Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout052290 CC Agenda . TBMBG~2LA CZTY COUNCIL & RE~.J~R I(BBTZ~3 - T~fBr3ULA ~MIfU!~TY 288X6 PU~OL STREET; ~; CA MAY22; X990 - 7:00 PM Nex in OEdoE: Ord4nance: No. 90-09 Resolution: No. 90-54 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Pastor Kerry Martin .Rancho Temecula Bible Church Flag Salute ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks RESB TXTIONSl PROCLAMATIONS 'UBLIC CO S A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state Your name and address. For all other agenda items a '*Request To Speak" form must be filed with the 'City Clerk beforesthe Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute'time limit for individual speakers. CONBENT CALENDAR 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 to be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 2/egende1030300 I 06118/00 RECOMMENDATION= 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90- &ILSSOLUTION OFT HE CITY COUNCIL OFT HE CITY OF TEMECULA DB~L~RZMG ~te~P~OUS WF~DS A PUBLIC NUISANCE, PROVIDING FOR ABATEMENT OF SAID nS2~RDOUS WEEDS, FOR THE EBTABLZSE!iBI~T OF A I~B FOR TIlE COSTS OF ABATBNBHT INCLUDIN~ A RBP~OHJLBLE ~rI'TNISTRATIVBPBB, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING PURSFANTTOOOVBR~MBBTCODB SECTION 39S68 Resolution 4n Sun, oft of State Constitutional amendment No. 1 Continued from the meeting of May 8, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. g0- & RESOLUTION OPT HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF TEMBCUL~ ZN SUPPORT OF SCA Xv TH~ TRAFFIC CONGESTION RBLZEF AND SPENDING LIMITATION AOF OF 1990. 0 Developer Fee Report Continued from the meeting of May 8, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve a Contract with Willdan prepare a Fee Study. and Associates to 0~18~0 10. RECOMMENDATION= 10,1 Authorize the City Manager to retain: Maggie Stewart, Rancon Real Estate, as purchasing broker; or direct staff to negotiate with WestMar Commercial Brokerage, in regards to their offer, and; b. Harry Clark, MFS, as financial consultant; forth. purchase and financing of the Temecula City Hall. CSD MBBTING - (To be held at 8=00 PM) Please see separate agenda PUBLIC HBARINGS 11. PlOt Plan No. 11234 Construction of a 68,000 square foot office building on a five acre sit generally located at the north west corner of Ynez and Rancho California Road. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Plot Plan No. 11234, Amended No. 2, based on the analysis and findings in the staff report, and subject tothe attached Conditions of Approval. Parael Map 24038 Request to subdivide a five acre parcel into three parcels zoned CPS. Project is located west of the 1-15, east of Mercedes Street and southerly of Moreno Road. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Deny Parcel Map No. 24038, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in this staff report. ,2/lOm'ldl/030300 4 13. Cond2t~onal Us, ~-~u~t 3o2~ Proposal to replace an existing Chevron service Station with a ChevronMini-Hart at the'north east corner of Front Street and Rancho California Road. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3036, based on the Analysis, Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in this staff report. 14. PY ~000-91 Budqot Considerat4on RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Receive public input 14.2 Continue consideration to'a workshop meeting to be held on May 29, 1990. CITY IfAi~GERREPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL RBPORTS Next meeting: May 29, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 PuJol Street, Temecula, California ~eoenda~30300 6 06/18;90 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL~ CITY COUNCIL HELD APRIL 26, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula was called to order at 6:02 p.m. at City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Munoz Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Jerry Patterson, and Recording Secretary Anita Durnil. Councilmember Munoz arrived at 6:15 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None offered at this time. COUNCIL BUSINESS Interviews of nine Planning Commission candidates were conducted from 6:05 p.m. to 8:10 p.m. The first candidate's interview was tape recorded and listened to by Councilmember Munoz. A motion was made by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall that on the first ballot those with four votes be nominated and candidates with two or less votes be eliminated. Discussion ensued and the motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None. Following discussion regarding the voting procedure a motion by Councilmember Lindemans seconded by Councilmember Munoz to do a first tally was unanimously carried. The initial ballot was voted and tallied. The nomination of Steven Ford was confirmed. Councilmember Munoz moved to cast a second ballot to nominate candidates with four votes and eliminate from consideration those having two or less votes. second vote was tallied. The motion was unanimously carried. A The nominations of Billie Blair, Dennis Chiniaeff and John Hoagland were confirmed. Councilmember Birdsall moved that a vote be cast to elect the final candidate. Councilmember Lindemans seconded the motion which was carried unanimously. The final tally resulted in the nomination of Linda Fahey. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans that the appointment of the final five candidates be confirmed as members of the Temecula Planning Commission as follows: Billie G. Blair Dennis Chiniaeff Linda Fahey Steven Ford John Hoagland The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks None. None. It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 9:37 p.m. to a regular meeting to be held May 1, 1990 at the Rancho California Water District, 28061 Diaz Road, Temecula, CA 92390. The motion was unanimously carried. NINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR NEETING OF THE TEMECUL~ CITY COUNCIL HELD MAY 1~ 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:02 PM at the Rancho California Water District, Community Room, 28016 Diaz Road, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Mufoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy city Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor George Simmons, Temecula Valley House of Praise. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Muffoz. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Chief Rick Sayre introduced the City Council to James Domenoe, Temecula's first patrol Sergeant. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Allman, 43954 Gatewood Way, spoke regarding the Southwest area plan as it relates to the Western Ridgeline. Mr. Allman submitted a title of a draft resolution urging the County of Riverside to adopt an ordinance requiring the enforcement of Southwest Area Plan to all existing and future subdivisions on the Western Ridgeline. Jennifer Hethorn, 41834 Shorewood Ct., invited the City Council to participate in the Pinata Parade on Saturday, May 5, 1990. Bill Harker, 31130 South General Kearny Road, informed the City Council that there were plans to change the name of Rancho California Road to Tenaja Road. He asked the City Council to look into this matter. Ronnie Crossland, 30632 Hollyberry Lane, asked the City Council what has been done about the traffic study for the Rancho Valencia Apartments. Mrs. Crossland asked Council to make a formal request M i nutes\5 \ 1 \90 - 1 - 05/15/90 City Council Minutes May 1, 1990 of the Developers to do a traffic study. Mayor Parks requested City Manager Aleshire give a report of this issue next week. CONSENT CALEND~R Mayor Parks requested the removal of item seven (7) from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Mufioz requested the removal of item one (1) from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve items two (2), three (3), four (4), five (5) and eight (8) as follows: 2. Resolution Establishing a Traffic COmmission and Transportation RESOLUTION NO. 90-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE ORGANIZATION, OBJECTIVES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A TEMECULATRAFFICANDTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Inland Empire Postmark RESOLUTION NO. 90-44 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CHANGING OF POSTMARK DESIGNATION TO INLAND EMPIRE AND ENCOURAGING ANALYSIS OF POSTAL SERVICE AREA Plot Plan No. 11234 4.1 Set for public hearing on May 22, 1990. Plot Plan No. 10717 5.1 Received and file· Minutes\5\1\90 -2- 05/15/90 City Council Minutes May 1, 1990 Conflict of Interest Code Adopted the resolution as amended, in a motion by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore and unanimously carried, to add the position of Manager of Information Systems to Exhibit A. RESOLUTION 90-47 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TF~ECUL~, C~%LIFORNIA, ADOPTING ~ CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE The motion to approve the Consent Calendar was carried by the following unanimous vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Final Tract Map No. ZZ9LS, No. L, 2, 3 City Manager Aleshire reported that this final map has been approved by the County and does comply with all requirements. Mr. Aleshire stated staff's recommendation is to receive and file this item. Jim Marple, 29500 Mira Loma, expressed his concerns regarding encouragement of water conservation, (i.e. rainfall runoff), at this site. Robert Dieudonne, a representative of the developer, reported that grading on this project has been completed and that all lots drain toward the front of the site. He stated that changes such as this need to be required at the beginning of a project. Councilmember Birdsall stated that in the future the city may need to looked at the possibility of plumbing houses with two different water systems, as a further means of water conservation. Councilmember Mufioz asked that the City Engineer look into this problem and give a report regarding future developments. #tnutes\5\1\90 -3- 05/15/90 -- City Council Minutes Mav 1. 