review is deemed necessary, the application shall be forwarded to the appropriate department agency and/or officials for further review. C. In the event that a required occupancy inspection has been obtained within a six month period prior to the new application or renewal date, the required occupancy inspections at the time of renewal may be waived. D. All branch offices must obtain the required occupancy inspections prior to the issuance of a Business Certificate. 1.15 Refusal to issue to hazardous businesses. Notwithstanding any of the other provisions of this ordinance, in all cases where application is made for a business certificate which from its general nature, or the material, goods, wares, merchandise or commodities handled, or to be handled, constitutes, in the opinion of the city, a potential fire hazard, or public safety hazard, the licensing authority may refuse to issue a certificate for such business unless and until there has been filed with him, in writing from the Building and Planning Director and from the Fire Chief, statements approving the location indicated therefore. The applicant shall have the right to appeal to the City Council from any refusal of the certificate officer to issue such certificate under the provisions of this section, such appeal to be made and heard in substantially the same manner as contemplated for appeals under section 1.13. 1.16 Unlawful operation or nuisance. The granting of a certificate under this ordinance shall not be deemed in any sense whatsoever a permit or certificate to conduct the 3/0~s 21 -8- business referred to therein, in any unlawful manner, or in any manner so as to constitute the same a nuisance. 1.17 Certificate does not permit business otherwise prohibited. Persons required to pay a certificate fee for transacting and carrying on any business under this Chapter shall not be relieved from the payment of any fees for the privilege of carrying on any business under this Chapter shall not be relieved from the payment of any fees for the privilege of carrying on any similar-or related activity required under any other ordinance of the City and shall remain subject to the regulatory provisions of other ordinances and laws. 1.18 Other agency review. The Business Certificate Officer may refer to any governmental agency any statement and all other information submitted by persons subject to the provisions of this Chapter in connection with the conduct of a business regulated or supervised or otherwise the concern of any such agency, including agencies concerned with health regulations, zoning conformance, fire safety, police considerations, or any other safeguard of the public interest. Failure to comply with conditions required by other agency review shall result in revocation of the certificate once granted. 1.19 Constitutional apportionment. A. None of the fees authorized by this ordinance shall be so applied as to occasion an undue burden upon interstate commerce. B. In any case where a fee authorized by this ordinance and imposed by City Council resolution is believed by a certificate holder or applicant for a certificate to place an undue burden upon interstate commerce, the applicant may apply to the City Council for an adjustment of the fee. Such application may be made before, at, or within six months after payment of the prescribed fee. The Decision of the City Council shall be final. 1.20 Posting and keeping. All certificates must be kept and posted in the following manner: A. Any certificate homer transacting or carrying on business at a fixed place of business in the City shall keep the certificate posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises where such business is carried on or must have the certificate immediately available for inspection upon request. B. Any certificate holder transacting or carrying on business but not operating at a fixed place of business shall keep the certificate immediately available at all times while transacting and carrying on business within the City. In all instances in which a certificate is required under this ordinance for the use of any vehicle equipment or device, the certificate shall be attached to the vehicle, equipment or device. 1.21 Permits or franchises in lieu of prescribed certificates. In cases where any other ordinance of the City prescribing a registration or certificate fee relates to a particular business, or classification, then in all such cases the particular registration or certificate fees 3lOrds 21 -9- prescribed by such other ordinance shall be paid and shall be in lieu of the business certificate fee. it is the purpose and intention of the City that every business, which is lawfully subject to the payment of a business certificate fee shall pay such a fee, but in no case to require a duplication of such business certificate fees. Nothing contained in this section, however, shall be construed as relating to permits or other fees required to be paid under the building, electricity and plumbing regulations or permits or other fees required to be paid in connection with such matters as building, plumbing, electrical and similar permits or plan checking fees, as all such fees are in addition to the certificate fee imposed by this ordinances. 1.22 Enforcement authority. The City's police agency and all assigned Code Enforcement Officers have and exercise the power and duty to make arrests for violations of this regulation. The Enforcement Authority may enter free of charge for inspection of certificates, at any time during regular business hours, at any place of business for which a certificate is required, and to demand the exhibition of such certificate for the current term by any person engaged or employed in the transaction of the business. If such person shall then fail to exhibit the required certificate, such person shall then be liable to the penalty provided for in this ordinance. 1.23 Right to revoke. A. Every certificate granted under this regulation is granted and accepted by all parties with the express understanding that the City Council may revoke the certificate if it is in the best interest of the health, welfare or safety of the public to do so and grounds for such revocation exist as noted in Section 1.22. B. Before a certificate may be revoked, the City Council must hold a public hearing with the notice of the time and place of the public hearing and the reason or reasons for the hearing given to the certificate holder. 1.24 Grounds for denial or revocation. A certificate required by this regulation may be denied or revoked pursuant to this regulation only upon one or more of the following grounds: A. Proper application as prescribed in this regulation has not been made or information submitted has been falsified; or B. The prescribed fee for such certificate has not been paid; or C. Delinquent certificate fees have not been paid; or D. The conduct of the business is contrary to local, state or federal law. Inspections. E. Failure to meet the requirement of the fire and Building and Safety 1.25 Penalties for failure to apply for certificate or not having current certificate. Any person who fails to apply for and receive a certificate prior to the start of business, or has not applied for the renewal of an existing certificate prior to expiration of the certificate shall pay the applicable fee, plus a penalty fee not to exceed twice the normal registration fee. 3/Orda 21 -10- 1.26 Effect of regulation on existing businesses. This regulation is not intended to apply to any business that is operating from a pernament location in the City, until the year 1991. Each business that was operating from a permanent location, on the date of the ordinance codified in this regulation will be required to have obtained a certificate by July 1, 1992. Existing businesses must submit an application for a Business Certificate by September 15, 1991. The approved application will serve as a temporary Business Certificate. A Business Certificate will issued upon the renewal of the business certificate on July 1, 1992 contingent upon obtaining the required occupancy inspections. The required occupancy inspections must be obtained prior to the July 1, 1992 renewal date. 1.27 Violation--Penalty. If a person falls to file for a certificate as provided in this regulation within thirty calendar days after being informed to do so, or fails to pay the applicable fee, or violates any of the other provisions of this regulation, or knowingly or intentionally misrepresents any material facts to any officer or employee of the City in procuring the certificate provided in this regulation, or continues to operate a business after the business registration certificate has been revoked, the person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or by confinement in jail not to exceed six months or by both such fine and confinement. Chapter 2 BUSINESS Certificate - FEES Sections: 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 General classification categories Skilled and professional categories Contractors categories Brokers categories Rentals categories Vending machines categories Miscellaneous categories Certificate--Fee. A. At the time of application for a business certificate, the City shall require the applicant to pay a fee for the processing of said certificate. No portion of this fee shall include the cost of any inspections, investigations or other functions required prior to the original enactment of the ordinance codified in this regulation. All monies collected under this ordinance will be deposited in the general fund of the City. No greater or less amount of money shall be charged or received for any certificate than is provided by in this regulation, and no certificate shall be sold or issued for any period of time other than 3/Ords 21 - 11- what is provided in this regulation. Rebates will not be given for any unused portion of the certificated term. 1. New Certificate Application Fee, A person applying for a certificate for a new business, whether the business is new to the City, or an existing business which has changed location, ownership, or type of business, shall be required to pay a fee which is intended to recover the cost of processing the application. 2. Renewal of Certificate. A person who is applying for the renewal of an existing certificate, and the business has not changed in ownership, location or type of business, shall be required to pay a fee which is intended to recover the cost of processing the application. 3. Exemption for branch offices operating from a Primary Business located within the City. However, branch offices operating from a primary business which is located outside of the City will be required to pay the Certificate fee. 2.01 General classification categories. The general classification includes any category not specifically described by another classification and includes, by way of example, the following: certificate fee 1. Bootblack or shoe shining parlor or stand; 2. Cigars and tobacco stands or shops; 3. Messenger or fax service; 4. Popcorn and nut store or shop; 5. Awning and tent store; 6. Bath and bathhouse; 7. Books and stationery store; 8. Carpentry shop, where woodworking or repairing is done; 9. Delicatessen; 10. Electrical fixtures and supplies; where contracting also is done, a separate for such contracting shall also be paid; 11. Employment agency or bureau; 12. Escrow business; 13. Florist shop or store; 14. Gift, art or curio shop or store; 115. Harness, saddlery or tack shop; 16. Hat shop or store; 17.. Hat blocking and cleaning; 18. Hemstitching and pleating; 19. Jewelry store or shop, including jewelry, watch or clock repair; 20. Luggage shop, including trunks and other equipment; 21. Millinery store 22. Nursery or gardening, selling nursery stock or conducting a gardening 3lOrds 21 -12- business; where contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 23. Paint and oil dealer; 24. Planing or molding mill; 25. Seed store; 26. Stable; 27. Tailor shop; 28. Upholstery; 29. Warehouse, including moving and storage; 30. Cobbler; 31. Advertising, posting, affixing, stenciling or painting advertising bills or signs upon any post, fence, billboard, advertising signboard, building or other structure, as well as operating or maintaining any billboard, signboard, advertising structure, or sign device; distributing posters; circulares, handbills, brochures or other printed advertising matter; solicitation of advertising for any publication, poster, circular, handbill, brochures or other printed matter; the advertisement of a business certificated under any other classification shall not require an additional certificate fee if such advertising pertains to the particular business 'certificated; 32. Air conditioning and refrigeration sales and service; when contracting also is done, a separate certificate for such contracting shall also be paid; 33. Aircraft sales, maintenance, repair, storage or rental; aircraft accessories; flying instructions or carrying passengers for hire in aircraft; 34. Blacksmith shop or forge and horseshoeing; 35. Blueprint or map making; 36. Candy store, where candy is manufactured and/or sold; 37. Clothing and furnishings; 38. Dry goods store; 39. Heating sales and service; where contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 40. Household appliances and furnishings; 41. Ice eream or ice milk dealer or manufacturer; 42. Job printing office or plant; 43. Machine shop for manufacture of machines, machinery. or parts; 44. Neon signs; manufacturing, selling, dealing or servicing of neon or other tubular electrical signs; when contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 45. Plumbing fixtures and supplies; when contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 46. Radio and/or television store, where radios or televisions or pans are sold or serviced; 47. Sheet metal works; when construction also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 48. Shoe store; 49. Sporting goods shop; 3/Ords 21 -13- 50. Collection agency or credit bureau; 51. Creamery; 52. Drugstore; 53. Newspaper, magazines, and other publications; 54. Office supplies and equipment; selling or servicing office supplies, machines or equipment; 55. Dance hall (public); a place where dancing is conducted, whether for profit or not for profit and to which the public is admitted, either with or without charge or at which the public is allowed to participate in the dancing, either with or without charge. In addition to a business certificate, every public dance hall or ballroom shall be required to have a special permit issued by the City Manager; 56. Dancing school; 57. Golf driving range or archery range; 58. Riding academy or school; 59. Skating rink; 60. Swimming poll; 61. Theaters or show, including motion pictures or vaudeville theater at an established place of business wholly within a permanent building constructed for theatrical purposes; 62. Art gallery; 63. Astrologer, including every person who carries on, practices or professes to practice the business or art of astrology, palmistry, phrenology, life reading, fortune- telling, cartomancy, handwriting analysis, chirography, clairvoyance, clairaudience, crystal gazing, hypnotism, mediumship, prophecy, augury, divination, magic, necromancy, numerology, or similar business, trade or calling, and who shall not be prohibited from doing or conducting any of these practices, professions, businesses or callings by any statute of this State, ordinance of this City or by any other law, and who demands or receives a fee or compensation for the exercise or exhibition thereof, except that the provisions of this regulation shall not apply to those persons providing bona fide and incidental entertainment and amusement for the guests and patrons of and on the premises of any business duly certificated by the City for which no separate or additional charge or consideration shall be paid by the guests or patrons or received or accepted by the person who performs or practices astrology. Additionally, a special permit from the City Manager must be obtained; '64. Auction; for the business of selling lands, tenements, hereditament, goods, wares, merchandise or real or personal property of any kind or description at auction or public outcry, except no certificate shall be required for the selling at public sale of goods or property belonging to the United States or to the State or federal court, or by the legally appointed administrator, executor or guardian of an estate. Additionally, a special permit shall be obtained from the City Manager; 65. Automobile and other motorized equipment sales and rentals, including automobile accessories, motorcycles, motorscooters, garages or service stations for automobiles and related vehicles,; parking lots or storage yards for automobiles and other vehicles; and taxis. The owner and operator of any taxi shall first file an application with the City's law enforcement agency, together with fingerprints and photographs, and the 3lOrds 21 -14- City's law enforcement agency shall make an investigation of said applicant and operator, and shall file a certificate with the Business Certificate Officer if said investigation shows that the record of the applicant and operator will not prejudice the public, peace, safety, morals or welfare; automobile top or upholstering shop; automobile wash rack or automobile wash place; and automobile wrecking yard; 66. Bakery or baked goods shop; 67. Bankrupt, assigned or damaged goods; for selling or offering for sale bankrupt, assigned or damaged stock of goods, wares or merchandise of whatever nature or kind. Additionally, a special permit must be obtained from the City Manager; 68.' Barbershop; or surfaces; 69. Beauty shop, with or without sale of toilet articles or cosmetics. 70. Beer tavern; 71. Bicycle or motor-driven cycles, or accessories; 72. Bottled water delivery; 73. Brickyard, where brick is manufactured or from which brick is sold; 74. Building supplies; 75. Building cleaners, for cleaning rooms or furnishings; 76. Carpet and rug cleaners, for cleaning carpets or rugs or related materials 77. Private clubs, such as tennis clubs, golf clubs, country clubs, where recreational sport'or other facilities are provided for members and others; Dairy, including wholesale and retail production and sale of milk and 78. dairy products; 79. 80. bars; both; managing the products, and Department store; Eating places, catering services, restaurants, lunch counters; and snack 81. Dime stores, or other retail stores operating under similar format; 82. Furniture stores selling or dealing in new or secondhand furniture or 83. Gasoline delivery tanks, including the business of carrying on or business of buying, selling or dealing in petroleum products at wholesale; 84. Grocery stores and markets where meat, fish, poultry, egg and butter household goods and related products are sold; 8:5. Hardware store; 86. Manufacturing of retail or wholesale products; 87. Ice; manufacturing, distributing or vending ice; 88. Investments and'loan business; 89. Laundry, and other businesses for cleaning or pressing clothing and other materials; 90. 91. Liquor store; Locksmith, including conducting, carrying on or engaging in key or lock repair business or shop; providing that there first shall be procured from the City's law enforcement agency and filed with the Business Certificate Officer a certificate that the applicant has been investigated and it has been determined that the issuance of such 3/Ords 21 -15- certificate will not 92. 93. instruments; 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. accessories; 99. prejudice the public; peace, safety, morals or welfare; Lumber business or lumberyard, either wholesale or retail; Music dealer, including the sale or rental of music and musical Nursery school for the care of children; Packing house; Transient Merchant; Peddler; Camera shop, photography business; film processing and photography Prefabricated buildings, including the sale of such buildings; where contracting also is done, a separate certificate fee for such contracting shall also be paid; 100. Rock, sand and gravel; sales' or delivery, including acceptance of orders for the sale of rock, sand or gravel which is removed from the premises by the purchaser; 101. Secondhand dealer involved in the sale or trade of secondhand goods, wares or merchandise; 102.. Solicitor; 103. Telegraph company for intrastate business; 104. Towel distributor, including distribution of towels, linens or napkins to businesses, houses or offices, either by local or out-of-town operators; 105. Commercial traveler; 106. Record, tape and phonograph stores, including businesses engaged in the selling, renting or otherwise dealing in recorded music, music machines or musical equipment;. 107. Woodyards, including businesses selling and/or delivering firewood. 2.02 Skilled and professional cate~,ories. A. The skilled and professional classification includes professional businesses and establishments offering skilled services, and includes, by way of example, the following: 1. Accountants; 2. Attorneys at law;' 3. Engineers or surveyors; 4. Laboratories, chemical or other type; 5. Veterinarians; 6. Architects or designers, engaged in the business of preparing plans and specifications for buildings, structures or other projects; plans and specifications for buildings, structures or other projects; 7. Doctors, dentists, chiropractors, and other health care providers; and 8. Undertakers and mortuaries. 2.03 Contractors categories. The contractors classification includes general engineering contractors; general building contractors; boiler, hot water heating, steam fitting; cabinet and mill work; cement and concrete; electrical (general); electric signs; elevator installation; excavating, grading, trenching, paving and surfacing fire protection engineering; flooring (wood); glazing; house and building moving; insulation; landscaping, lathing; 3lOrds 21 -16- masonry, ornamental metals; painting and decorating; plastering; plumbing; refrigeration; roofing; sewer, sewage disposal, drains and cement pipe laying; sheet metal; steel (reinforcing); steel (structural); structural pest control; tiel (ceramic or mosaic); warm air heating; ventilating; air conditioning; welding; well drilling; classified specialists; and other businesses such as refuse collection, ambulance services and cable television companies. 2.04 Brokers categories. The brokers classification includes person engaged in the occupation of broker and/or engaged in or carrying on the business of lending or selling on commission, or making loans for others on commissions, collecting rents as agents for other than those carrying on the business of banking, and includes, by way of example, the following: A. Stock or bond broker; B. Real estate broker or agent; C. Insurance broker (but not an insurance agent). 2.05 Rentals categories. The rentals classification includes any person engaged in the business of operating a hotel, motel, apartment complex, rooming house, mobilehome park, trailer park, or campgrounds or any other similar type of lease or rental living facility with a total of three or more units or spaces. 2.06 Vending machines categories. The vending machines classification includes the business of renting, leasing or operating coin-operated vending machines, and includes, by way of example, the following: A. Cigarette or tobacco machines; B. Food or beverage machines; C. Postage stamp machines; D. Game machines. E. Recycling machines. 2.07 Miscellaneous categories. The miscellaneous classification includes such businesses operating exclusively with a vehicle for advertising, delivering or selling goods, wares, merchandise or services, and such other designated businesses, and includes, by way of example, the following: A. Dances; B. Carnival, circus or rodeo; C. Swap meets; D. Arcades; E. Games; F. Merry-go-rounds; G. Shooting galleries; H. Medicine shows; I. Pawnshops; J. Wrecking yards or junkyards; K. Bowling alleys; 3/Ords 21 -17- L. Billiards halls or poolhalls. SECTION 2. Ordinance 671.4, subsection 6.C of Ordinance 546 fees of the Riverside County Ordinances adopted by reference as the Temecula Ordinances pursuant to Ordinance 9004, relating to Fire Safety Inspection Fees (Licensed Care) and Fire Safety Inspection Fees (Commercial/Industrial) is hereby repealed. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary to be published and a certified copy of the full text to be posted in the office of the City 'Clerk at least five days prior to the meeting at which the City Council adopts this ordinance. Within 15 days after adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance with the names of the City Council members voting for and against, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the Ordinance in the office of the City Clerk with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 28th day of May, 1991. AITEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Ord121 -18- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-XX was duly introducext and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of May, 1991 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the XX day of June, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: COUNC~MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 3lOrds 21 -19- RESOLUTION NO. 91- - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BUSINESS CERTIFICATES and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to establish a business registration fee; WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to establish service charges which do not exceed the cost of providing the service; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that $35.00 is a service charge that does not exceed the cost of providing this service. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. If any charge set forth in this resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other charge or application thereof, and to this end of the charges of this resolution are declared to be severable. SECTION 2. The City of Temecula hereby adopts as its fee schedule Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as is set forth in full. SECTION 3. This resolution shall go into effect concurrently with the effective date of Ordinance No. 91- SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 28th day of May, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL1] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 28th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4\re,,o8173 -2- EXHIBIT "A" FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY BUSINESS CERTIFICATES ITEM FEE A. Registration (application fee) B. Building inspections (required on initial application) Cw Fire inspections 1. Retail Buildings/Locations A. Up through 2,499 Sq. Ft. (1) General Fund a. Fire Department B. 2,500 through 4,999 Sq. Ft. (1) General Fund a. Fire Department C. 5,000 Sq. Ft. or more (1) General Fund a. Fire Department 2. Manufacturing A. General Fund (1) Fire Department Commercial A. Up through 4,999 Sq. Ft. (1) General Fund a. Fire Department B. 5,000 Sq. Ft. or more (1) General Fund a. Fire Department Location size: Under 500 Sq. Ft. 501 Sq. Ft. to 5,000 Sq. Ft. Over 5,000 Sq. Ft $ 35.00 $ .00 $ 25.00 $50.00 $58.00 $82.00 $124.00 $124.00 $82.00 $124.00 4\re8o8173 -3- EXHIBIT A (cont.) Restaurants A. Up through 4,999 Sq. Ft. (1) General Fund a. Fire Department B. 5,000 Sq. Ft. or more (1) General Fund a. Fire Department Hotels/Motels/Apartments A. General Fund (1) Fire Department Per Story plus $3 per unit Mobile Home RV Parks: Incidental Use Areas A. General Fund (1) Fire Department plus $3 per site over 20 Follow-up Inspection for "noncompliance" A. General Fund (1) Fire Department $82.00 $124.00 $ 82.00 $ 3.00 $ 82.00 $ 3.00 $121.00 4\reso- 173 -4- ITEM NO. 21 APPROVAL CITY A O .EY FINANCE OFFICER-- CITY MANAGER '~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department June 11, 1991 Tentative Tract No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 and Plot Plan No. 227 PREPARED BY: Steve Jiannino RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT Resolution 91- denying Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report; and ADOPT Resolution 91- denying Plot Plan No. 227 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Tierra Investment REPRESENTATIVE: Walter B. Dixon PROPOSAL: 54 lot multi-family residential subdivision of 20.8 acres and accompanying development for construction of 54 four-plex units, one per lot. LOCAT ION: South side of Margarita Road approximately 1,500 feet easterly of Moraga Road. EXISTING ZONING: R-3-3000 ( General Residential, 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit) A:TM25603. CC 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED. ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: DISCUSSION: North: South: East: West: R-1 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot min. lot size) R-3 I General Residential ) R-1 [ Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot min. lot size) R-3-2,500 ( General Residential, 2,500 square foot per dwelling unit) Same Vacant North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Tract Apartments Under Construction Single Family Residential Tract Vacant {Proposed Town Homes) A tea: No. of Lots: Min. Lot Size: Max. Lot Size: No. of Buildings: No. of Units: Density: 20.8 acres 5~ residential lots 2 open space lots 12,000 sq. ft. 25,~10 sq.ft. 5q four-plexes 216 dwellings 10.q DU/AC On May 6, 1991, the City of Temecula Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 and Plot Plan No. 227. At the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Commission, by a 5-0 vote, recommended that the City Council deny Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 and Plot Plan No. 227. The Planning Commission made the following Findings: The project provided insufficient buffering and transition to the single family residential development to the east; The project did not provide sufficient recreational facilities; The negative cumulative effects of a high density project on traffic and public services within the area; The excessive grading required to develop the site; A:TM25603.CC 2 The negative impact of traffic and noise on adjoining properties; The use of high crib walls within the project boundaries; and Lack of common maintenance of the units by a homeowners association. The Findings contained in the Staff Report were changed to reflect the Commissioner's Findings on the project along with Resolutions recommending denial of the project, During the Public Hearing, 21 people spoke in opposition to the project with a large group of citizens in attendance in opposition to the project. The citizens in opposition to the project made statements similar to the Findings made by the Commission in that the project was not physically suited for the site, the proposed crib wall was dangerous, the cumulative effect on traffic and public facilities in the area would be negative, the lack of ownership of the units, and the lack of recreational facilities provided for within the project. During the public testimony, a citizen claimed that the Public Hearing was inappropriately advertised and that the project should be denied because of the inappropriate Public Notification. Staff stated in the meeting that proper notification was given for the current project. The 300 foot radius property owner notification list used was from March ~, 1991. The claim was that the list was not current enough. The March q, 1991 list is current for this project. The notice also appeared in the newspaper and the site was posted with a Public Hearing sign. It is Staff's determination that Public Notice was provided correctly in accordance with State and City code requirements. The Planning Commission recommended that an ownership project (condominium) would be more appropriate with increased recreational amenities, common maintenance by a homeowners association, and a density more appropriate as a buffer between the multiple family to the west and the single family to the east. A:TM25603. CC 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT Resolution 91- denying Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 based on the Findings contained within the Staff Report; and e ADOPT Resolution No. 91- denying Plot Plan No. 227 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. SJ: ks Attachments: 2. 3. Resolution 91- denying Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 Resolution 91- denying Plot Plan No. 227 Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 6, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 6, 1991 A:TM25603.CC 4 Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has be~n scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amndm. No. 3 and Plot Plan No. 227 Tierra Investments South side of Margarita Road approximately 1,000 feet east of Moraga Road A $4-1ot multiple family subdivision and construction of 54 four-plex units, one per lot on 20.8 acres. Negative Declaration Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issue~ you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Steve $iannino, City of Temecula Planning Department (714) 694-6400 PLACE OF HEARING: Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Tem~cula. California 92390 DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Tuesday. June 11. 1991 7:00 PM ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5~ MULTIPLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD. WHEREAS, Tierra Investments filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Tentative Tract Map on June 11, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council denied said Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. the following findings: Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: I1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: la) 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: TM25603. CC 5 TN25603 lb) There is not a 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. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter ~SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP. However, the SWAP designation for the property that is the subject of this proposed Tentative Tract Map [hereafter the ""Property~) is inconsistent with the future General Plan, to wit: [1) The City Council finds, in denying the application that: There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. lb) There is a 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. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~60, any subdivision may be denied if any of the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development. A: TM25603. CC 6 TM25603 d) e) f) g) Map. makes the following That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will 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. The Council in denying the proposed Tentative Tract findings: a) The proposed tract map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for the project. A mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. Re The tract map has been reviewed for possible environmental impacts. The project has been conditioned to mitigate possible environmental impacts. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project does not provide a transition density from the multiple family projects to the west to the single family to the east. A: TM25603. CC 7 TF125603 e e e e 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 in that the project would set a precedence regarding transition densities, The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. Re The project is consistent with current zoning for the site. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. Re The project, as designed, requires mass grading of the site and the use of retaining walls and crib walls to a height of 20 feet to provide for the proposed flat pads. The amount of grading and height of walls are inappropriate for a residential project. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An environmental initial study has been completed and no unique habitats were observed on site and no significant impacts are anticipated. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. Ae Potential residential units will have significant southern exposure which allows for proper solar accessibility for active solar potential. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. The proposed internal public streets connect to Margarita Road, a dedicated and maintained public road. A: TM25603. CC 8 m256o3 - 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. Re The project does not conflict with existing easements, the Conditions of Approval require the project to conform to State, County and City codes for subdivision development. 10. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems in that the project does not provide adequate recreational facilities for the proposed density, the grading is inappropriate, adequate buffering is not provided for the single family residential projects to the east, and increased traffic and public service demand will have a cumulative negative impact on the area. 11. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 12. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 for the subdivision of a 20.8 acre parcel into 5q multiple family lots located on the south side of Margarita Road 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road based on the above findings. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR A: TM25603. CC 9 TM25603 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 11th day of June. 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCl LMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A: TM25603. CC i 0 TN25603 ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO. 227 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 54 UNIT FOUR-PLEX ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370-005. WHEREAS, Tierra Investments filed Plot Plan No. 227 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on May 6, 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 Plot Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on June 11, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. A: TM25603. CC 1 '1_ PP227 (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. {2) The City Council finds, in denying the application, that: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 227 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is a 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. D. { 1 ) Pursuant to Section 18.30{ c), any plot plan may be denied when any of the following findings can be made: A: TM25603. CC 12 PP227 a) The proposed use will not conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; does not conform to the logical development of the land and is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. ( 2 ) The City Council, in denying the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 227 will be inconsistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed four-plexes are inconsistent with the existing residential development to the east and does not provide an adequate transition between multiple and single family development. e There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the development to the east and would set a precedence regarding transitioning and buffering for single family residential projects. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 3~8 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the project requires mass grading and the use of 20 foot high crib walls to provide the pad areas for the proposed units. The grading and height of walls are inappropriate for a residential project. A: TM25603. CC 13 PP227 e e e 10. The project may adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the project does not provide an adequate buffer to the residential project to the east. the increased traffic in the area. and the lack of recreational facilities provided for the project. The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates an incompatible physical relationship with adjoining properties to the north and east due to the fact that the proposed development is inconsistent with the single family projects and does not provide adequate buffering for these areas. The proposal will have an adverse affect on surrounding property, because it represents a significant change to the present use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties to the north and east are single family residential developments. The rental nature and density of the proposed use is inconsistent with single family residential areas. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the vehicular improvements for the proposed project have been approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff and direct access exists to Margarita Road. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project due to the fact that Conditions of Approval have been included for this project to mitigate against possible impacts. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project in that the easements have been provided for as shown on the site plan marked Exhibit A. A: TM25603. CC 1 4 PP227 SECTION 2. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Plot Plan No. 227 for the construction of 5L~ four-plex units located on the south side of Margarita Road 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road based on the above findings. Resolution. SECTION 3_:. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this DENIED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1991. RONALD J PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 11th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCI LMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCl LMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A: TM25603. CC 1 5 PP227 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 6, 1991 Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3, and Plot Plan No. 227 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND adoption of a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3; ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and e ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 227 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: P R OPOSA L: LOCATION: Tierra Investment Walter B. Dixon 54 lot multi-family residential subdivision of 20.8 acres and accompanying development for construction of 54 four-plex units, one per lot. South side of Margarita Road, approximately 1,500 feet easterly of Moraga Road. A: 25603-TM. PC 1 EXISTING ZONING: R-3-3000 - SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: ( General Residential, 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit) North: South: East: West: R-1 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot min. lot size) R-3 ( General Residential) R-1 ( Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot min. lot size) R-3-2,500 ( General Residential, 2,500 square foot per dwelling unit) Same Vacant North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Tract Apartments Under Construction Single Family Residential Tract Vacant (Proposed Town Homes) A tea: No. of Lots: Min. Lot Size: Max. Lot Size: No. of Buildings: No. of Units: Density: 20.8 acres 54 residential lots 2 open space lots 12,000 sq.ft. 25,410 sq.ft. 54 four-plexes 216 dwellings 10.4 DUJAC This project was first submitted to the County on December 1, 1989. The first Land Development Committee for this project was conducted February 1, 1990. The project was found to be incomplete at that time and additional information was requested for review of the project. The project was transferred to the City of Temecula April 24, 1990. A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission for this tract, designed as a 57 lot residential subdivision, on December 3, 1990. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the project and forwarded their recommendation to the City Council. The City Council continued the item and returned the item back to the Planning Commission with requested redesigns. The City Council requested that 1 ) a development plan, plot plan, be submitted showing the proposed project; 2) the applicant attempt to minimize the grading; 3) that covenants, conditions and restrictions, A: 25603-TM. PC 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: CC~,R's, be established for the project; q) that tot lots be provided; and 5) the second access to Margarita Road be deleted. The applicant has responded to the City Council~s request with the submittal of Plot Plan No. 227 for 5t[ four-plex units and by redesigning the tract map to 5q residential lots and two open space lots. The project is for a 5L[ lot multiple family residential subdivision and two open space lots of 20.8 acres. The site is located on the south side of Margarita Road approximately 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road. Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 The project is designed with one main access off of Margarita Road which creates a four-way intersection at Margarita Road and Avenida Cima Del Sol. An emergency access will be provided in the southwest corner of the site. This access will be coordinated with the approved condominium project to the west. The project circulation basically consists of two north-south cul-de-sacs connected by two east-west connected roads. The interior streets are 60 foot right-of-way public streets with Margarita Road being a 110 foot right-of-way street. The current site topography consists of rolling hills with a predominate east-west ridge. The proposal is to provide large flat pads for construction of four-plex units on the lot. The applicant is proposing to grade the site to achieve a balance grading by having approximately the same volume of cut and fill. This will be accomplished by cutting the hills in the middle of the site and moving the dirt to the north and south to raise the lower areas of the site. To construct the pads along the southern portion of the site a crib wall of 20 feet in height in some areas is required to eliminate a long 2:1 slope of ~0 foot in length to achieve the proposed pad elevation. There is a concern regarding the height of the wall for safety reasons being on the interior of the lot. A wrought iron fence, ~ feet high or higher, on top of the wall would mitigate some of the safety concerns. A: 25603-TM. PC 3 The visual impacts of the proposed grading, especially to the single family property owners on the southeast corner the property will be fairly significant. The pads on Lots 22 to 24 are 8 to 10 feet higher than the single family residence to the east. These lots will be developed with two-story four-plex units which are from 30 to 60 feet from the single family residential property line. The pads themselves will be at an elevation equal to the top of the first floor of the adjoining single family residence with the two-story structure on top of that. This impact may be mitigated by increased landscaping although the southern portion of the site will appear to be perched over the residences to the east and the proposed apartments to the south. The apartments will be very visible from Rancho California Road to the south because the pads are raised above the adjoining property. It has been suggested, by the adjoining property owners, that this area of the site not be filled and that dirt be exported from the site instead of developing a grading plan with balanced cut and fill quantities. The current zoning for the site would allow a maximum of 302 units. The proposed tract map and corresponding plot plan results in a total of 216 units. The proposed four-plex development concept would result in a minimum of 3/4 of the units being rentals. The concept of rental units as opposed to a condominium project which would be individual unit ownership is a major concern of the surrounding single family residents. The applicant proposes two open space tot lots totalling approximately 16,000 square feet which is about 2% of the site. These sites are approximately 4,500 and 11,500 square feet respectfully with the larger lot, Lot E containing two smaller pad areas, a 2:1 slope and a 5 foot high retaining wall. Staff has expressed concerns with previous projects which lack useable common green. This project has been redesigned to include the two open space areas which were not proposed in the original project. Plot Plan No. 227 Plot Plan No. 227 is a plot plan for the construction of 54 four-plex units on a 20.8 acre parcel. Plot A: 25603-TM. PC 4 Plan No. 227 has been filed in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3. The project is designed to have one four-plex unit constructed on each numbered lot of Tentative Tract No. 25603. The units consist of ~,295 square feet of living area with four two-car garages with an area of 1,959 square feet. Each unit contains two three-bedroom units and two two-bedroom units. The applicant is proposing four separate elevations of the buildings. Staff is recommending that wood siding not be used as a prominent feature and that wood only be used as accent trim. Stucco, brick or block are the most appropriate building materials for the climate. The proposed four-plexes contain building elements common in the surrounding residential development. Each unit contains ~ two-car garages and has two open parking spaces which totals 10 parking spaces per unit. Parking required by code is 10 spaces. This proposal meets the City required parking standards. The project is designed with public streets, so on-street parking will also be available within the project. Open space areas exist on all lots. The largest open space area within the lots is located on the entry side of the buildings. This area averages approximately 3,000 square feet per unit. With the useable open space area of some lots being 600 square feet or less on lots 37, ~0, It1 and t~2. Staff still has major concerns regarding the lack of common open space being provided within the project; mainly because the individual lots do not provide sufficient recreational areas in many cases. Without specific development guidelines regarding useable recreational open space in multiple family projects, Staff suggests that a minimum common area of 200 square feet per unit be provided. In this case, a one acre site would be required as opposed to 16,000 square feet within two acres, approximately 113 of which is 2:1 slope as proposed. It is Staff's opinion that a condominium, planned residential development, could easily provide an acre recreational site and the 216 units as proposed with a different development design. The use of public streets with a 60 foot right-of-way within the proposed project requires 2 acres of land more than private streets with a 36 foot curb to curb street A: 25603-TM. PC 5 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: CONCLUSION: section. A planned development with private streets would have at least two additional acres to work with for possible open space recreational areas. The proposed projects conforms to the SWAP designation of 8-16 dwelling units per acre and the current zoning of R-3-3,000 for the site. The project conforms to Ordinance 3~8 development standards. Multiple family development standards may be changed when the new General Plan and Development Code are adopted. The environmental impacts of this project can be mitigated by project design and compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, a mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. The applicant has redesigned the project to address the issues raised by the City Council by: Modifying the grading to lower the maximum height of the crib wall from 29 feet to 20 feet; Eliminating the second access to Margarita Road; 3. Providing two tot lots; Submitting Plot Plan No. 227 for the construction of 5L[ four-plexes; and 5. Agreeing to incorporate CCF, R's into the project. Staff still has concerns regarding the proposed development of the site. Especially the ownership, grading, common open space and buffering to the single family residential project to the east. Staff still maintains that a PAD, condominium project, would be the most suitable type project for this site. These same concerns have been raised by the surrounding property owners. In meeting with a community group at the site, they indicated several major concerns they had with the project. The A: 25603-TM. PC 6 FINDINGS: major concerns were: That 3/[~ of the units are rentals - the community group would prefer a condominium project; e The impact of the grading especially with the proposed fill areas and high retaining walls - the community group would prefer that dirt be exported instead of creating a balanced site; e The lack of an open space buffer area along the eastern portion of the site - the community group would prefer a developed open space buffer with a tree screen to buffer the single family residential development; and That Covenants, Conditions and Restricts { CC~,R's) be required to be recorded with the project - the community group would prefer that the CCF, R's be submitted as part of the project and be reviewed and approved with the Tentative Tract Map. Staff has received at least nine letters in opposition to the proposed project. These letters are attached for your review. Since the applicant has attempted to address the City Council concerns and the project meets the minimum development standard of Ordinance tt60 and Ordinance 3~8, Staff is making the following findings for approval of the project. Tentative Tract No. 25603 The proposed tract map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for the project. A mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. The tract map has been reviewed for possible environmental impacts. The project has been conditioned to mitigate possible environmental impacts. A: 25603-TM. PC 7 e e There is a reasonable probability that this project will be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project does not provide a transition density from the multiple family projects to the west to the single family to the east. 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 in that the project would set a precedence regarding transition densities. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. Re The project is consistent with current zoning for the site. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. Re The project, as designed, requires mass grading of the site and the use of retaining walls and crib walls to a height of 20 feet to provide for the proposed flat pads. The amount of grading and height of walls are inappropriate for a residential project. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Re An environmental initial study has been completed and no unique habitats were observed on site and no significant impacts are anticipated. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. A: 25603-TM. PC 8 Be 10. 11. 12. Re Potential residential units will have significant southern exposure which allows for proper solar accessibility for active solar potential, All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, The proposed internal public streets connect to Margarita Road, a dedicated and maintained public road, 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. Ae The project does not conflict with existing easements, the Conditions of Approval require the project to conform to State, County and City codes for subdivision development. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems in that the project does not provide adequate recreational facilities for the proposed density, the grading is inappropriate, adequate buffering is not provided for the single family residential projects to the east, and increased traffic and public service demand will have a cumulative negative impact on the area. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. A: 25603-TM. PC 9 Plot Plan No. 227 __ There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 227 will be inconsistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed four-plexes are inconsistent with the existing residential development to the east and does not provide an adequate transition between multiple and single family development. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the development to the east and would set a precedence regarding transitioning and buffering for single family residential projects. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 3rt8 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the project requires mass grading and the use of 20 foot high crib walls to provide the pad areas for the proposed units. The grading and height of walls are inappropriate for a residential project. The project may adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the project does not provide an adequate buffer to the residential project to the east, the increased traffic in the area, and the lack of recreational facilities provided for the project. A: 25603-TM. PC 10 e e 10. The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale. bulk. height. intensity. and coverage creates an incompatible physical relationship with adjoining properties to the north and east due to the fact that the proposed development is inconsistent with the single family projects and does not provide adequate buffering for these areas. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it represents a significant change to the present use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties to the north and east are single family residential developments. The rental nature and density of the proposed use is inconsistent with single family residential areas. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the vehicular improvements for the proposed project have been approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff and direct access exists to Margarita Road. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project due to the fact that Conditions of Approval have been included for this project to mitigate against possible impacts. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project in that the easements have been provided for as shown on the site plan marked Exhibit A. A: 25603-TM. PC 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND adoption of a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 and Plot Plan No. 227; ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 227 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SJ: ks Attachments: 2. 3. 5. 6. Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 Resolution Recommending Approval of Plot Plan No. 227 Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 227 Initial Study Exhibits A: 25603-TM. PC 12 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 25603, AMD, NO, 3 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 1.500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD. ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, 921- 370-005. WHEREAS, Tierra Investment filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3, in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract on May 6, 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. Findinqs. makes the following findings: That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. { 2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being A: 25603-TM. PC 13 T~25~03 considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter ~'SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP. However, the SWAP designation for the property that is the subject of this proposed Tentative Tract Map {hereafter the ~'Property") is inconsistent with the future General Plan, to wit: {1) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending denial of the application that: a) There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is a 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. D. {1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~60, any subdivision may be denied if any of the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development. A: 25603-TM. PC 1~ T~603 d) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are 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 likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will 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. 12) The Planning Commission in recommending denial of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed tract map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for the project. A mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. The tract map has been reviewed for possible environmental impacts. The project has been conditioned to mitigate possible environmental impacts. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project does not provide a transition density from the multiple family projects to the west to the single family to the east. A: 25603-TM. PC 15 T~25603 c) d) e) f) g) h) 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 in that the project would set a precedence regarding transition densities. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project is consistent with current zoning for the site. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. The project, as designed, requires mass grading of the site and the use of retaining walls and crib walls to a height of 20 feet to provide for the proposed flat pads. The amount of grading and height of walls are inappropriate for a residential project. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An environmental initial study has been completed and no unique habitats were observed on site and no significant impacts are anticipated. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. Potential residential units will have significant southern exposure which allows for proper solar accessibility for active solar potential. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. The proposed internal public streets connect to Margarita Road, a dedicated and maintained public road. A: 25603-TM. PC 16 TN25603 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. Re The project does not conflict with existing easements, the Conditions of Approval require the project to conform to State, County and City codes for subdivision development. j) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems in that the project does not provide adequate recreational facilities for the proposed density, the grading is inappropriate, adequate buffering is not provided for the single family residential projects to the east, and increased traffic and public service demand will have a cumulative negative impact on the area. k) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. I) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2._:. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 for the subdivision of a 20.8 acre parcel into 54 multiple family lots located on the south side of Margarita based on the above findings. SECTION 4. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May. 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAI RMAN A: 25603-TM. PC 17 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 6th day of May. 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANN INC; COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNINe; COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: 25603-TM. PC 18 TM25603 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amd. No. 3 Project Description: 5~ lot multiple family subdivision of 20.8 acres Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-005 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance q60, 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. e This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance q60. The expiration date is . Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. e Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. A: 25603-TM. PC 19 TN25603 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance of slopes along Margarita Road, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district. A landscape and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the slope in favor of the TCSD upon map recordation. A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots E and F. Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 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. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots or as approved by the City Engineer. All slopes over three {3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department"s transmittal dated November 13, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated March 28, 1991, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department transmittal dated March 28, 1991, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the TCSD transmittal dated March 28, 1991, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. A: 25603-TM. PC 20 TM25~03 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 18. 19. 20. ae Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-3-3,000 {General Residential, Minimum 3,000 square feet per unit) zone. be Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety, The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director, Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: I1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: ae Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. be Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six 16) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. de Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. A: 25603-TM. PC 21 TM25603 Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Margarita Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. fe Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. 21. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor~s- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars I$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. A: 25603-TM. PC 22 TM25603 22. 23. be 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. Ce Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. de 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. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten {10) feet, f. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten I10) feet. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. be Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with Inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism in order to move the containers out and back into the project?thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to recordation of a final map the subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with TCSD which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~60. A: 25603-TM. PC 23 TN25603 25. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66t~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. 26. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 27. 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 CCSR's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. 28. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CCF~R~s which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC~,R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 29. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either ~ 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or [2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. 30. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CCF, R~s. A: 25603-TM. PC TM25603 31. Within forty-eight {~8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars {$1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars {$1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .q{ d) { 2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 1t~ Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {it8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~lc). Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 32. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map ACt, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 33. 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. t~60. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. 35. Margarita Road shall be improved with t[3 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 ~3'/55~). A: 25603-TM. PC 25 TM25603 36. 37. 38. 39. Avenida Cima Del Sol, between Margarita Road and Luna Del Oro, shall be improved with qtt feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A Avenida Cima Del Sol, south of Luna Del Oro and Streets B, C, and D, shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarita Road and so noted on the final map, Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping {street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. A: 25603-TM. PC 26 TN25603 ~48. ~0. 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 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. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2It" x 36~ mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map. 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. 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: 25603-TM. PC 27 TN2.5603 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 57. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way, 58. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. 59. 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 craditad to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 60. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 61. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 62. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 63. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Asphaltic emulsion {fog seal) shall be applied not less than lq days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9q of the State Standard Specifications. 65. 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 EIRINegative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated t assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. A: 25603-TM. PC 28 m25~o3 Transportation En.qineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 66. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road from Avenida Sonoma to Avenida Cima Del Sol, including all necessary transitions. These signing and striping plans shall be included with the street improvement plans. This design shall include a left turn pocket on Margarita Road westbound for southbound Avenida Cima Del Sol with 125' of storage capacity and 120' of approach transition. 67. Traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer to show 1 1/2" rigid conduit with pull rope, and ~f3 pull boxes on 200 foot centers along the property fronting the south side of Margarita Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City Engineer. 68. Design a flashing yellow school zone signal for the intersection of Avenida Barca and Margarita Road. The plans shall be designed by a Civil Engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and shall be separate from the street improvement plans. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City to receive a 35% reimbursement for the cost of design and construction for this flashing yellow signal upon recordation of Tract No. 25q~3. 69. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design criteria. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 70. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 71. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 72. All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the approved plan. 73. All flashing yellow school zone signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved plan. A: 25603-TM. PC 29 TM25603 Rr .rtvrn 1 .q Icjg /DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH November 13, 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA 43180 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA. CA 92390 ATTN: STEVE JIANNINO IRE: TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 25603: M.B. 54125-30. (58 LOTS) LOT 28, TRACT NO. 334, Dear Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed accordins to plans and specifications as amproved bv the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet.'alonq with the orxoinal.drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and ~oint 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 Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code. Title 22. Chapter 16, and General 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: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 25603 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 MAD". City of Temecula Paqe Two Attn: Steve Jiannino November 13. 1990 This certification does not constitute a quarantee that it will supPlY water to such tract map at any specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be siqned by a responsible official of the water comDanv .... ~9_..~.~1tk9_~ %9 The County Surve¥o~'s Office._~o rev~_~_~.~ ~e~ %w~ vg~)_~ ~rior to the request for thq. recordation_. of This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District aqreeinq to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. ~t will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of ~he final maD. Th~s subdivision 15 with~n the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed accord~no to plans and specifications as approved by the D~strict. the County Surveyor and the ~ealth Department. Fermanent Dr~nts of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, alonq wlth the orioinal drawing. to the County Surveyor. The ~rints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location of manholes, complete profiles, 9ipe and 3oint specifications and the size of the sewers at the 3unction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of liver lines and water lines shall be a ~ortion of the sewaqe 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 thi lever system in Tentative Tract No. ~5603 is in accordance with the sever system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract map." C~tv of Temecula Paoe Three Attn: Steve Jiannino November 13. 1990 ~ih_.~.._iLh.,a_lt.~.__~._Vt be subm~tte__d.. t9 th~ Count¥_Survevor's Office to__t_e...V_.~_~_W. &t _~A_s_~ two week~ gr~p_r_to the rec~uest fgr th~ It w~ll be necessary for f~nancia! arranaements to be completely finalized pr~or to recordation of the fina! map. ironmental Health SM:dr Specialist IV CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMI~rEE AGENDA THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1991 Items numbered one through six have been scheduled for the formal Development Review Committee. The applicants will attend the meeting and draft conditions of approval will be available. ITEM NO. 1 Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: A.P. # Case Planner: ITEM NO. 2 Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: A.P. # Case Planner: (1) (1) Plot Plan No. 227 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amendment No. 3 Tierra Investments Walter Dixon 54-1ot multi-family subdivision with corresponding Plot Plan for fourplex units on the individual lots South of Margarita Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of Moraga Road 921-370-005 Steve Iiannino Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 editions of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, 1990 National Electrical Code, California State Administrative Code, Title 24 Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the Temecula City Code Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for Building Plan Review Parcel Map No. 25349 Anita Silliker ALBA Engineering, Inc. 3-lot residential subdivision of 8.29 acres Eastern Terminus of Jeramie Drive 945-130-003 Steve Jiannino Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for Building Plan Review CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PARK PLANNING AND DEVEI,OPMENT DIVISION SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: March 28, 1991 TO: Planning Department FIlOM: Gary L. King, Park Development Coordinator Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) MAP NO.: 25603 ASSESSOR' S PARCEL NO.: .9._2__!_-~37_0.-.Op_5 p~_EC_T_~~!P~__IP~: 54 lot multi-family subdivision with corresponding Plot Plan for four-plex units on the individual lots· STANDARD CONDITIONS Easements, when required for slopes, shall be shown on the 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 Director of TCSD. All slopes and open space shall be improved as to Riverside County Service Area 143 Landscape Standards Booklet (RCSALSB Manual). A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted 'to the TCSD for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots "E" and "F" and/or any additional open space not otherwise identified herein. 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 responsibility of the TCSD. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for TCSD approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall be in accordance with the RCSALSB Manual. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for TCSD approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects of the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, slope and open space planting. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS, all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by TCSD. Neighborhood park sites associated with that phase of development shall be developed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by TCSD. Prior to the RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP, the subdivider shall enter into an agreement with TCSD which will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the TCSD that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The a~reement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. The developer or his assignee must conform to the TCSD Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit. Following satisfaction of these conditions, and upon completion of a 120 day maintenance period of said slopes, the dedication of said slopes by means of an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (Easement Deed) shall be presented to the city counsel for acceptance. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPA . TMENT ..~~_~IVER$1~'~';r,'~..,~ 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 - (714) 65%3183 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF March 28, 1991 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING DEPT RE: TRACT 25630 and PLOT PLAN 227 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. 2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the Job site. 3. Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2x2½) shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. e Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.~ Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 5. In lieu of Fire Sprinklers, the buildings shall be area separated (2 hour walls) into maximum 3600 square foot compartments. 6. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 7. Instal-1 portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. O 1NDIO OFFICE 79-733 Country Clu4 Ddvc, Suite F, lndio, CA 92201 (619) M2.88~ · FAX (619) 775-2072 PLANNING DIVISION ~] RIVERSIDE OFFICE 1760 12,h S~et. River~klc, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 · FAX (714) 369-7451 ~ TEMECULA OFFICE 41002 Couney Centc~ D~iw., Suite 225, Tc~xub, CA 92' - (714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076 ~ peinted on recycled paper Tract 25630 and Plot Plan 227 Page 2 e Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of $400.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees. 9. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief. Fire Department Planner / ,,~ f~ ..' .., ..--, / Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist LC/tm ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 227 TO CONSTRUCT 5fl. FOUR-PLEXES ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 20.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1.500 EAST OF MORAGA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370-005. WHEREAS, Tierra Investment filed Plot Plan No. 227 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on May 6, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. {2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A: 25603-TM. PC 30 PP227 la) 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. lb) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. {2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending denial application that: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 227 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is a 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. D. { 1 ) Pursuant to Section 18.30{c), any plot plan may be denied when any of the following findings can be made: A: 25603-TM. PC 31 PP227 a) The proposed use will not conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; does not conform to the logical development of the land and is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. {2) The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 227 will be inconsistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed four-plexes are inconsistent with the existing residential development to the east and does not provide an adequate transition between multiple and single family development. b) There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the development to the east and would set a precedence regarding transitioning and buffering for single family residential projects. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 3~8 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. d) The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the project requires mass grading and the use of 20 foot high crib walls to provide the pad areas for the proposed units. The grading and height of walls are inappropriate for a residential project. A: 25603-TM. PC 32 PP227 e) f) g) h) j) The project may adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the project does not provide an adequate buffer to the residential project to the east, the increased traffic in the area, and the lack of recreational facilities provided for the project. The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates an incompatible physical relationship with adjoining properties to the north and east due to the fact that the proposed development is inconsistent with the single family projects and does not provide adequate buffering for these areas. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it represents a significant change to the present use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties to the north and east are single family residential developments. The rental nature and density of the proposed use is inconsistent with single family residential areas. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the vehicular improvements for the proposed project have been approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff and direct access exists to Margarita Road. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project due to the fact that Conditions of Approval have been included for this project to mitigate against possible impacts. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project in that the easements have been provided for as shown on the site plan marked Exhibit A. A: 25603-TM. PC 33 PP227 SECTION 2__~. The City of Temecula Planning Commission recommends denial of Plot Plan No. 227 for the construction of 54 four-plex units located on the south side of Margarita Road 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road based on the above findings. SECTION 4. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: 25603-TM. PC 34 PP227 ATTACHMENT ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 227 Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: 5t~ four-plex units on 20.8 acres 921-370-005 Plannin.q Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for 5q four-plex units, 216 units, on 20.8 acres. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 227. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. e This approval shall be used within two {2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on . The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 227 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. e Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 0 The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. e Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 5~6 and the County Fire Warden~s transmittal dated March 28, 1991, a copy of which is attached. A: 25603-TM. PC 35 PP227 e 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. A minimum of 5q0 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3q8. 5~0 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit PP 227 "A". The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~ inches of Class II base. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health Rancho Water District School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Eastern Municipal Water District Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer's successors-in-interest, provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars 15100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Tentative Tract Map no. 25603 shall be recorded or the appropriate phase recorded. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department. a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along Margarita Road and the property boundary. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. A minimum q foot high wrought iron fence shall be constructed along the top of the crib wall on the southern portion of the site. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. A: 25603-TM. PC 36 PP227 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 25. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on Jthe gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one- half (1/2)-gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663. the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution, Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay to the City all applicable Quimby Act fees or shall provide land in lieu of fees. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Within forty-eight Iq8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars {$1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars { $1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.q{ d){2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 1~ Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (qS) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~{c). A: 25603-TM. PC 37 PP227 Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. 26. Margarita Road shall be improved with ~3 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 { ~3~/55'). 27. Avenida Cima Del Sol, between Margarita Road and Luna Del Oro, shall be improved with ~ feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A 28. Avenida Cima Del Sol, south of Luna Del Oro and Streets B, C, and D, shall be improved with ~0 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 10~, Section A {~0'/60'). 29. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66~62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 30. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarita Road and so noted on the final map. 31. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 32. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 33. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. A: 25603-TM. PC 38 PP227 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. ~0. ~1. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map. the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established. per lot. as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts, Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit, All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainacje easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." A: 25603-TM. PC 39 PP227 A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map. 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. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the Cityis CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 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. 50. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 51. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 52. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 53. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 55. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lq days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0,05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37.39, and 9q of the State Standard Specifications. A: 25603-TM. PC L~0 PP227 56. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project. including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation En.qineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 57. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road from Avenida Sonoma to Avenida Cima Del Sol, including all necessary transitions. These signing and striping plans shall be included with the street improvement plans. This design shall include a left turn pocket on Margarita Road westbound for southbound Avenida Cima Del Sol with 125~ of storage capacity and 120~ of approach transition. 58. Traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer to show 1 1/2" rigid conduit with pull rope, and ~3 pull boxes on 200 foot centers along the property fronting the south side of Margarita Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City Engineer. 59. Design a flashing yellow school zone signal for the intersection of Avenida Barca and Margarita Road. The plans shall be designed by a Civil Engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and shall be separate from the street improvement plans. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City to receive a 35% reimbursement for the cost of design and construction for this flashing yellow signal upon recordation of Tract No. 25~J~3. 60. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design criteria. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 61. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. A: 25603-TM. PC t[1 PP227 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 62. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 63. All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the approved plan. All flashing yellow school zone signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved plan. A: 25603-TM. PC ~2 PP227 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMII'rEE AGENDA THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1991 Items numbered one through six have been scheduled for the formal Development Review Committee. The applicants will attend the meeting and draft conditions of approval will be available. ITEM NO. 1 Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: A.P. # Case Planner: ITEM NO. 2 Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: A.P. # Case Planner: (1) (2) Plot Plan No. 227 and Tentative Tract Map No. 2560,3, Amendment No. 3 Tierra Investments Walter Dixon 54-1ot multi-family subdivision with corresponding Plot Plan for fourplex units on the individual lots South of Margarita Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of Moraga Road 921-370-005 Steve Iiannino Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 editions of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, 1990 National Electrical Code, California State Administrative Code, Title 24 Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the Temecula City Code Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for Building Plan Review (1) Parcel Map No. 25349 Anita Silliker ALBA Engineering, Inc. 3-lot residential subdivision of 8.29 acres Eastern Terminus of Ieramie Drive 945-130-003 Steve Jiannino Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal for Building Plan Review GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 March 28, 1991 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING DEPT RE: TRACT 25630 and PLOT PLAN 227 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. me Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Approved super fire hydrants, (6"xd"x2x2½) shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.~ Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 5. In lieu of Fire Sprinklers, the buildings shall be area separated (2 hour walls) into maximum 3600 square foot compartments. 6. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 7. Instal-1 portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. ~] INDIO OFFICE 79-73.1 Country Club Drive, Suite F, lndlo, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 · FAX (619) 775-2072 PLANNING DIVISION [~] R1VI~S1DE OFFICE 3760 121h Sm~, Rivehide, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 · FAX (714) ~69.7451 ~ Te~ OmCE 41002 County Center D~ive, Su~ 225, Te,~u}~, CA 92390 (714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076 ~ [xinted on recycled paper Tract 25630 and Plot Plan 227 Page 2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of $400.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees. 9. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chie~ Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist LC/tm II Backqround ATTACHMENT 5 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 1, Name of Proponent: Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Date of Environmental Assessment: Tierra Investment/Walter Dixon Agency Requiring Assessment: PO Box 322 Temecula, CA 92390 (71~) 699-63q9 March 28, 1991 CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 and Plot Plan No. 227 Location of Proposal: South side of Marqarita Road approximately 1,500 feet easterly of Morag. a Road. Project Description: 5~ lot multiple family subdivision plot plan for development of 5~ four-plex units, one per parcel, Environmental Impacts. (Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Yes Maybe No A:25603-TM.PC ~3 e e eo ge· Air. a. be Ce Water a. be Ce de Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands. or changes in siltation. deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement. moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? · Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents. or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X X X X X X X X X X Discharge into surface waters, or Yes Maybe No A: 25603-TM. PC ~1~ 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 or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? he Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants {including trees. shrubs. grass, crops. and aquatic plants)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare. or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation. or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals ibirds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish. benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species X X X Yes X Maybe X X X X X X A: 25603-TM. PC ~5 10. 11. 12. 13. of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? be Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances {including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: X X X X X X Yes Maybe X X X X X X A: 25603-TM. PC it6 lq. 15. 16. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Ce 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. bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? de Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: ae Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? be Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X X X X X X X X Yes X Maybe X X X X No X A: 25603-TM. PC ~7 b. Communications systems? X 17. 18. 19. 20. c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ae Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard lexcluding mental health) ? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an 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? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X X X X X X X X X X de 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? Yes Maybe No X X A: 25603-TM. PC ~8 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ae Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? I A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief. definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Ce Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? |A project~s impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small. but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) de Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X A: 25603-TM. PC ~9 I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1.d. 1 .a. .8. 3.b. No. The project is not located in any known unstable earth areas. The proposed grading should not effect geological substructures. Yes. The current topography consists of rolling hill type terrain. The area is proposed to be mass graded which will be a major change in the topography of the site and cause possible soil erosion. The project proposes the use of a 20 foot high crib wall as a retaining wall along a portion of the site. All the proposed grading shall be certified by a qualified engineer. All mitigative measures will be included in the grading and building permit process for the project. Prior to any grading or construction, a City permit must be obtained and adhered to. Adherence to the grading and building permits including proper use of required erosion control measures shall mitigate impacts. Maybe. The project includes mass grading which will alter the rolling hill topography of the site, This type of topography is quickly disappearing in Temecula. This project being of an in-fill project will not have a significant effect. Yes. See 1.b. No. The area is fairly far removed from any existing body of water or stream. Deposits in these areas will be minimal. Maybe. The site is not in a fault area as shown on any current maps. The large retaining crib wall may pose a hazard, but adhering to engineering requirement for the wall should mitigate any significant concerns. Mitigation shall be by obtaining and maintaining engineering and building permits. Maybe. Air emissions will result during grading, especially dust, due to the grading and construction activities. This impact will be for a limited time and mitigation will be accomplished by use of erosion control methods. The impact will not be a significant impact. No. The project is a residential subdivision and should not have a substantial effect to the air. No unusual developments are proposed and no objectionable odor are anticipated. No. There are no streams or bodies of water in the vicinity. There should not be any significant impact due to this project. Yes. The project will add road and housing units which will decrease the absorption rate of the site. All development causes a decrease in absorption rate, this will not be a significant impact. S.C. Yes. The project proposes mass grading and will alter the current drainage patterns. The course of flood waters will also be altered. The A: 25603-TM. PC 50 3.d. 3.g. 3.ho 3.i. 6.ae project will have to conform to the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District and the City Engineer to mitigate flood and drainage concerns. Adherence to these standards will mitigate potential impacts. No. See 3.a. No. See 3.a. No. The proposed grading does not include any cuts which are deep enough to alter the current ground water direction. Maybe. The covering of the soil with buildings and streets will decrease the available ground water, although this impact should be mitigated by the introduction of irrigated landscape areas which will increase the availability of ground water. Therefore, this project should not have a significant effect on the ground water. No. The residential project will not have a significant effect on the availability of water. Although the cumulative effect of additional residential units may have an impact, this is a regional problem and this project will have a small effect on the overall region. No. The project is not within a flood hazard zone and will not pose a threat to people. Yes. The native vegetation will be removed. No unique species were observed on site. There will not be a substantial impact. No. No rare or unique plant species were observed on site. Yes. The proposed multi-family project will introduce new vegetation to the area. The project is conditioned to use drought tolerant and native plant species. There will not be a significant impact. No. The area is not currently used for agricultural products. Yes. The development process will eliminate existing native animal species. This will not be a significant impact. The project is a residential in-fill project. Maybe. The area is within the K-Rat Habitat Study Area. No Stephen's Kangaroo Rats were observed on site. The project has been conditioned to pay the appropriate fees for K-Rat mitigation. Maybe. The existing site will be graded. No wetlands or unique habitat exists on site. The project will not have a significant impact. Yes. The area is currently vacant. The major noise increase will be during construction and grading activities. This will be for a limited time period and will not be a significant impact. A:25603-TM.PC 51 6.b. No. No severe noise producing activities are proposed. Maybe. All lighting will be hooded and directed away from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. The project is conditioned to conform to the recommendations contained in the Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy. No. The project conforms to existing zoning and to SWAP. 9.a,b. No. The project is a residential project and will not have a substantial impact on natural resources. 10.a,b. No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a threat. 11. Yes. The area is currently vacant and proposes residential development. This will alter the population, but the project is consistent with current zoning and SWAP. 12. Yes. The project will create housing units on vacant land. The area is zoned for this, so no significant impact will occur. 13.a. Yes. The project could provide a maximum 216 dwelling units which will increase vehicular movement. Mitigation will be achieved by adherence to Engineering and Traffic Conditions. 13.b. Yes. The project will increase the demand for new parking. The project will provide the required parking for the proposed use per code to mitigate the impact. 13.c. Maybe. The project will increase travel on existing roadways. The project will be conditioned to provide for necessary street improvements and pay capital improvement fees as mitigation measures. 13.d,e. No. The project will not impact the circulation pattern or alternate transportation mathods. 13.f. Yes. The project will increase traffic and possible hazards. Part of the mitigation will be with the installation of flashing yellow lights for increased pedestrian safety and installation of street improvements include payments of fees. Yes. The project proposes a residential development which will increase service needs. The project is conditioned to pay the proper fees for mitigation. 15.a,b. No. The project will not require a substantial use of energy. 16.a-f. No. All necessary utilities exist in t~he vicinity of the site. The project is a residential in-fill project. 17.a,b. No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a A: 25603-TM. PC 52 18. 19. 20.a. 20.b-d. 21 .a-c. 21 .d. significant hazards. Maybe. The mass grading of the site and use of retaining walls and crib walls could be objectionable aesthetically. This impact will be the greatest on the immediate area and may be mitigated by increased landscaping and appropriate landscaping design. Yes. The multi-family residential project with minimal recreational facilities will impact the current City recreational facilities. Mitigation will be achieved by adherence to the Quimby Ordinance. Maybe. The area is in a possible sensitive paleontology area. During grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present. If any artifacts or sensitive areas are observed, appropriate mitigation measures will be established by the qualified paleontologist. No. There are no known cultural or religious sites in this area. Maybe. The project impacts the environment in may ways, but no significant impacts will occur of the mitigation measures are followed. No. No substantial impacts will occur. A: 25603-TM. PC 53 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. March 28. 1991 .~/~.¥~-( //~ Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A: 25603-TM. PC 5q CASE T~'~ 7'~ ZONING ,000 950 ' ' CZ ' -I 4'56~ CZ 4433 CZ 4179 R-2 CZ$798 RAN 51) le 0 .J PLAL'NINH COMMTSS?ON MINUTE8 M~,Y 6, 199:]. 7. TENTATTVE TRACT NO. 25603 AMENDMENT #:~ AND PLOT PLAN NO. 227 7.1 Proposal for a multi-family subdivision of 20.8 acres into 54 residential lots and two open space lots and to construct 54 four plexs, one per lot. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. KEVIN MCKENZIE, 40550 La Colima Road, Temecula, representing Tierra Investment, advised the Commission of the changes that the applicant has implemented since the last Planning Commission meeting. He also advised the Commission that there have been some recent informal inquiries from the CSD about this land as City park land. The following individuals, members of The Neighborhood Coalition No. 25603, expressed strong opposition to the proposed project. Their concerns addressed the issues of increased high incident of crime, over-crowding of schools, apartment vacancy rates within the city, lack of park space in this area, danger of proposed crib wall, lack of proper maintenance of property, applicant's failure to properly notify affected residents of proposed development, as well as other issues. LISA BELLINO, 42111 Humber, Temecula. DUNCAN MACDONALD, 42135 Humber, Temecula. ED DORAN, 39985 Stamos, Temecula. AL LE COU, 42050 Avenida Vista Ladera, Temecula. BILL BELLINO, 42111 Humber, Temecula. BELINDA CONTOPULOS, 42075 Humber, Temecula. LINDA VAN KIRK, 41756 Humber, Temecula. DON TULIMERO, 42109 Humber, Temecula. CLARK KEHLEY?, 41775 Humber, Temecula. ROB MARTINELLI, 30255 Corte Cantania, Temecula. DAVID MICHAEL, 41756 Humber, Temecula. CHRIS MARTINELLI, 30255 Corte Cantania, Temecula. ROB VAN KIRK, 41756 Humber, Temecula. VIOLA ~OODRICH, 30099 Corte Carrizo, Temecula. S. ¥ERNOY, 30268 Mercy Court, Temecula. LENA SEEMAN, 42700 Las Violetas Court, Temecula. DAVID CERVANTES, 29983 Via Puerta Del Sol, Temecula. ARTHUR YORKE, 30087 Corte San Luis, Temecula. HARY BURH, 30219 Corte Cantera, Temecula. MICHAEL RUNYEN, 31399 Corte Montiel, Temecula. HLEN N. SMITH, 42105 Humber, Temecula. PCMINS/06/91' -6- MAY 9, 1991 pL~l~qlqlNG COI, DtXSSXON MINUTE8 lq~¥ 6. xggx Chris Martinelli provided the Commission with information regarding the applicant's lack of proper notification to affected property owners. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt some of the issues raised by the Commission at the previous hearing still existed and she saw very little change to the concept of the entire project. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND concurred and added his concern for the applicant's proposal of public streets in the project. He added that he felt that this was not an appropriate transition. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. and recommend Denial of a Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amendment No.. 3; Deny Resolution 91-(next) recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 25603; and Deny Resolution 91-(next) recommending that the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 227, based on the following: insufficient buffering and transitioning from multi-family to SFR, inadequate recreational facilities for a project of this size, the cumlative effect of high density housing in this area negatively impacts on traffic and the ability to provide services in this area, the topography of this particular area does not suit the proposed plot plan and grading plan resulting in excessive grading, circulation of traffic and location of units may adversely affect the surrounding property with noise and light, and the four- plex concept potentially provides inadequate maintenance of the property, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FORD requested that the motion be amended to include the insufficiency of proper notification by the applicant, apparent willful destruction of habitat which warrants research of the E.I.R., grading and crib walls are a functional problem with the project, along with lack of facilities for the public. COMMISSIONER FAHEY and COMMISSIONER BLAIR concurred with the amendment. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she was adamantly opposed to the project when it was first presented to the Planning Commission and remains adamantly opposed. She added that it was presented with little~change and it is not a project for Temecula. PCMINS/06/91 -7- MAY 9, 1991 PLXlgNINO COMMISSION ~!NUTES MAY 6, ~99~ CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he supported the statements; however, he suggested that the Commission also advise the City Council of what the Commission would like to see as an acceptable transition between single family attached and detached. He stated that some of those issues would include ownership between the rental on one side and the single family detached on the other, common maintenance by an association and recreational amenities being provided and developed at densities that would provide a transition between properties. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a ten minute recess at 8:40 P.M. meeting reconvened at 8:50 P.M. The USE PERMIT NO, 2901 (REVISED) the Road. ~al for application (Post Facto) to Permit to add four (4) additional pumps. corner of Jefferson Avenue an. .ine ~d at :hester MARK RHOADES ~ ded the staff report DAVE DIORY, D2 Ent Lses, 28465 Street, Temecula representing the app it, answe questions by the Commission. Mr. Diory )lariation of finding (H) in the staff report. ~y also questioned if Condition 22 was applicabl this project. KURT KUSMANIC, owner Commission. swered questions by the JOHN CAVANAUGH "inconsistent', this was a that the fe imp that under f .ng (H) be amended to "consistent" and required by State ] He also stated ~nt of Condition 2: for off-site FAHEY moved to close the publ M. and Adopt Resolution 91-[next) app .tional Use Permit No. 2901 (Revised), se~ COMMISSIONER FORD. leering at led PCMIN5/06/9! -8- MAY 9, i ITEM NO. 22 APPROVAL CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department June 11, 1991 Change of Zone No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852 and Plot Plan No. 224 lCostco) PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: Steve Jiannino Continuance to June 25, 1991 This project was scheduled for the June 3, 1991 Planning Commission Hearing. The Planning Commission Meeting of June 3 was canceled due to a lack of a quorum. Therefore, a Planning Commission recommendation can not be forwarded to the City Council at this time. The project has been rescheduled for the June 17, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. A Planning Commission recommendation should be forthcoming to the City Council for the June 25, 1991 Meeting. Staff recommends that the City Council OPEN the Public Hearing, TAKE testimony, and CONTINUE Change of Zone No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852 and Plot Plan No. 22[t to the June 25, 1991 City Council Meeting. SJ:ks A:PP224-A 1 Notice of Public Hearin~ THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Propusali Environmental Action: Change of Zone No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852, and Plot Plan No. 224 Bedford Properties Northwest comer of Margarita and Winchester Roads Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P.-S on 24 acres, subdivide the 97 acres into 13 lots with two remainder parcels and comtruct a 149,000 square foot commercial center on 19.7 acres. Negative Declaration Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Steve Jiannino, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula Tuesday. June 11. 1991 7:00 PM ITEM NO. 23 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJEC T: CITY ATTO~{ ~ C7 L/ FINANCE OFFICER ~)~ o CITY MANAGER '~.~ CITY OF TEMECUIA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager June 11, 1991 First Extension of Time - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 PREPARED BY: City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report BACKGROUND: The attached staff report was prepared for the meeting of May 28, 1991 and continued by the City Council to this date. JSG APPROVAL ~_~ CITY ATTORNEY ~)~.~"~'~-" ) CI~ ~AGER -~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department May 28, 1991 First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 PREPARED BY: Richard Ayala RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution 91- approving the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on the findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Marlborough Development Corporation REPRESENTATIVE: Marlborough Development Corporation PROPOSAL: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 29.2 acres into 18 single family residential lots averaging approximately 51,L~00 square feet (1.18 acre) with a minimum lot size of one acre. The subject site is located west of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road. BACKGROUND: First Extension of Time application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 was submitted to the City on October 22, 1990. On April 1, 1991, it was presented to the City of Temecula Planning commission and was approved by a ~-0 vote based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. A: VTM23103. CC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planninq Department Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT Resolution 91- .... approvin9 the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on the findings contained in the Staff Report'. RA:ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Planning commission Staff Report (dated April 1. 1991) Development Fee Checklist Planning Commission Minutes [dated April 1, 1991) A: VTM23103. CC 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91- - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23103 A 18 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 29.2 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF BUTrERFIELD STAGE ROAD BETWEEN LA SERENA WAY AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923- 210-010 WHEREAS, Marlborough Development Corporation filed the Time Extension in Accordance with the Riverside County I_amd Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on April 15, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, as the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Time Extension. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Time Extension on May 28, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Time Extension; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Time Extension; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. findings: That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following 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 3/Resos 182 -1- following requirements are met: 1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. 2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a. There is a reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: plan. 1. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general 2. The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following: a. There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. 3/Resos 182 -2- D. 1. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b. The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. 2. 'The City Council, in approving the proposed Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: a. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. b. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. e. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as #allowed# within the project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199 (Low Density Family Housing) land use designation. d. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patters, access, and density, due to the fact; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. e. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. f. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. 3/Re,os 182 g. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site (Specific Plan No. 199), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of Specific Plan. h. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. i. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currenfiy proposes an independent access point from Butterfield Stage Road which has been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. j. The Design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. k. That ~said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents, associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessments, and Conditions of Approval. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract MAP 23103 for A 18 lot residential subdivision of 29.2 acres located west of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-210-010 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment II, attached hereto. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. 3/R¢sos 182 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1 lth day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 3/Re,os 182 -5- ATTACHMENT II CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director verification that Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~460 has been satisfied regarding payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~60. Verification shall be submitted prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. e No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures, A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development, This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~60. The expiration date is November 8, 1991. The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 (see attached) except as amended herein. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. STAFFRPT\VTM23103 It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. e The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. Submit letter from adjacent property owner that the proposed drainage on their property is acceptable to them. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 10. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. 11. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Butterfield Road and so noted on the final map. 12. 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. 13. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSR~s shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCSR~s shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be subject to the following conditions: STAFFRPT\VTM23103 a. The CCSR's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. be The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. Ce The CC~,R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. de The CCgR's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. ee The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. fe The CC~;R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. i. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots. ii. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by homeowner's association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. The developer, or the developer's 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. 15. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, STAFFRPT\VTM23103 16. 17. 18. 19. be signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. Storm drain facilities. Landscaping (street and parks). Sewer and domestic water systems. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 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 four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\V'TM23103 4 25. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 26. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. 27. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 28, Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 29. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. 30. 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. 31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 32. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 33. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. STAFFRPT\VTM23103 -- Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 36. Asphaitic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~ days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9~ of the State Standard Specifications. 37. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility-mitigation as required under the EIR/Necjative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 38. A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Chenin Clinet and Placer Loudeaonne and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 39. Condition No. 7 in the County of Riverside Road letter dated July 22, 1988 shall be deleted. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. Condition No. 28 in the County of Riverside Road letter dated July 22, 1988 shall be modified to read: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield Stage Road and shall be included with the street improvement plans. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: q.2. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: u,3. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plans. STAFFRPT\VTM23103 6 Buildinq & Safety Department Submit approved tract map to the Department of Building and Safety for addressin9 prior to submittal for Structural Plan Review. ~5. Obtain land Use and Building Department clearances. ~6. School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District, STAFFRPT\VTM23103 7 ATTACHMENT III STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 1991 Case No.: First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Marlborough Development Corporation Marlborough Development Corporation First Extension of Time West of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road. Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) North: R-T South: SP East: A- 1 - 10 West: SP (Mobile Home Subdivision and Mobile Home Park) (Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village) (Light Agriculture 10 Acres Minimum) (Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village) Not requested. Vacant (Rough Graded) STAFFRPT\VTM23103 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCR IPT ION: ANALYSIS: North: Vacant South: Single Family Residential East: Agriculture West: Vacant Total Acreage: Total Lots Proposed: Proposed Density: Proposed Minimum Lot Size: 29.2 acres 18 lots 0.6 DU/AC 1.0 acre Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 was recommended for approval on September 28, 1988 by the Riverside County Planning Commission in conjunction with Tract Nos. 23100 Amd. No. 1; 23101; and 23102 Amd. No. 1. All four tracts implement Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan ISP 199 Amd. No. 1) which was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, ;988. Subsequently all four tracts (23100 Amd. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amd. 1) were approved by the County Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 29.2 acres into 18 single family residential lots averaging approximately 51,400 square feet (1.18 acre) with a minimum lot size of one acre. The subject site is located west of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road. Desiqn Considerations The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of Ordinance Nos. 348, 460 and Specific Plan No. 199. The main access to the project is Butterfield Stage Road. The project has been designed to provide increased land use and circulation efficiency. Density The proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103) is consistent with the Density Designation for Specific Plan No. 199 of .~-2 DU/AC. The actual proposed subdivision density is O.6 DU/AC. STAFFRPT\VTM23103 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINAT ION: FINDINGS: Gradinq The subject site has been partially rough graded and yet needs to be fine graded. The proposed subdivision will entail approximately 95,000 cubic yards of raw cut and approximately 210,000 cubic yards of raw fill which will be imported from Tract 23100. The finished grading will be consistent with adjacent existing residential developments. The proposed density of 0.6 DU/AC is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. Environmental Assessments have been prepared on all four tracts 123100 Amd. No. 1, 23101, 23102, 23103 Amd. No. 1). Environmental impacts were assessed in EIR No. 107 and EIR No. 202 prepared for the Rancho Village Specific Plan and the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluations have been provided by the reports prepared for the specific plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for three tracts. No significant environmental impacts have been found. Therefore, Staff is not requesting any further environmental determination. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with STAFFR PT\VTM23103 exis+,ing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project siteis existing Specific Plan No. 199 {Low Density Family Housing) land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. e The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site ISpecific Plan No. 199), and also consistent STAFFRPT\VTM23103 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: RA: ks Attachments: with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation of Specific Plan. The project as desicjned and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval, The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes an independent access point from Butterfield Stage Road which has been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. 10. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on the findings contained in the Staff Report. Resolution 91- Conditions of Approval Exhibits A. Site Plan STAFFRPT\VTM23103 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVETRACT MAP NO. 23103 TO SUBDIVIDE A 29.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD BETWEEN LA SERENA WAY AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-010. WHEREAS, Marlborough Development Corporation filed a Extension of Time in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Extension of Time application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on April 15, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Extension of Time; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and takin9 other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STAFFRPT\VTM23103 6 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. lb) 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, I 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 Extension of Time is consistent with the $WAP and meets the requirements set forth in $ection 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan, (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: There is reasonable probability that First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. lb) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. STAFFRPT\VTM23103 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. ~60, no subdivision or extension of time may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division ~s consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Extension of Time makes the following findings, to wit: STAFFRPT\VTM23103 a) b) c) d) e) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing Specific Plan No. 199 (Low Density Family Housing) land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns. access. and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. STAFFRPT\VTM23103 f) h) j) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site ISpecific Plan No. 199), and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan ISWAP) designation of Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project. currently proposes an independent access point from Butterfield Stage Road which has been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. STAFFRPT\VTM23103 10 k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative 'Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous Environmental Determination (Adoption of Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32535) still applies to said tract map. An initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in EIR Nos. 107 and 202 and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval for the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 for the subdivision of a 29.2 acre parcel into 18 single family residential lots located west of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road and I~nown as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-210-010 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\VTM23103 11 CASE NO.: ATTACHMENT IV CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST First Extension of Time For Vestin_cl Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation ( quimby ) Public Facility ( Traffic Mitigation ) Public Facility ( Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility ( Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 1 Condition No. 2 Condition No. 37 Condition No. 18 Condition No. 3 Letter Dated 9/20/88 Condition No. 31 A: VTM23103. CC 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 15th day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\VTM23103 12 ITEM NO. 24 ~-~ '3:. APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ' 'kh,~3.~U TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department June 11, 1991 Plot Plan No. 69 (Revised) PREPARED BY: Mark Rhoades RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: APPROVE an Exemption for Plot Plan No. 69 (Revised) under the provision of Ordinance 91-1. and ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 69 { Revised) based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PacTel REPRESENTATIVE: Fastrax Developer Services PROPOSAL: Plot Plan No. 69 (Revised) is an application to add cellular telephone antenna equipment to an existing radio transmission tower. LOCATION: West of 1-15 and south of Front Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The current revised application is a request to place three (3) microdish antennas and a six foot whip antenna onto the existing tower. The proposed antennas are for cellular telephone reception and transmission. The proposed microdishes have a diameter of six feet. The whip antenna is proposed with a horizontal length of 12 feet, with vertical tips six feet high. None of the proposed additions will A:PP69REV.CC 1 BACKGROUND: RECOMMENDATION: extend the height of the tower. All appurtenant equipment will be contained within the existing tower framework· The proposed antenna modification was presented to the Planning Commission on May 20, 1991. At the meeting the Commission did not express any concern with the proposed project. By a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council exempt Plot Plan No. 69 {Revised) from Ordinance 91-1 and approve Plot Plan No. 69 {Revised) based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. Staff recommends that the City Council: APPROVE an Exemption for Plot Plan No. 69 {Revised) under the provision of Ordinance 91-1, and ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 69 {Revised) based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. MR: ks A: PP6 9REV. CC 2 Notice of Public Hearinf THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal:. Environmental Action: Plot P!nn 69 (Rev.) PACTEL CELLULAR West of 1-15 and South of Front Street Request to add cellular telephone equipment to an existing rndio transmission tower Categorical Exemption Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Mark Rhoades, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Teme~ula Tuesdny. June 11. 1991 7:00 PM TE A I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 69 (REVISED) TO PERMIT THE PLACEMENT OF CELLULAR TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER, LOCATED ON ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-220- 013. WHEREAS, Pacific Telephone filed Plot Plan No. 69 (Revised) in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on June 11, 1991 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS. at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Plot Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on June 11, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. the following findings: Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are mat: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. {2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A:PP69REV.CC 1 a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action ~s ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. {2) The City Council finds, in 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 Plot Plan No. 69 { Revised) proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. A:PP69REV.CC 2 D. {1 ) Pursuant to Section 18.301 c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) The City Council, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 69 ( Rev. ) will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinance No. 3~8 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed use will be placed on an existing structure. A:PP69REV.CC 3 e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines. f) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's existing site. f) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. h) The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. i) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. project will Declaration, An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No. 69 {Revised) for the operation and construction of cellular telephone antenna equipment located at Assessor's Parcel No. 922-220-013 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. A:PP69REV.CC 4 SECTION ~_~. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1991. RONALD J PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held an the 11th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A:PP69REV.CC 5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 20, 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 69, Revised Prepared By: Mark Rhoades Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 69 (Revised). APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PacTel Fastrax Developer Services Request to add cellular telephone antenna equipment to an existing radio transmission tower. West of 1-15 and south of Front Street. R-R (Rural Residential) North: R- R South: R- R East: R- R West: R- R ( Rural Residential ) ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) { Rural Residential) Not requested. Radio Transmission Tower North: South: East: West: Vacant. Hillside Vacant, Hillside Vacant, Hillside Vacant, Hillside A: PP69- R EV I BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCR I PT ION: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed antenna modification application was submitted to the City of Temecula on December 12, 1990. The existing antenna was approved at its present location on August 20, 1990 by the Planning commission. The City Council approved the request on August 28, 1990. The tower was approved at a height of 120 feet, and was conditioned to be painted green to blend with the surrounding hillside vegetation. The current revised application is a request to place three (3) microdish antennas and a six foot whip antenna onto the existing tower. The proposed antennas are for cellular telephone reception and transmission. The proposed microdishes have a diameter of six feet. The whip antenna is proposed with a horizontal length of 12 feet, with vertical tips six feet high. None of the proposed additions will extend the height of the tower. All appurtenant equipment will be contained within the existing tower framework. The applicant has agreed with the conditions from the original project. Those conditions include among others, painting all new equipment green and no beacon. The proposed project is located within the R-R ( Rural Residential) zone. The use is permitted with an approved plot plan, however the City currently has an ordinance prohibiting construction of new antennas. That ordinance does have an exemption clause where projects may be approved by the City Council. It is the opinion of the Planning Staff that this project is not a substantial alteration to the existing site. Therefore, Staff recommends that an exemption be granted. The proposed project is in conformance with Ordinance 3q8 which is consistent with SWAP Guidelines. The proposed Revised Plot Plan is a Class I Categorical Exemption per the CEQA Guidelines. A: PP69- R EV 2 FINDINGS: 0 e There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 69 ( Rev. ) will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinance No. 348 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed use will be placed on an existing structure. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's existing site. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. A: PP69- R EV 3 e e The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending that the City Council approve Plot Plan No. 69 (Revised). MR: ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Exhibits A: PP69- R EV q. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 69 (REV.) TO CONSTRUCT CELLULAR TELEPHONE ANTENNA EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING TOWER ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 53.4 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF THE 1-15 AND APPROXIMATELY 2,600 FEET SOUTH OF THE TERMINUS OF FRONT STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-220-013. WHEREAS, Pacific Telephone filed Plot Plan No. 69 (Rev. ) in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on May 20, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. A: PP69- R EV 5 lb) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1} The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan, (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 69 (Rev.) proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. ( 1 ) Pursuant to Section 18.30{ c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: A: P P69- R EV 6 a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. ( 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 69 ( Rev. ) will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. c! The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinance No. 348 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed use will be placed on an existing structure. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines. A: PP69- R EV 7 f) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's existing site. g) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. h) The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. i) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The project is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines, Class I. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 69 ( Rev. ) to add cellular telephone antenna equipment on an existing tower located west of 1-15 and at 2,600 feet south of the terminus of Front Street and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-220-013 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 2, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1991. A: PP69- R EV 8 DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAI 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: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: PP69- R EV 9 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING; DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan 69, Revised Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLAN 1. 2. e e NING DEPARTMENT No Oak Trees shall be removed from the subject parcel. The antenna shall be painted green, and no beacon shall be allowed on the structure. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the City Council approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 69 Revised, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shall comply with Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Engineering Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. A: PP69-R EV 10 CITY OF TEMECULA ~) SWAP MAP P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~' 4995 ZONE MAP ) CASE P.C. D AT E C--~~l CITY OF TEMECULA ~ PROPOSED E L EVAT ION CAS~ NO.T-F'bq C~ EXHIBIT NO,I~ ~.P.C. OATE --~-20-~ ITEM NO. 25 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGE~ ~~ TO: FROM: DATE: SU BJ ECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 11, 1991 An Ordinance of The City Council of The City of Temecula, Adding Chapter 12.02 To The Temecula Municipal Code Regarding Prima Facie Speed Limits On Certain Streets PREPARED BY: Doug MacPherson, Senior Transportation Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council APPROVE the Engineering and Traffic Survey (April 1991 ) and INTRODUCE Ordinance 91- ; an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula adding Chapter 12,02 to the Temecula Municipal Code regarding prima facie speed limits on certain streets, DISCUSSION: The Traffic and Transportation Commission, at its April 2~, 1991 meeting, reviewed and recommended approval of the attached Engineering and Traffic Survey pending inclusion of additional surveys on portions of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road. The additional surveys were completed and approved by the Chairman of the Traffic and Transportation Commission and are included in the final report. California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22357 and CVC Section 22358 indicate that an Engineering and Traffic Survey must be conducted before a local authority can increase speed limits to greater than 25 mph or decrease speed limits to less than 55 mph. The prima facie speed limits which are recommended for the various streets that were surveyed are listed alphabetically in the attached Ordinance. The attached Engineering and Traffic Survey explains the basic fundamentals of speed zoning and how the specific speed limits recommended were determined. {See Summary - Page I-~ and I-5. ) The Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Sheets summarize all of the pertinent data for the three key elements of the study; i.e., ~1) Prevailing Speed Measurements, {2) Accident Records, and {3)Highway, Traffic, and Roadside Characteristics Not Readily Apparent {to the driver). B. CHAPTR12.02 In accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code, appropriate speed limit signs will need to be installed for the new speed limits to be enforced. Typically, signs will be installed where a speed zone changes, or at locations where traffic joining the street would require notice {major generators, etc.). As a preliminary estimate about 35 miles of streets will be posted at this time with about ~ signs and posts per mile {approximately 1/2 mile spacing). FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated. cost for the signing necessary for this program is approximately $30,000. The funds are available within account number 001-165-999-5q02, routine street maintenance, of the approved FY 91-92 Budget. DM: ks B.CHAPTR12.02 j e¢/OP/)113434 ~2 O~DINANCE NO. 91-__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEM~CULA, ADDING CHAPTER 12.02 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE ~EGARDING ~R/MA PACIE SPBED LIMIT~ ON CEKTAIN STREETS T~g ¢IT~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEM~.CULA DOgS ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SgCTION 1. cha~er 1~.02 tg hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to reaa as follows= #CHAPTEr: 12.02 ~2.02.010 (a) It ls hereby datermlne~ =nat the speed permitted by ~ta:e law a~ appllcaDle u~on the following s~reet~ set forth iR ~iS Sec~lon is other than is reasonable an~ ~t is hereby declared =ha~ the prima facia spo~ !tmlt shall be as ~ereln set forth on those stree:s, or parts of streets, ~erein designated where sign~ have been erec=ed g~v~ng no'~ice t~ereof. (b) The prima facie speed limit for vehicular ~rafft~ on the following streets, or port~ons of ~treets, is hereby established as hereinafter set forth, effective when · igne have been oreoted ~iving noti~ thereof, (c) Provided. fur=her, ~owever, that in any instance, where the prima facia speed limit as fixed by the YahicAo Code of the State of California is lees than the prima facia speed limit hereby determined and fixed, then the prima facia speed limit wnic~ is provided in the Vehicle Code shall be applicable. (d) The streets, on portions of streets, within the C£=y of Temeoula limits affected, end the declared prima ~acie spo~d llmit ohall be as foll~we: -1- ~ORTION .AFF~.~TED DS PotSola Road - n~CL~n pRi~a MZT,~S P~ HOUR Del Rey Road - Via Kort~ to Avenl~a Del Repo$o 35 Oiaz Road - winchester Rd. to Rancho Calif. Rd. Front Stree~ - Via Montezuma =o Rancho Calif. Rd. 45 45 R&noh~ Calif. Rd. to Santiago Rd, Front street - 9antiago Rd. to Rout~ 15 Jmfferson Avenue z5 45 so Jefferson Avenue Winche~ter Rd. to Via Montesuma 45 La Paz Street Routs 79 to ¥~m~ Road La Serena Way Margari~a Rd. - Solan& Way to South City Limit 45 Moraga Road - ~arga=it& Rd. to Rancho Calif. Rd, 4O -2- jeG/ORDl13434 NN~. OF STR~T ~Nn PORTION AFFORD Nicolas Road - Winchester Rd. to Calla Madusa FA¢,'r= SP~,ECI r,TMIT, MIT.~.g_ _P~,~t HOUR 5O Pauba Road - Ynez Rd. to East City Limit 5o Rainbow C~nyon Road - Pale Rd. to South city Limit 4O Rancho Calif. Road - west city Limit :o Diaz Rd, 5O Rancho Calif. Road - Diaz Rd. to Moraga Rd. Rancho Calif. ~uad - Muraga Rd. to Margarita Ynez Road to East City Limit 4O 50 ~ 45 Santiago Road - Front Street to ¥nez Road Solana Way - Ync= Road to Del Ray Road 45 45 via Norte - solana way =o Avertida De1 aeposo winchester Roar - Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue 35 4O Ynez Road - Winchester Road to Rancho Calif. Rd. ¥nes Road - Rancho Calif. Rd. to Jadedlab Smith 45 -3- 0~,'~/91 :1:$9 jec/ORD113434 (05/30/21-1) SECTION ~. $w91~RABILITY. The City Council here~y shall hold any menrenee, paragraph, or section o£ this Ordinance to ~e invalid, such decision shall not af£ect the va~idi%y of ~ha remalnin~ par~s of this ordinance. SECT/ON 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adop2icn of thi~ Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted' as required by law. SECTION 4. EFFeCTIVe. DATF This ordinance ~/%all be in full force and effec= thirty (30) days after it~ pa~sa~e. The ~l=y Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and caume c~piea of ~his Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting pZIOeG, SECTION $. Thi~ ordinance ~hall be in full force of the City Council Mmmbors voting thereon, ~t shall be published ~n & newspaper published and circulated in said PA$~ED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 1991, day o£ MAYOR JUNE fl. GREEK City Clerk -4- j e ¢1ox~D3, ~3434 (O~13o/~x-x) R& STATE OF CALTFOR~TA } COUNTY OF RIV~RSIDP. ) IS. CITY O~ TBMZCUIA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the city of T~maoula~ do he=~by cEl-tify thor ~he foregoing ordtneBce No. 91-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first =~ad~n~ at o r~qular meeting of ~he C~C~ COU~C11 O~ day of. , 1991. and that thereafter, said Ordinance wa~ ~uJ.y a~opced and ~assea at a regular meeting o£ the Counc~! on the __ day of , !991, by the following vote, =o wit: COUNCXLMEMBERS~ NOES: COUNCZLMEMBER~* ABBENT, COUNCILMEHB~RS~ JUNE S. GREEK CITY APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sco~ F. Field City Attorney 05~ 30.,'91 11:~9 j ec/ORD113434 (05/30/91-I ) ~ 7147551648 BWS OC 0rdin&nce No. - STATE OF '~ALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF T~MZCULA ) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING That she im the duly appointed and ~ualified City Clmrk of the City of Temecula; That in compliance with City Resolution No. 89-9 on Oe~e~.be~ 1, 1989, ORDXNANC~ NO. 91- was caused to be poe=e4 in three (3) places in the C[=y of Temecula, to wit: [¢H00S~ T~B] Temecula thembet of Commerce Temecula Community Center Tsme~ule Post Office Temecula City Hall JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK -6- CITY OF TEMECULA Engineering and Traffic Survey APRIL 1991 Prepared b*/: WILLDAN ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS LOCATION LIST PART I Introduction Data Collection Procedures Equipment Used Summary PART II Summary of Recommendations PART III Applicable Sections of California Vehicle Code Engineering and Traffic Survey Summaries Speed Data Reduction Sheets Vehicle Speed Data Sheets PaQe I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 '1-4 I1-1 II1-1 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C LOCATION LIST Street Name 1. De Portola Road 2. Del Rey Road 3. Diaz Road 4. Front Street 5. Jefferson Avenue 6. La Paz Street 7. La Serena Way 8. Margarita Road 9. Moraga Road 10. Nicholas Road 11. Pala Road 12. Pauba Road 13. Rainbow Canyon Road 14. Rancho California Road 15. Rancho Vista Road 16. Santiago Road Limit 1 Jedediah Smith Road Via Norte Winchester Road Via Montezuma Rancho California Road Santiago Road North City Limits Winchester Road Route 79 Margarita Road Solana Way Margarita Road Winchester Road Route 79 Ynez Road Pala Road West City Limit Diaz Road Moraga Road Margarita Road Ynez Road Front Street Limit 2 Margarita Road Avenida Del Reposo Rancho California Road Rancho California Road Santiago Road Route 15 Winchester Road Via Montezuma Ynez Road Calle Medusa South City Limit Rancho California Road Calle Medusa South City Limit East City Limit South City Limit Diaz Road Moraga Road Margarita Road East City Limit East City Limit Ynez Road 17. Solana Way Ynez Road Del Rey Road 18. 19. 20. Street Name Via Norte Winchester Road Ynez Road Limit I Solana Way Diaz Road Winchester Road Rancho California Road Limit 2 Avenida Del Reposo Jefferson Avenue Rancho California Road Jedediah Smith Road PART I INTRODUCTION This engineering and traffic survey is intended to be the basis for the establishment, revision, and enforcement of speed limits for selected streets within the City of Temecula. This survey was performed by the City's consultant, Willdan Associates, so that posted speed limits can be updated and new speed limits established which will enable the Police Department to deploy radar for enforcement. Engineering and traffic surveys that support the prima facie speed limit are required by Section 40801 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) before enforcement by radar is applied. The law further specifies that these surveys be conducted every five years. This provision assures that posted speed limits are kept reasonably current. The CVC (Section 40802) offers an exception to the required survey on local streets which have not been included on any Federal-aid system maps as submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. If maps have not been submitted, local streets are defined as those streets providing primary access to abutting residential property and meeting the following three conditions: 1. Roadway width of not more than 40'. Not more than one-half mile of uninterrupted length (interruptions include "Stop" signs or traffic signals). 3. Not more than one traffic lane in each direction. These engineering and traffic surveys were conducted in accordance with procedures outlined in the State of California Traffic Manual as required by Section 627 of the CVC. This section of the code further specifies the elements of an engineering and traffic survey to include: 1. measurement of prevailing speed; 2. accident history; and 3. roadway characteristics not readily apparent to the motorist. Posted speed limits are primarily established to protect the general public from the unreasonable behavior of reckless, unreliable, or otherwise dangerous drivers. They provide law enforcement with the means to identify and apprehend violators of the basic speed law (Section 22350 of the CVC). This statute states that "No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property". I-1 The basic fundamentals for the establishment of speed limits recognize that the majority of drivers behave in a safe and reasonable manner, and that the normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable driver should be considered legal. Speed limits established on these fundamentals conform to the consensus of those who drive the highway as to what speed is reasonable and safe, and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a few individuals. A radar speed survey is usually used to determine the prevailing speed of reasonable drivers. Speed limits are also established to advise of conditions which may not be readily apparent to a reasonable driver. For this reason, collision history, roadway conditions, traffic characteristics, and land use must also be analyzed before determining speed limits. Speed limit changes are usually coordinated with visible changes in roadway conditions or roadside developments. Unusually short zones of less than one-half mile in length should be avoided to reduce confusion. An additional factor is the generally accepted fact that speed limits cannot be successfully enforced without voluntary compliance by a majority of drivers. Consequently, only the driver whose behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic is usually considered a violator for enforcement purposes. DATA COLLECTION Data was obtained regarding the prevailing speed of vehicles, traffic collisions, visibility restrictions, roadway conditions, pedestrian activities, on-street parking, proximity of schools, and land use adjacent to the roadways. Radar speed measurements were conducted during the month of February 1991, at sixty-five locations. The measurements were charted on Vehicle Speed Data Sheets which are included in Appendix C of this report. The results of the speed measurements are also presented on the Engineering and Traffic Survey Forms in Appendix A. Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions were analyzed for conditions not readily apparent to motorists. The criteria and operational procedures described below were applied during the use of electronic radar to measure vehicle speeds on selected streets within the City of Temecula. Twenty-seven street segments were surveyed. Traffic in both directions was recorded. The specific location on each street segment was selected after considering the following: 1. Minimum stop sign or traffic signal influence. 2. Minimum visibility restrictions. Non-congested traffic flow away from intersections, major driveways, crosswalks, railroad crossings, and unusual turning movements. Minimum influence from parked vehicles, dips, curves, or roadway conditions that would affect the normal operation of a vehicle. The hours of radar operation were restricted to off-peak periods for heavily traveled streets, and to non-congested peak periods on lightly traveled streets. All surveys were conducted I-2 in clear weather. The radar unit was utilized and sustained in an unmarked vehicle. An average of 100 samples were obtained on each street segment. The accident rate is expressed in accidents per million vehicle miles. The accident data was obtained from information provided by State-wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWlTRS) for the City. For the purpose of this study, information for the calendar years 1988, 1989, and 1990 was used. Traffic volumes and street segment lengths were obtained from information provided by the City. Other field information and observations relative to roadway conditions were made by members of the consultant's traffic engineering staff. PROCEDURES The results of the radar speed measurements were computed and analyzed and are summarized on the Engineering and Traffic Survey Forms. Significant values obtained from the computations are as follows: The Critical Speed, or 85th percentile.speed, is that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. This speed is the primary guide in determining w~at the majority of drivers believe is safe and reasonable. Speed limits set higher than the Critical Speed are not considered reasonable and safe. Speed limits set lower than the critical speed make a large number of reasonable drivers "unlawful", and do not facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. Therefore, the accepted practice is to set the speed limit at or within the 5 mph increment below the Critical Speed unless other factors require a lower limit. Speed limits set on this basis provide law enforcement officials with a means of controlling reckless or unreliable drivers who do not conform to what the majority finds reasonable. The 10 mph pace is the 10 mph speed range which contains the most vehicles. It is a measure of the dispersion of speeds within the samples surveyed. The accepted practice is to keep the speed limit within the 10 mph pace after considering the Critical Speed and any factors requiring a speed lower than the Critical Speed. The accident data for each street segment was compared to accident rates that can be reasonably expected to occur on streets and highways considering the volume of traffic accommodated. These anticipated accident rates have been developed by Los Angeles County Road Department and are considered reasonable for use in the City of Temecula. As previously indicated, speed limits are usually set at or near the critical speed unless there are other factors not readily apparent to a reasonable motorist which may justify a lower limit. The field review of the selected street segments in the City considered the following factors: 1. Street width and alignment. 2. Pedestrian activity and traffic flow characteristics. I-3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Number of lanes, and other channelization and striping patterns. Frequency of intersections, driveways, and on-street parking. Location of stop signs, traffic signals, and other regulatory traffic control devices. Visibility obstructions. Land use and the proximity of schools. Uniformity with existing speed zones in adjacent jurisdictions. Any other unusual condition not readily apparent to the driver. EQUIPMENT USED The radar equipment used to collect speed measurements for this survey is a Road Runner Model Hand Held Traffic Radar manufactured by Kustom Signals, Inc., of Chanute, Kansas. The unit was calibrated before each series of measurements were taken. Tests of the unit were conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. SUMMARY The Engineering and Traffic Survey Sheets, presented in the Appendix, illustrate results of a thorough evaluation of the available data and indicate a recommended speed limit for each street segment surveyed. A complete summary of each recommendation is shown in Part II of this report. In each case, the recommended speed limit is consistent with the prevailing behavior as demonstrated by the radar speed measurements. Typically, a figure in the upper range of the 10 mile pace was selected unless an accident rate significantly higher than expected was discovered or roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver were identified. Roadway conditions such as width, number of lanes; traffic control devices, and properly identified schools are readily apparent to the driver and should not influence the results of the engineering and traffic survey. The Legislature, in adopting Section 22358.5 of the CVC, has made it clear that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning. The basic speed law presented in Section 22350 is sufficient to regulate such conditions. The recommendations contained in this report are intended to establish prima facie speed limits. Prima facie limits attempt to advise the motorist, and enforcement of the reasonable speed for a particular section of highway for prevailing conditions. They are not intended to be absolute. All violations of these speed limits are actually violations of the basic speed law (Section 22350 of the CVC). This statute states that a person shall not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is safe, having regard for traffic, roadway, and weather conditions. A prima facie limit merely suggests a safe speed under normal conditions. In many cases, the recommendations made produce a uniform speed limit along the road. To this end, the speed limits in adjacent jurisdictions were considered, as well as along the various street segments surveyed within the City of Temecula. I-5 11-1 11-2 PART III BASIC SPEED LAW CVC Section 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. SPEED LAW VIOLATIONS CVC Section 22351. (a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law. (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in CVC Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did .not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS CVC Section 22353. The prima facie limits are as follows and the same shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof: (a) Fifteen miles per hour: (1) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last 100' of the approach to the crossing the driver does not have clear and unobstructed view of the crossing and of any traffic on the railway for a distance of 400' in both directions along such railway. This subdivision does not apply in the case of any railway grade crossing where a human flagman is on duty or a clearly visible electrical or mechanical railway crossing signal device is installed but does not then indicate the immediate approach of a railway train or car. (2) When traversing any intersection of highways if during the last 100' of his approach to the intersection the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for a distance of 100' along all such highways, except at an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by official traffic control signals. (3) On any alley. II1-1 (b) Twenty-five miles per hour: (1) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code. (2) When passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. Such prima facie limit shall also apply when passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. INCREASE OF LOCAL LIMITS CVC Section 22357. Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey that a speed greater than 25 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, ~0, 45, or 50 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The declared prima facie or maximum speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street and shall not thereafter be revised except upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey. The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect to any 25 mph prima facie limit which is applicable when passing a school building or the grounds thereof. DECREASE OF LOCAL LIMITS CVC Section 22358. Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey that the limit of 55 miles per hour is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of any street other than a state highway where the limit of 55 miles per hour is acceptable, the local authority may by ordinance, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, or 25 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, which declared prima facie limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street. DOWNWARD SPEED ZONING CVC Section 22358.5. It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of CVC Section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions. 111-2 BOUNDARY LINE STREETS CVC Section 22359. With respect to boundary line streets and highways where portions thereof are within different jurisdictions, no ordinance adopted under Sections 22357 and 22358 shall be effective as to any such portion until all authorities having jurisdiction of the portions of the street concerned have approved the same. This section shall not apply in the case of boundary line streets consisting of separate roadways within different jurisdictions. SPEED TRAP PROHIBITION CVC Section 40802. A "speed trap" is either of the following: (a) A particular section of highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance. (b) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit provided by this code or by local ordinance pursuant to Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3 which speed limit is not justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, .and where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of a moving object. ' For purposes of this Section, local streets end road shall be defined by the latest functional usage and federal-aid system maps as submitted to the. Federal Highway Administration. When these maps have not been submitted, the following definition shall be used: A local street or road primarily provides access to abutting residential property and shall meet the following three conditions: 1. Roadway width of not more than 40'. Not more than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control devices as defined in Section 445. 3. Not more than one traffic lane in each direction. SPEED TRAP EVIDENCE CVC Section 40803. (a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person for an alleged violation of this code when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap. (b) In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in subdivision (b) of CVC Section 40802. Evidence that a Traffic and Engineering Survey has been conducted within five years of the date of the alleged violation or evidence that the offense was committed on a local street or road as defined in subdivision (b) of C¥C Section 40802 shall constitute a prima facie case that the evidence or testimony is not based upon a speed trap as defined in subdivision (b) of CVC Section 40802. 111-4 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: DePortola Road between Jedediah Smith I~dHargarita Road PART I: Year of Survey I 1991 PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/6/91 I 85%ile 34.14 I 39-4R (4q.77) None 42.5 I 51.54 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 3 2.01 2.46 PART II1' HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 Average Daily Traffic 1300 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 50 MPH CiTY OF TEEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: De] Rey Rd. between .Via Norte '~ and Avenida Del Reposo Year of Survey 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85%ile 2/12/91 30.74 I 35.69 32-41 (69.39) 35 41.42 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 4 1.22 2.46 PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 Average Daily Traffic 2000 (Est.) 3/91 Sight Distance Limited by Horizontal and Vertical £mmrv¢~ RECOMMENDATION 35 NPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Diaz Road between Winchester Rd.and Rancho Calif. Road Year of Survey I 1991 PART !: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/4/91 I 85%ile 32.29 I 39.10 35-44 (61.55) None 45.46 PART Ih ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate lqRR-lqqR 10 0.83 2.46 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE .CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions 3/91 None PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 Average Daily Traffic 7300 RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Front Street between Via Montezuma and Rancho Calif. Road Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15o/oile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85% ile 2/14/91 35.25 I 40.56 36-45 (70.64) 40 I 46.06 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 47 2.02 2.46 PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 Average Daily Traffic 23,600 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 45 ~PH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Front Street between Rancho Calif. and Santiaqo Road Rd. PART I: Year of Survey I PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT 1991 Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/14/91 I 85°/oile 24.29 I 28.13 23.52 (81.90) 25 PART I1: ACCIDENT RE '"ORDS 31.73 Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 55 3.92 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions 3/91 Narrow Roadway On Street Parking with High Turn Over. High Pedestrian Volumes "01d Town" Tourist Attraction PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 17,100 RECOMMENDATION 25 NPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Fr'nnt c, trppt between C, anti~gn RH_ and I~ute 15 PART I: Year of Survey I 1991 PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/14/91 I 85O/oi e 36.05 I 38-47 (66.34) None 41.50 47.17 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 10 0.71 2.46 PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 17,100 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH CITY Of TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Jefferson Ave. between No. City Limits and Winchester Road Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/19/91 I 85%ile 38.17 I 44.11 40-49 (60.77) None 150.63 PART Ih ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 NnnP Availship PARTIll: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 7,600 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 50 ~PH CITY OF TEMECU ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Jefferson Ave. betweenWinchester Rd. and Via Montezuma Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85%ile 2/19/91 34.00 I 39.64 36-45 (71.0) 4O 44.0 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 52 2.24 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geornetrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 23,600 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: La Paz Street between Highway 79 and YnP7 Rnad Year of Survey I 1991 PART I' PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50°/oile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/5/91 [ 85°/°ile ?7_q~ [ 33_68 30-39 (71.43) Nnnp J 37_81 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 2 7.30 2.46 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 1000 (Est.) 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 35 MPH CI'I'Y' OF TEMECUI_A ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street:La Serena Way between Margarita Rnad and Calle Medusa Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85%ile 2/14/91 33.32 I 39.90 37-46 (58.23) None 46.35 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 0.15 2.46 PART IIh APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE .CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY 3/91 None Rancho Elementary School PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 4000 RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH CITY Of TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street:Margarita Road betweenSolana Way and South City Limit Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85% ile 2/6/91 34.73 I 41.55 37-46 (6o.11) None 47.49 PART Ih ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents ' Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 23 1.18 PaRtIll: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDECHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 3/91 None Sparkman Elem. School - T.V. High School Margarita Biddle Schoo! - Temecula ~iddle School 4,300 RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: ~i:r_a.o.a Roadbetween Margari ;-.a Rd. andRannhn Ca] if. I~d. Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85%ile 2/11/91 33.47 J 37.55 34-43 (77.14) None 42.06 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 3 2.73 2.46 PARTIll: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICSNOTREADILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 4000 (Est.) .3/91 None l'emecula Middle School RECOMMENDATION 40 MPH CI'FY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street:' NicoJas Road betweenWinchester Rd. andCalie Medusa PART I: Year of Survey I PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT 1991 Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50°/oile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/4/91 I 85O/oi,e 40.80 I 47.58 43-52 (59.83) PART II: ACCIDENT RECORDS None 54.20 Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 5 0.62 2.46 PARTIll: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDECHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 4,200 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 50 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Pala Road between Highway 79 and South Cit.y Limits Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15% ile I 50% ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/14/91 I 85O/oi e 41.4 I 48.0 43-52 (55-65) Non~ 55.2 PART II: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 11 0.49 2.46 PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT .READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 9,200 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION No Posted Speed Limit CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street. Pauba Ro~d between Ynez Road and East City Limit Year of Survey 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85%ile 2/13/91 38.09 41-50 I 46.09 (54.83) None 53.28 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-4990 0 0 2.46 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 3/91 None 1989 ADT 2750 RECOMMENDATION 50 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Rainbow Canyon between Pala Road Rd. and South City Limits Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey '15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85% ile 2/5/91 27.92 I 34.9 ~l_4n (61_88) None 42.75 PART Ih ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 5 0.15 2.46 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 245O 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 40 MPH CiTY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Rancho Calif. between~lest City Limit and Diaz Road Rd. Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85%ile ?/~/q~ 39.42 I 45.83 41-50 (60.40) None I 52.06 PART 3CIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 9 0.92 2.46 PARTIll: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDECHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 890O 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 50 I~PH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Rancho Ca]i.f. between Dia7 Road Rd. and Mnr~ga Rnad PART I: Year of Survey 11991 PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50°/°ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 4/30/91 j 85%ile 30.0 J 37.0 34-43 (61.0) 35 43.0 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 90 6.54 2.46 PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 3/91 None 13,700 RECOMMENDATION 40 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Ranchn Ca] if. between Nlnraga I~nad Rd. and Margarita Road Year of Survey I 1991 PART h PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15% ile I 50% ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/4/91 I 85%ile 42.03 I 4R.7~ 41-~ (7q_71) None I 50 28 PART Ih ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 25 2.00 2.46 PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions 3/91 None PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 13,700 RECOMMENDATION 50 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Rancho Calif. between Margarita Rd. and East City Limit Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50% ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I85°/°ile 46.00 I52.83 48-57 (61.00) None J 58.43 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1q90 31 1.42 2.46 PART i11: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADt 10,000 (Est.) 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION No Posted Speed Limit CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Rancho Vista between Ynez Road RQ. and East City Limit Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85% ile 2/14/91 33.56 I 40.23 38-47 (58.28) None 46.89 PART Ih ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 6 0.21 2.46 PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions 3/91 Vail Elementary Schoo! T. V. High School PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 8000 RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Santiago Rd. between Front St. and Ynez Road Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/6/91 I85%ile 35.25I 36-45 (67.62) None 46.08 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate lqRR-lqqo 2 1.38 2.46 PART II1: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 2650 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH C!'T'Y OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 62~ Street: Solana Way between Ynez Road and De! Rey Road PART h Year of Survey I PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT 1991 Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85%ile 2/13/91 35~15 I 40.54 36r47 (63.78) -None 46.66 PART Ih ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expecte;d Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 5 0.37 2.46 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections. other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS ~9~9 ADT 7500 ~/ql None RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street:Via Norte between Solana Way and Avenida De] Reposo PART I: Year of Survey, I PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT 1991 Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit I 85%ile 2/11/91 30.72 I 36.29 32-41 ~;66.74) 35 41.73 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 3 0.68 2.46 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS. 1989 ADT 2000 (Est.) I/q1 sight Distance Limited by Horizontal and Vertical Curves. RECOMMENDATION 35 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street.~inchester Rd. between Diaz Road and Jefferson Ave. Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit ?14191 I 85%ile 30.38 I 36.29 33-42 (67.65) None 41.14 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate ~988-1990 7 1.53 2.46 PARTIll: HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICSNOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 8350 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 40 NPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Ynez Road'. between Winchester Rd. and Rancho Calif. Road Year of Survey I 1991 PART I: PREVAILI.NG SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit 2/6/91 J 85O/oile 37.04I , 3.08 37 -46 (68.16) 35 J 47.98 PART Ih ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 46 2.92 2.46 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 820O 3/91 None RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY (CVC SEC. 627) Street: Ynez Road between Rancho Calif. and Jedediah Smith Road Rd. Year of Survey I 1991 PARTI: PREVAILING SPEED MEASUREMENT Location of Survey Date of Survey 15%ile I 50%ile 10 mph pace (% of Veh) Posted Speed Limit j 85%ile 37.61 I 43.68 38-47 (58.59) 45 50.72 PART I1: ACCIDENT RECORDS Time Period Covered Number of Intersection Accidents Mid-Block Mid-Block Accident Rates per Million Vehicle Miles Expected Mid-Block Accident Rate 1988-1990 9 0.45 2.46 PART IIh HIGHWAY, TRAFFIC, AND ROADSIDE.CHARACTERISTICS NOT READILY APPARENT Date Observations Made HIGHWAY: Geometrics, access (driveways, intersections, other) TRAFFIC: Pedestrians, parking turnover, school crossings ROADSIDE: Land uses not apparent (park, school, etc.) other conditions PART IV: ADDITIONAL REMARKS 1989 ADT 8200 3/91 . Sight Distance Limited by Horizontal and Vertical Curves. RECOMMENDATION 45 MPH ITEM NO. 26 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER,.~ CITY MANAGER DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT June 11, 1991 City Council Mar~enduszko, Assistant City Manager REQUEST FOR FUNDING: FARMERS MARKET (OLD TOWN TEMECULA MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION) RECOMMENDA T/ON: It is recommended that the City Council provide a contribution to the Farmer's Market equal to the cost of City application fees (minimum of $3,231) and provide city departmental support as appropriate. DISCUSSION: Attached is a request from the Old Town Temecula Merchants Association for city financial assistance in the initiation of a Farmers Market at 28545 Front Street. It is planned that the Farmer's Market will operate on a weekly basis (Thursdays, 3:30 - 7:30 p.m.), and provide a venue through which local farmers can sell fresh produce. The market is projected to be an "event" which draws people, provides entertainment, and augments business sales in the Old Town area. The Old Town Temecula Merchants Association (OTTMA) has asked the City for assistance in the following ways: 1) 2) 3) Waiving of fees and permits; Pre-Market publicity money; Cost of liability insurance to cover event; 4) 5) 6) 7) Cost of porta-potties; Cost of temporary power and permit; Site preparation; Cooperation of City departments which control planning and events. According to the budget comments section of the submitted materials, it is OTTMA's intention to withhold 1% of sales receipts in a contingency fund to pay for second year expenses and insurance. The amount of the request varies dependent on the cost of city application fees, but ranges from $10,243 to the Merchant's Association estimate of $13,012. Because this event can benefit the Old Town area (and has the potential of increasing sales of local businesses), it is staff's recommendation that a monetary contribution equal to the cost of application fees, and a service contribution providing appropriate departmental support be approved for this program. FISCAL IMPACT: If staff's recommendation is approved, all costs could be absorbed indirectly, and.no appropriation would be required. ATTACH: OTTMA FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE; SUBJECT: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Steve Jiannino, Senior Planner May 21, 1991 Application Fees For Proposed Farmers Market Pursuant to your request for a determination of staff time required to review a Conditional Use Permit for the Old Town Farmers Market, I have estimated the following minimum staff hours: Initial Case Review DRC Preparation of Staff Report Preparation of Conditions Public Hearing 3 Hrs Senior Planner 3 Hrs Clerical 2 Hrs ~ $61.00/Hr = $122.00 3 Hrs ~ 61.00/Hr = 183.00 2 Hrs ~ 61.00/Hr = 122.00 1 Hr ~ 61.00/Hr = 122.00 I Hr ~ 61.00/Hr = 122.00 3 Hrs 0 80.00/Hr = 122.00 3 Hrs ~ 38.00/Hr = 122.00 $ 903. O0 Estimated Engineering Department Fee $1,000.00 Initial Study Fee 613.00 + $5.00 per acre Traffic Study (if required) 780.00 The fee for filing of a Plot Plan which is not exempt from CEQA is the most comparable application fee and has the following department breakdown: Planning Department Environmental Health Fire Department Building and Safety Department Engineering Department Transportation Plan 1, ~83. O0 120.00 ;tO7. O0 2~4. O0 1,078. O0 119.00 3,231.00 Please note that these estimates are an anticipated minimum necessary for processing of this case. Due to the potential for controversy, or if it is determined that fees will be waived or significantly reduced, it will be necessary for any work performed on this case over the amount charged to be billed to the City on a time and materials basis if the fees are reduced from the standard CUP fees. SJ:ks PLANN I NG\FARMERS. NKT\ks Temecula erchant A::oc:at:on ~.,' Apri 1 ._~O.~.Cl.~ ~98~ · Te~ecu~a, ~a~i~o~ia 9~90 Mr. David Dixon City Manager City of Temecula P.O. Box 5()00 Temecula, Ca 92590 Dear Mr. Dixon: The Old Town Temecula Merchants Association has established a Farmer's Market Steering Committee which has been meeting for two months, laying the groundwork for a Certified Farmer~s Market to be located in Old Town. As our letter of intent, dated February 14, 1~1, stated that we wish to offer a venue in which area farmers may sell local produce, residents may buy produce picked that day, and local merchants may benefit from bringing business to Old Town. In addition, we will offer a community table to highlight local events and non-profit organizations. In order to produce a viable market, we must ask the city for help in the following: 1. Waiving of fees and permits 2. Pre-market publicity money Cost of additional insurance to cover the event 4. Cost of porta-potties 5. Cost of temporary power and permit Site preparation 7. Cooperation of city departments which control planning and events. The total amount o the request is $15,012.00. We have sought sponsors for additional money, and those companies from whom we have gotten bids have been very considerate. In addition, the consultant, Mary Hillebrecht, and the market manager, Gall Cunningham, have donated all pre-opening services. Basically, once the market makes a good beginning~ farm vendor fees pay for the salary needs of management and for ongoing publicity. We have enclosed detailed plans and a budget. We would appreciate being placed on the city agenda at the earliest possible time in order to proceed with the projected grand opening date of ~une ~. Sincerely, Jeanette Co]burn, chairperson BUSINESS PLAN Desc~itption of the market: This is a Certified Farmer~s Market offering fruit, berries, vegetables, nuts, honey, eggs, flowers, plants etc., by 20-25 vendors· There will be four (4) organic farmers incloded. m The market will be located at 28545 Front Street, fifty-two ( ~ weeks 5~) every Thursday from 3:30 to 7:30, fifty-two (52) weeks a year. The average weekly attendance is estimated at 1000. The grand opening attendance is estimated at 1500. ' The annual income is estimated at $180,000.00 to vendors alone. 5. A community table will be available to civic groups. · 6. Small groups will present entertainment at the site. The market manager and his/her assistant will be contract employees. The OTTMA Steering Committee will operate the market for the first six (6) months as the market organizers. The Committee will have representation from OTTMA, TTA, the community at large, local farmers, and a location representative. As soon as possible, the committee will apply for non-profit status and pay a small salary to a market organizer. Clean up will be the responsibility of the market manager. 10. For services like grading and wetting the site, we will rely on donations. I:11 II]F. FT ~FIl','ll','ll::'l'dTq Income will be based on a stall. rental fee of $10.00/week per vendor or 6% of the gross, whichever is greater. One (1) ~ercent will go to a contingency fund. As the market grows, vendors will increase to an average of twenty-five (25) per wee[::. The expected annual gross for' the first year is $180,000.00. The increased income in the one (1) percent contingency will be held in a seperate bank account to pay for next years liability insurance, and other expenses. There will also be an increase in the farm market manager"s salary as market responsibilities grow. This request is for' the opening budget of $13,012.00. The benefits to the city will be reflectd in improved sales tax in Old Town. As we continue to make Temecula a destination place for tourists, we also must work to keep the Old Town area a viable business community. CERTIFIED FARMERS" MARKET OPENING BUDGET thru June 30, 1991 Liability Insurance Market Organizer's salary 4 months at 1000.00 (donated) Pre-paid annual porta-potties 12 months at 78.50 / 2 units City fees Request for waiver TemPorary power · Donated installation / removal 975.00 Entertainment (opening event) clown music (donated CCMA) Publicity Edison permit temporary power Scale Inspection Miscellaneous copies, postage, phone, travel contingency, banners, flags, signage Site preparation Property rental $1.00 / month $ 2000.00 0 942.00 6000.00 0 100.00 0 2500.00 178.00 70.00 81 (]. 00 400.00 12.00 $13,012.00 OF'ERATI NG R~ I~-)~p-T JULY 1991 -JULY 1992 INCOME Stall fees Sponsors $10,500. O0 EXPENSES Market mgr. salary 52 wks./$100.00 $ 5, ~ (_~ .). 00 500.00 Asst. manager 1,300.00 52 wks. /$25.00 ' Office supplies postage, copies, phone. Adv. F'romotion ~ mo./$100.00 Incorporation exp. 600.00 i, 200.00 120.00 $11,000.00 $8,420.00 TRAFFIC AND PARKING PLAN Meet with Chief of Police and go over site and discuss crowd size, traffic flow and surrounding neighborhood Will provide permanent no parking signs for the lot Will provide map of area to show parking, traffic flow, already designated private parking areas. Will rope off front of lots every Thursday morning. Will put out signs directing people to Chapparal parking lot to park. GRAND OPENING CCWMA small group entertainment Mayor, short opening greeting Free single rose for first 100 present Hot air jumper Dizzy Darla Clown KRTM remote Balloons Information table Signage PUBLICITY PLAN 5. 6. 7. 1. 'General information press release, radio F'SI 4/15 2. Flyers printed for farmers 4/15 3. Sponsors letter 4/15 4. News advertising - bids from three local papers for six (6) week contracts to cover 21.]i of budget for grand opening. Temecula, Sun City, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Fallbrook, Hemet, Wildomar, Menifee, Quail Valley $1900.00 Radio spots - KHI, KRTM $600.00 Banners, flags, cow signs, etc. $400.00 Additional press releases for Grand Opening, special events. 8. Country Review Old Town Temecu. la erchant . oc at on P.O. Box 1981 Temecula, C, alifomia 92390 City .of Temecula P.O. Box .5000 Temecula., Ca 92390 Attn: Re: David Dixon, City Manager Certified Farmer's Market / Old Town Temecula Dear Mr. Dixon: This letter is a statement of intent on the part of OTTMA to- operate and sponsor a Certified Farmer's Market in Old Towm Temecula. It is our intention 'to cooperate with the Town Association and the local Temecula Farm Center representative, OTTMA Farmer's Market chairperson, Events Chairperson of TTA, and consultation from the Southland Certified Farmer's Market Association, the County of 'Riverside, and the City of Temecula. It is our intent to operate with an experienced Certified Farmer's Market manager, and continued consultation with the above mentioned groups. Our goals are to offer fresh farm products to the community, provide a market for local farmers, bring shoppers to Old Town, and serve as a unifying community meeting place where local events and services may be highlighted. A successful market will require'proper Old Town lighting, adequate advertising money, and the cooperation of the city, merchants, and farm community. Our lead time is approximately three (5) months. We will present a detailed plan, OTTMA official sponsorship and property owner approval at the earliest possible time for final approval. Your consideration and cooperation are appreciated. Please notify alal proper city departments of our intent and inform us of what the city will require in the form of permits and who the proper liason person would be. Sincerely, Lucia Becker, President OLD I, Ladd Penfold Temecula Farmer's lot # 95545 Front St. Tem. on Thursday PERMISSION LETTER TOWN TEMECULA FARMER'S MARKET COMMITTEE herby give permission Steering Committee to use my STEERING to tile Old Town property 'forVendors, .Parking, EntertaiD~en.[ ~dors~, parkins,'en~ertainment afternoons, weekly, in 1991 from 2:30 to 8:30. I understand that the OTTMA has liability insurance event and a special rider naming me specif~cally is The. Committee agrees to leave the property clean.- coveri,lg the available. The agreement will be enforce. until the property is sold or leased. At which time the Old Town Temecula Merchants Association will be notified in writing of the changed. Liability Insurance policy binder naming Ladd L. and Marge Penfold in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) to cover said ~e, rty. $1.00 a year for consideration. ADDRESS DATE .i. . AGREEMENT BETWEEN OLD TOWN TEMECULA MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION AND GALE CUNNINGHAM FOR CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION SERVICES FOR A FARMERS' MARKET IN OLD TOWN TEMECULA Whereas, Old Town Temecula Merchants Association (OTTMA) desires to sponsor a weekly Farmers' Market in the Temecula downtown area; and Whereas, OTTMA desires to employ someone with the experience and the resources necessary to coordinate a Farmers' Market; and Whereas, OTTMA has determined that Gale Cunningham possesses the experience and resources needed to provide consulting services with OTrMA and coordinate a successful Farmers' Market. Therefore, both parties enter into an agreement for services with the following conditions: PRE-MARKET RESPONSIBILITIES As a pre-market consultant, Gale Cunningham will have the following responsibilities: Meet with the OTrMA Farmers' Market Steering Committee and help delineate the goals of the site location. Deal with the appropriate enforcement agencies to obtain the proper permits and certificates for the market. Maintain the coordination of activities with affected businesses, farmers, consumers and City personnel. o Recruit an adequate number of growers with a wide variety of high quality commodities. These commodities shall be limited to produce, flowers, nursery products, and certain other farm related products. There shall be no crafts sold at the market. 5. Establish quality control to maintain high market standards. 6. Establish a Certified Farmers' Market. Write a set of market rules and review them with the O'I'I'MA Farmers' Market Steering Committee. 8. Develop necessary lomas (i.e. load lists) required for the market operation. go Prepare seasonal list of commodities available and seek growers of those commodities. 10. Maintain copies of current certificates and employee agreements. 11. Research site and market requirements in order to avoid enforcement problems, coordinate solutions with site representatives. 12. Communicate with and assist site personnel in any way necessary to ensure a successful market. OPERATING MARKET RESPONSIBILrrlES Once the Farmers' Market is operating, Gale Cunningham will have the following responsibilities: Handle all business functions with County Health Department, City departments and other regulatory agency officials. Be involved in all market dealings with the market site business operators and City officials. Coordinate with the State's Direct Marketing Program, other Farmers' Markets and their managers, and with local Farmers' Market Associations. 4. Help coordinate publicity and advertising for the markets. 5. Complete and file market day reports and annual reports. 6. Distribute report information when needed to the appropriate parties. Develop and maintain a yearly plan in calendar form and review it with the OTTMA Farmers' Market Steering Committee. o Continually work to maintain an adequate number of farmers to supply consumer demand in terms of variety and quality. Enforce rules and laws, paying particular attention to public safety in and around the market. 10. Help set up each market before opening and help clean the site after each closing. 11. Plan and direct vehicle placement and check load lists as farmers arrive. 12. Deal with all emergencies and complaints, coordinating with other responsible parties. 2 Co 13. Collect fees from farmers and deliver to Farmers' Market Steering Committee Chairman together with reconciliation sheet of sales and fees. 14. Attend Market Steering Committee meetings and other meetings of concern involving market operations. 15. Maintain an awareness of farmer and volunteer feelings on issues concerning the market and keep the market Board and other interested parties informed. 16. Meet with City officials when necessary to review the operations of the market and determine how operations can be improved in the areas of safety, cleanliness and business operator satisfaction. FEEs AND CHARGES For, and in consideration of performance of the previously listed responsibilities, Gale Cunningham will receive the following consideration: 1. A weekly fee of $100 plus $12.50 per hour. Reimbursement of all direct expenses in licenses, telephone, copies, etc. All billings are to be submitted on a monthly basis to the OTTMA Farmers' Market Steering Committee Chairperson with support for expenses and hours. TERMINATION Either party shall have the right to terminate this agreement by providing written notice thirty (30) days in advance of the termination. TERM This agreement shall take effect April 15, 1991. Chairperson OTTMA Farmers' Market Steering Committee Gale Cunningham Market Manager ITEM NO. 27 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department June 11, 1991 Memorandum of Understanding I M. O. U. ) for Johnson Tractor Property PREPARED BY: R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: DISCUSSION: Gary Thornhill That the City Council APPROVE the Memorandum of Understanding between the Johnson Tractor Property Owner and the City of Temecula. The attached M.O.U. is the result of several months of discussions with Johnson Tractor Property representative relative to annexation of the property into the City of Temecula. The M.O.U. sets forth certain terms between the two parties relative to the annexation of the property and development entitlements. The subject site is approximately 1,765 acres of unimproved property located near Anza and Borel Roads in the unimproved area of the County just to the northeast of the City of Temecula. The applicant is proposing to develop the property with a wide mix of commercial, residential, institutional, and open space uses. The proposed Specific Plan for the property provides for 2,647 units on the 1,765 acre site. The M.O.U., recognizing that the City would realize substantial socio-economic and infrastructure benefits if the project were to be annexed into the City, provides for certain assurances to the applicant relative to the processing of entitlements, imposition of development fees, and the financing of public improvements relating to the project. A:MEM-OF.UND 1 The applicant, in turn, agrees to support the City's efforts relative to the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence. It should be noted. however. that nothing contained in the M.O.U. would limit the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or City Council relative to development proposals covered by this M. O. U. GT: ks A:MEM-OF.UND 2 MEMORANDUlq OF UNDERSTAND'rNG ,Yohnson Ranch This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and Johnson Tractor Company, a California corporation '("Property Owner") to be effective as of June 11, 1991. REC~A~ A. Property Owner is the fee owner of approximately one thousand seven hundred sixty-five (1,765) acres of unimproved land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside ("County") as described on the attached legal description and vicinity map marked Exhibits "A" and "A-i" attached and made a part herein by this reference (the "Property"). B. The Property is proposed to be developed with mixed uses consisting of a maximum of 2,647 residential units, hotel resort, neighborhood commercial, polo field/equestrian center, two golf courses, two school sites, parks and natural open space (the "Project"). A copy of the Project land use plan map is attached marked Exhibit "B" and made a part herein. C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and Property Owner acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such 05-ZZ-91 18097- G: ~D0C\152\9104,00~?.~ii~ as police, fire, schools, recreation, and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Property Owner contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality master planned residential-development, hotel-resort, equestrian center and golf courses creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City and regional traffic infrastructure systems. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and impact mitigation fees. (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Active support for the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence and cooperation in the future annexation of the Property to the City. WHEREFORE, City and Property Owner by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence and the eventual annexation of the Property to the City. NOW THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Property Owner may process the Project EIR, specific plan, zoning and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County or initiate these entitlement permits in the City, at Property Owner's option. 05-77-91 18097-00001 G: ¥)0C\15Z\910/,(037.~U) 2 Property Owner may, at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County, transfer those entitlement permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the Project EIR, specific plan, zone change and other entitlement permit applications relating to the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status without the necessity of refiling those applications. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City in an amount mutually agreed to in writing between the City and Property Owner. 2. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Project specific plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. 3. City and Property Owner will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Property Owner's fair share cost and method of financing construction of public improvements relating to the Project. 4. City and Property Owner agree that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee. City agrees that the amount of the fee shall be fixed as provided in an annexation and development agreement vesting the Project land uses relating to the Property to be negotiated between the parties at a later date. With regards to residential development, the City's public facilities fee shall be no greater than the County development mitigation fee established by County Ordinance No. 659. 5. Upon the request of Property Owner, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure facilities, lands, and 05-ZZ-91 18097'*_~1 G :'~DOC\lSZ\9104~X~?.ma) 3 improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located on-site or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out a public financing program to benefit the Project. 6. Property Owner agrees that it will support the City in theprocessing and approval of the City's sphere of influence and annexation applications for the inclusion of the Property within the City and not oppose said applications before LAFCO or any other government bodies having jurisdiction over said applications. Concurrent with the execution of this MOU, Property Owner agrees to sign and submit a letter to the City supporting the City's sphere of influence application before LAFCO in the form substantially the same as the letter attached as Exhibit "C". 7. In addition to this MOU, City and Property Owner may enter into an annexation and/or development agreement relative to the Property which will more specifically set forth the development obligations and vested land use rights relating to the Property and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. It is the City's intent and City agrees that it will not impose a separate fee or add any additional amount to the public facilities fee as "extra consideration" for approving an annexation and/or development agreement. 8. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Property Owner and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as (i) the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence; (ii) annexation of the Property to the City; (iii) amendment of the City's general plan and zoning ordinances; and (iv) the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by 05-Z2-91 18097'-__n0~__1 discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as precommitting or requiring the Planning Commission or the City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, financing district or other planning, zoning, or subdivision relating to the Property. WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this MOU as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEMECULA, a California municipal corporation ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula JOHNSON TRACTOR COMPANY, California corporation William RF J~hns~, President/ t/ 05-;:)-91 1~0~F/'-00001 G: %DOC\15Z%91040(X37.3m) 5 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Sections 15, 16, the South quarter of Section 10 and Fractional Section 22, all in Township 7 South, Range 2 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. RESERVING THEREFROM A NON--EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: The Westerly 30 feet of the South quarter of Section 10, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The Westerly 30 feet of Section 15, and Fractional Section 22, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The Easterly 30 feet of Section 16, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. 05-2Z-91 VICINITY ~.P 05-2Z-~1 180~-00001 o~ EXHZBTT LAND USE PLAN 05-ZZ-91 18097- G: ~C~152~9104~X3?.:3m) Z < Z < z~ EXHIBIT LETTER SUPPORTING CITYtS L~FCO SPHERE ~PPL~CAT~ON , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula. Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: I am the President of Johnson Tractor Company, the owner of a 1,765 acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside, commonly known as "Johnson Ranch". I have received notice from the City of Temecula that my property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of my support for the inclusion of Johnson Ranch within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. cc: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager Very truly yours, William R~ohnson 05-:':'-91 18097- G: %~C%15Z%9104~GT;'. ~19 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department June 11, 1991 Memorandum of Understanding { M.O.U. ) For Ranpac Properties In The French Valley Area PREPARED BY: R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: Gary Thornhill/~- That the City Council APPROVE the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Won Yoo. DISCUSSION: The attached Memorandum of Understanding {M.O.U.) covers approximately 232 acres of undeveloped land located in the unincorporated territory of the County { see Exhibits "A" and "A-I", "B" and "B-I", and "C" and "C- 1")o The M.O.U., in acknowledgement of the fact that the properties, if developed in the City, would result in substantial benefits to the City, sets forth certain agreements relating to the eventual annexation of the properties and associated development entitlements. Some of the more significant benefits to the City include: The opportunity for significant job opportunities, sales tax, and ad valorem tax revenues resulting from the development of high quality industrial uses. Payment towards City and regional infrastructure systems. A: MEM-OF-UND. -A 1 - Payment of public facilities and mitigation fees. Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. - The provision of significant open space. The support of the City's sphere application to LAFCO by Mr. Yoo. The City, in turn, agrees to certain understandings relating to the processing and fees relating to applications currently in the County system and any transfers of those cases to the City. The M.O.U. further outlines certain understandings relating to the financing of infrastructure improvements, cancellation of agricultural program contracts, annexation and development agreements, payment of public facilities fees, expansion of the French Valley Airport, the use of community facilities districts or similar financing instruments, and the formation of a JPA or other entity to complete Clinton Keith Road from 1-215 to Winchester Road. It should be noted, however, that nothing contained in the M.O.U. would limit the discretionary authority of the Planning Commission or City Council relative to development proposals covered by this M.O.U. GT:ks A: MEM-OF-UND. -A 2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERST]%NDING Ranpat French Valley This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is reached by and between the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation ("City") and: Won S. Yoo and Insook Yoo, husband and wife, as joint tenants (172 acres) (Parcel A); 20 Acres French Valley, a California limited partnership (20 acres) (Parcel B); and Benton 36 Acres, a general partnership (36 acres) (Parcel C) (collectively referred to as "Yoo") to be effective as of , 1991. RECITALS A. Yoo is the owner of Parcel A, the General Partner of Parcel B and the Managing General Partner of Parcel C consisting of approximately 232 acres of undeveloped land (the "Property") located in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside (the "County"). A legal description of the Property and a location map of the Property is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibits "A" and "A-i", "B" and "B-i" "C" and "C-1" , · B. The property constitutes a portion of Specific Plan No. 265 ("Specific Plan") currently being processed in the County for restricted light industrial, commercial, industrial park and open space land uses (the "Project"). A copy of the Specific Plan land use map is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D". C. City has made application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO") to include the Property within the City's sphere of influence and may in the future seek to annex the Property to be included within the municipal boundaries of City. D. City and Yoo acknowledge that if the Property were to be developed in the City, such development will result in the generation of significant municipal revenue, public 05-29-91 11938-00006 G: ~)0C\152%9104~(05.6TH infrastructure facilities benefits and impacts, the enhancement of the quality of life, and demand for governmental services such as police, fire, schools, recreation and flood control for the present and future residents of the City which might not otherwise occur if the Property were to be developed in the County. The benefits and impacts to the City and Yoo contemplated by such development include: (1) The opportunity for a high quality restricted light industrial/commercial development and industrial park creating significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the City. (2) Payment on a "fair share" cost basis towards City infrastructure and regional traffic infrastructure systems including: fees. (a) Borel Road; (b) Leon Road; (c) Auld Road; (d) Clinton Keith Road; and (e) Winchester Road. (3) Payment of Public Facilities and mitigation (4) Participation in special assessment and community facilities districts to finance City and regional infrastructure improvements. (5) The creation of significant open space dedications for public use and the protection of significant natural resources. (6) Yoo will support the City's application to LAFCO to establish the City's sphere of influence including a portion of the Property. WHEREFORE, City and Yoo by this MOU intend to set forth an orderly procedure for the development of the Property, including the processing of all discretionary entitlements, environmental review, cooperation in supporting inclusion of the 05-29-91 119S8-00006 G: ¥)0C~152~91040025.6TH 2 Property in the City's sphere of influence and the possible future annexation of the Property to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties wish to set forth their understanding with regard to the Property as follows: 1. Yoo will continue to process the EIR, Specific Plan, Zone Change and other entitlement permits for development of the Property in the County. It is agreed and understood that Yoo can at any time during the processing of the entitlement permits with the County sever all or any parcel of the Property from the Specific Plan and transfer those entitlement permit applications to the City for further processing in the City. In such instance, City agrees to accept the EIR, Zone Change, Parcel Map and any other entitlement permit applications for the Property and continue to process the entitlement permit applications in their current status with densities and land uses consistent with the Specific Plan without the necessity of refiling those applications. Yoo reserves the right to complete the process of the EIR, Specific Plan, Zone Change and other entitlement permits in the County and annex the Property to the City after those approvals become final. City will consider further changes in the general plan and zoning, if necessary, to assure that the Project is consistent with the Specific Plan approved by the County. 2. City agrees to provide a credit against any City filing or processing fees required by City at the time the entitlement permit applications are transferred to City based upon the degree to which the County's processing can be utilized by the City and in the amount to be mutually agreed to by City and Yoo at the time the entitlement applications are filed with the City. 3. The development of the Property in the City in accordance with the Specific Plan shall be phased to allow for orderly financing and the payment of debt service, development and absorption. Ik %IX~%15Z%91044X~5.6TII 3 4. City and Yoo will meet and confer in good faith to agree on Yoo's fair share cost and method of financing for construction of Borel Road, Leon Road, Auld Road, Clinton Keith Road, and Winchester Road improvements. City will explore with Yoo the application of all or any portion of Yoo's public facilities fees towards one or more of the regional traffic infrastructure systems referenced in the MOU Recitals. 5.- City will cooperate with Yoo in exploring efforts to cancel the agricultural preserve contracts in phased diminishment based upon final map recordation or plot plan approval and waive, reduce, or defer any cancellation fee as permitted by law. 6. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith to negotiate an Annexation and Development Agreement. City and Yoo acknowledge that City intends to adopt a public facilities fee for residential, commercial and industrial development. City and Yoo will meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to work out a mutually satisfactory program to use the public facilities fees paid by Yoo for public improvements related to the Project. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as requiring City or City Council to enter into said Annexation and Development Agreement. 7. City will cooperate and work with the County to encourage the expansion of the French Valley Airport facilities including expansion of the runway and taxiway. 8. Upon the request of Yoo, the parties shall cooperate in exploring the use of community facilities districts, special assessment districts, and other similar financing districts for the financing of the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure, facilities, lands, and improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located within or off-site of the Property. It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this MOU shall be constructed as requiring City or City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds to carry out any public financing. 05-29-91 11938-00006 G: '~D(X:\152\9'1044X)Z5.6TN 4 9. Upon request of Yoo, City will cooperate with the County and the City of Murrieta in the possible formation of a joint powers authority or other appropriate public entity to expedite the construction and completion of Clinton Keith Road from 1-215 to Winchester Road. 10. ¥oo agrees that it will support City in the processing and approval of the City's sphere of influence application to LAFCO for the inclusion of Parcel A and Parcel B within the City's sphere and not oppose said application before LAFCO with regards to the inclusion of Parcel C within the City's sphere. A form of support letter is attached as Exhibit "E". 11. In addition to this MOU, City and Yoo intend to enter into an annexation and development agreement relative to the Property which shall more specifically set forth the development obligations and rights of Yoo and the financial obligations and commitments of the parties as set forth in this MOU. City agrees that it will not impose a separate "development agreement impact fee" for consideration of entering into the annexation and development agreement over and above what is agreed upon as the public facilities fee as herein provided. 12. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Yoo and City understand and agree that certain actions of City contemplated by this MOU including but not limited to such actions as the inclusion of the Property in the City's sphere of influence, annexation of the Property to the City, amendment of the City's general plan and prezoning or zoning of the Property, the formation of assessment, community facilities or other financing districts, may require compliance with legal procedures, regulations and public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as pre-committing or requiring the Planning Commission or City Council to approve any discretionary entitlements, general plan amendment, zoning, financing district or other planning or subdivision relating to development of the Property. 05-29-91 11938-000(0 G: %DOC\15Z\910400ZS.6TH 5 WHEREFORE, in understanding the foregoing, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this MOU. CITY OF TEHECULA, a California municipal corporation ATTEST: By: Mayor City Clerk, City of Temecula APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Temecula PARCEL &, 172 &ores / (. B : k ' "'Z{f'". .~'/' / / i'.(. / Insook Yoo PARCEL B, Z0 Acres French Vallejo, Cal. ifornia Limited Partnership General Partnership mar~ner ~/ 05-29-91 11938- £-i-i,~,6 G :'U)OC\152\9104(X)25.6TN 6 EXHIBIT LE~L DESCRIPTTON 05-29-91 11958-000436 G: ~DQL~IS:~\9104~QZ5.6TH L~GAL DESCRIPTION FOR WON AND IN$OOK Y00 172 ACRE PURCHASE PARCEL, ~:'ARCEL ~- THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, IN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RA/~GE 2 wEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND M~RIDIAN. PA~C~.L ~ THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENTS ~OT 2 IN THlZ NORTHWEST QUARTER OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MF. RIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THF. I~EOF ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT TH~ SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE WESTERLY 855.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER ~ THENCE NORTH 42'09t24" EAST, 6S5.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22'0g'24# EAST, $00.00 FELT; THENCE NORTH 45'39'24" EAST, 348.92 FEET, MORE OR ~ESS, TO T~E EASTERLY LINE OF THE SAID NORTH~.ST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTHEY l127 .a3' FEET, MORE OR L,F..SS, ALONG T~ EASTF2~LY LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, TO THE POIHT OF 8EGINNiNC. E~IBIT ~A-1~ VICINITY MAP 0~-L~9-91 11938-00006 G: ~DOI:\152\910400~D.6TH EXHIBIT "A-I" 7 1./.4, $r,_C. 18 'F 75 R2 W ..3, B.M. 172 VICINITY ~P RANPAG IN(IINEIRIN(I CI:~IK:)/LAllGN LANO llJRVrfCXql, PLAN#I.q$ E__~f~__IBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION 05-29-91 ~: ~D0C~152\9104,00~5.6TN LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ZO ACP,~$ FRENCH VALL~Y, A CALIFORNIA LIHITED PARTNERSHIP FURCHASE PARCEL. BEING THE $OUTM HALF OF THE NORTHEAST (~UART~/~ OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SE~'TION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTN, RANGE 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE A/qD MERIDIAN. EXHIBIT "B-:I? VICINITY I~P .~XH!B..!T "B_z.L" ~0o' MWD,~____-'-~'"'-,~ F..P, SEMENT ~, --'1 N E J J4 $~c Ja VIClNI~'Y MAP L.ANO m,mvlYOtl, Pt. JMmERS LEG~,L DESCRZPT'rON 05-Z9-91 119'~-00006 G: ¥)OC\15Z~9104~)OZS.&T# ~X~[ZZZT "C:" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR BENTON 36 ACRES, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP PURCHASE PARCel. BEING PARCELS 2, 3 AND 4 OF OF PARCEL MAP 10677 AS PER MAP THEREOF FILED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 2 OF PARCEL MAPS, I~VERSIDE COUNTY R~CORDS. VICINITY 05-29-91 119'J8-00006 G: '~D(X:\15~91(XAX)25.6TN FXHIB_IT .......~.... F'C L 14'1 ¢IA/I /T Y' 44~ /~ ~ m'mmmmnm. EXHZBZT lIDll USE ~,P 05-L)9-91 11~-0Q006 G :'~,QC~152~9104,(X)25.6TN EXHIBIT "E" LETTER SUPPORTTNG CTTY~S L~FCO SPHERE &PPLTCATTON , 1991 George Spiliotis, Executive officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3403 10th Street, Suite 620 Riverside, CA 92501-3676 Re: LAFCO 90-118-1 & 3 (City of Temecula, Sphere of Influence Dear Mr. Spiliotis: I have an ownership interest in two parcels of land constituting 170 acres (Parcel A) and 20 acres (Parcel B) located adjacent to the French Valley Airport. I have received notice from the City of Temecula that my property is included within the boundaries of the City's application filed with LAFCO to establish the Temecula sphere of influence. This letter is intended to advise you and the members of LAFCO of my support for the inclusion of my Parcels A and B within the Temecula sphere of influence boundaries. cc: David F. Dixon, Temecula City Manager Very truly yours, G: %DCC\15~9104~X)ZS.6TH ITEM NO. 29 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER'~.'----~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Manager/City Council Councilmember J. Sal Mu~oz DATE: SUBJECT: June 11, 1991 Reconsideration of Temecula Valley High Donations School Scholarship PREPARED BY: City Clerk June Greek BACKGROUND: A number of citizens have contacted Councilmember Mu~oz requesting the amount of the City's donation to TVHS Civic Scholarships be reconsidered. Several options exist, such as granting additional scholarships or increasing those granted at the meeting of May 28, 1991 to $500 each. JSG ITEM NO. 30 ,~-. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD MAY 28, 1991 A budget workshop of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 5:41 PM. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were General Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, District Secretary. BUDGET WORKSHOP Temecula Community Services District Budget FY 1991-92 City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report, stating the District has taken a conservative approach to this year's budget. He reported the Capital Improvement Program will be dictated by parcel fees. Director Moore asked if the suggested program does not include a swimming pool. Mark Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager, stated that the specific projects to be included in the program will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for further review and recommendations. It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Moore to approve staff recommendation 3.1 as follows: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: TCSD RESOLUTION NO. 91-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERA TING BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS 4/Minutes/052891 - 1 - 06/06/91 CSD Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None May 28, 1991 Lindemans, Moore, Parks, It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemans to approve staff recommendation 3.2 as follows: 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: TCSD RESOLUTION NO. 91-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF D/RECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mufioz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None RECESS President Mu~oz called a recess at 6:01 at 8:23 PM. PUBLIC COMMENT None given. PM. The regular meeting was reconvened 4/MinuteslOS2891 - 2- 06/06191 CSD Minutes Mav 28, 1991 CONSENT CALENDAR Director Parks requested the removal of Item No. 3 for further discussion. It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar Items 1, 2 and 4. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Minutes 1.1 1.2 Approve the minutes of the meeting of May 7, 1991 as mailed. Approve the minutes of the meeting of May 14, 1991 as mailed. Resolution Authorizing Investments in Local Agency Investment Fund 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: CSD RESOLUTION NO. 91-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECUI. A COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF DISTRICT MONIES IN THE LOCAl. AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND Award of Bids for TCSD Vehicles 4.1 Award the bids for purchase of three (3) vehicles for use by the TCSD as detailed in staff report. 41Minutes/052891 -3- 06106191 CSD Minutes May 28, 1991 -- Resolutions to Initiate Proceedings for Establishment of New Zones and Report on Rates and Charges Based on Temecula Community Services District Budget and Capital Improvement Plan Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services introduced the staff report. Director Parks asked for an explanation of zones. Shawn Nelson, explained that every effort has been made to make the fees more equitable and fair. He said there will be Zones A-D, which are service zones (street lighting, median maintenance, slope maintenance, refuse collection, etc.) He stated that the cost for each services would be equally divided among the properties receiving a specific level of service. In this way rates can be more fairly determined. Director Birdsall asked if Zone D (Recycling and Refuse Collection), is a quote for the full year or for nine months, since service is not scheduled to begin until October 1, 1991. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Services, stated this is a nine month figure. Director Lindemans stated the word Zone is confusing and suggested changing it to level of service. It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to approve staff recommendations as follows: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: CSD RESOLUTION NO. 91-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN ZONES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: CSD RESOLUTION NO. 91-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ON FILING A REPORT OF THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 41Minutel1052891 -4- 06106/91 CSD Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: May 28, 1991 AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS Director Parks stated he has received complaints regarding the lights at Sports Park and asked that the Director give a report on this in the near future. Director Lindemans asked that shading be providing on the slides at the tot lot in Sports Park. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Parks to adjourn at 9:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: J. Sal Mudoz, President June S. Greek, District Secretary 4/Minutes1052891 -5- 06/06/91 ITEM NO. 2 APPROVAL ~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~'~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON JUNE 11, 1991 ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN ZONES FOR THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (TCSD) PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN ZONES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES. DISCUSSION: This is the first reading of an ordinance to establish certain zones of benefit for the Temecula Community Services District. An ordinance is required to establish the zones and must be in effect before the levy tape is submitted to the County of Riverside on or before August 10, 1991. A public hearing must be held prior to the final adoption of the ordinance. The public hearing has been set for June 25, 1991, prior to the second reading of the ordinance. CSD ORDINANCE NO. -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMLTNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN ZONES WITtHN ITS BOUNDARW~S WHEREAS, upon incorporation of the City of Temecula (the "City") effective December 1, 1989, voters also approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District (the "TCSD"), which has the same area and boundaries as the City and whose Board of Directors (the "Board") consists of the members of the City Council of the City; and WHEREAS, the TCSD includes portions of three county service areas which before incorporation provided different levels of service to different areas now within the City; and WHEREAS, the public interest and convenience require the reorganization of the existing zones of benefit within the TCSD by the establishment of five city-wide benefit zones whereby each zone or service level provides a specific service, operation, maintenance and/or program; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 1991, the TCSD adopted Resolution No. (the "Resolution of Intention") whereby the TCSD declared its intention to establish separate zones of benefit for park and community services, street lighting, slope maintenance, and recycling and refuse program purposes pursuant to Section 61770 et sea_. of the Community Services District Law being Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 (the "Act") and such zones of benefit are hereinafter referred to as "Service Levels"; and WHEREAS, upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Resolution of Intention has been duly and legally published and mailed in the time, form and manner as required by law, and the Resolution of Intention and the Affidavit of Publication has been filed with the Secretary; and WHEREAS, upon adoption of this Ordinance, at the time and place for which notice was given, the TCSD has held a noticed public hearing as required by law to determine whether it should proceed with the establishment of the Service Levels; and WHEREAS, upon adoption of this Ordinance, at said hearing, all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the establishment of the Service Levels have been heard and a full and fair hearing has been held; and WHEREAS, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, the TCSD has found that the written protests against the proposed establishment of the Service Levels have not been made by fifty percent (50%) or more of the registered voters within the territory proposed to be included in any Service Levels or the owners representing more that one-half of the value of the land and 51¢ sdresoO02 -1- improvements in the territory proposed to be included in any Service Level; and the TCSD has passed upon such protests, if any; and WHEREAS, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, requests for exclusion were received prior to the public hearing and the Board has made specific findings as to whether or not property related to each such request shall be included in the particular Service Level; NOW,. THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. Upon the adoption of this Ordinance, the TCSD has overruled any protests, and pursuant to Section 61778 of the Act, hereby orders the reorganization of the existing zones of benefit by the establishment of the following zones of benefit, referred to herein as Service Levels, for the following generally described purposes: CommuniBt Services/Parks Services, operations, maintenance, improvements and administration of the City community park system, recreation facilities, services and programs. Service Level A: Service, operations, maintenance, energy, improvements and administration for all arterial street lighting, medians and traffic signals. Service Level B: Service, operations, maintenance, energy, improvements and administration for all local street lighting within recorded subdivisions. Service Level C: Service, operations, maintenance, energy, improvements and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance within recorded subdivisions. Service Level D: single-family residential homes. Recycling program and refuse collection for all detached, SECTION 3. Upon the adoption of this Ordinance, the TCSD finally determines and establishes the boundaries of the Service Levels and, for the fiscal year 1991-92, designates the types of improvements to be constructed and the services to be performed, in accordance with the Engineer's Report for Collection for the Fiscal Year 1991-92, as finally approved (the "Report") which has been presented and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD. The Report is on file in the City Administrative Offices and reference to said Report, as finally approved, is hereby made for all particulars. SECTION 4. The President shall sign this Ordinance and the Secretary shall attest to the President's signature and then shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the newspaper of general circulation published and circulated within 5/csdresoO02 -2- the City. The Secretary shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance ~-. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective on the 31st day after passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1991. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT J. Sal Mufioz, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing CSD Ordinance __ was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District on the day of , 1991. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District on the __ day of , 1991, by the following roll call vote: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Secretary 5/csdresoO02 -3- TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD MAY 28, 1991 A noticed budget workshop of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 6:01 PM. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore ABSENT:' 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. BUDGET WORKSHOP Temecula Redevelopment AQencv Annual Ooeratinq Budaet FY 1991-1992 Executive Director David Dixon introduced the staff report. He stated staff will present a project list during the early part of the fiscal year so that Agency Members can allocate funds and adopt a policy in terms of parlaying those funds into a bond issue. He reported he would be addressing the fund balance with the County, although it has been made very clear that the County will want to expend all of their RDA fund balance before the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30th. He stated staff will approach the Board and ask that these funds be spent prudently. General Counsel Scott Field reported that the stipulated judgement has been signed by all parties and will be going to court next week to request the judge sign the judgement. He stated the County Pass-through Agreement has also been finalized. He stated everything should be completed by the first or second week of June and the City will have its own operating RDA by the first of July. Member Lindemans requested that the City ask the County to expend a portion of the fund balance on funding the County Health Office in Temecula. Member Parks asked the source of funding for attorney fees. City Attorney Field stated that attorney fees will be paid from the existing county redevelopment agency funds. 4\RDAMIN\052891 -1- 06/05191 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes May 28. 1991 It was moved by Member Mur3oz, seconded by Member Lindemans to adopt a resolution entitled: RDA RESOLUTION NO. 91-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERA TING BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 FOR THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ESTABLISHING CONTROLS ON CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mur~oz, Parks, Moore None None RECESS Member Parks called a recess at 6:13 PM. The regular meeting was reconvened at 11:54 PM. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. AGENCY BUSINESS Election of Chairperson It was moved by Member Birdsall, seconded by Member Muhoz to elect Member Peg Moore to serve as Chairperson of the Redevelopment Agency, The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: § MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None 4~.DAMIN\052891 -2- 06105/91 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes 2. M~ 28. 1991 Election of Vice Chairoerson of the Redevelooment Agency It was moved by Member Birdsall, seconded by Member Parks to elect Member Karel Lindemans as Vice Chairperson of the Redevelopment Agency. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: Minutes Birdsall, Linderoans, Mufioz, Parks, Moore None None It was moved by Member Mufioz, seconded by Member Lindemans to approve staff recommendations as follows: 3.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of April 23, 1991 as mailed. 3.2 Approve the minutes of the meeting of May 7, 1991 as mailed. 3.3 Approve the minutes of the meeting of May 14, 1991 as mailed. Ordinance Providing for the Time and Place of Temecula Redevelopment Aqencv Meetings It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Linderoans to approve staff recommendation as follows: 4.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: RDA ORDINANCE NO. 91-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA REDEVE£ OPMENT AGENCY PRO VlDING FOR THE TIME AND THE PLACE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks, Moore None None 4\RDAMlbI\052591 -3- 06/05/91 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT None given. GENERAL COUNSEL 'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS None given. May 28. 1991 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:04 AM to a meeting on June 11, 1991 at 7:00 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center. ATTEST: June S. Greek, Agency Secretary Peg Moore, Chairperson 4\RDAJvHN\052891 -4- 06/05/91