1990 Councilmember Muhoz expressed his concern on this item stating that the City was now inheriting all the liability for this project, and although the owners had paid their fees, these fees had been collected by the County. Councilmember Muhoz stated that any vested map coming before the Council was in the same situation. Councilmember Lindemans presented staff with research on the fee structure of the City of Moreno Valley. Councilmember Lindemans stated the collection of this type of fee schedule would greatly increase revenue towards the budget. Councilmember Birdsall stated the City has hired John McTighe to identify these fees and suggest methods for collecting money that belongs to the City. City Manager Aleshire reported that Mr. McTighe's report should answer all these questions. Mayor Parks stated that this project has met all the conditions, has approved a Mello Roos District, paid all fees, and that it is up to the City Council to collect the fees from the County, not the developer. City Attorney Scott Field reported that this is a final map and the Council is limited to either approval, or to denial of this item because of health or safety concerns. He emphasized these concerns must be spelled out in the findings. Councilmember Mu5oz asked if a method to have all new developers switch from County Agreements to Agreements with the City exists. City Attorney Scott Field reported that next week, on May 8, 1990, Council will receive a detailed report on impact fees. City Council will also receive a report from City Attorney's office addressing these fees. Mr. Field stated that a good share of these fees are going to the County and would be addressed through a Joint Powers Agreement in terms of existing permits. Mr. Field pointed out, however, that these fees can not be used for general fund expenditures, such as police, fire and maintenance. Councilmember Lindemans asked the City Manager to write a letter to the County asking that these fees be separated. nutes\5\1\90 -/,- 05/15/90 --- City Council Minutes May 1, 1990 Councilmember Lindemans moved and Councilmember Moore seconded a motion to receive and file item no. 1. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None e Parcel Map 24038 City Manager Aleshire introduced the staff report presented by City Engineer Ross Geller. Mr. Geller reported that in the case of items number six and seven, the County is forwarding cases to the City, without the complete report. For this reason, it is staff's recommendation to set this case for public hearing. Mr. Geller stressed the need to receive the complete file on these cases from the County. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to set this matter for public hearing on May 22, 1990. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Conditional Use Permit 3036 Paul Welsh, Civil Engineer, 1572 N. Waterman Ave., No. 5, San Bernardino, reported to Council that his permit has been on- going with the County for one year. Mr. Welsh described the parcel to be divided in three parcels and that each parcel will be independent. He reported that there are extensive grading plans on the south property line, which has been some concern to Council. Mayor Parks expressed his need for further information and requested this matter be set for public hearing. #inutes\5\1\90 -5- 05/15/90 City Council Minutes May 1. 1990 Councilmember Birdsall moved and Councilmember Moore seconded a motion to set this item for public hearing on May 22, 1990. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks None None COUNCIL BUSINESS 9. Temecula Redevelopment District City Manager Aleshire announced the David McElroy was unable to be present to give his report on redevelopment. Councilmember Lindemans suggested continuing this item to a later date. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue this presentation for two weeks. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECESS Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:10 PM. reconvened at 8:25 PM. The meeting was 10. Riverside County Fire Department Agreement City Manager Aleshire recommended that the City Council accept the Ad Hoc Law Enforcement Committee report and refer to item to the budget hearing. Mr. Aleshire also stated that there 14inutes\5\1\90 -6- 05/15/90 City Council Minutes May 1, 1990 are three suggestions listed in the committee report to cut costs, if the need arose. Mayor Parks said he is very impressed with the Committee's work and thanked them for their efforts. Councilmember Muhoz expressed his approval of the Committee and their hard work. He did, however, question the need for obtaining an engine with a 100 foot ladder at this time. Councilmember Birdsall informed Council that the truck had already been purchased by the County and will not over-burden the City financially. Councilmember Lindemans asked what is the current response time. Chief Jim Wright, of the County Fire Department, answered that the current response time is five minutes. Chief Wright also described the need for the large engine with the 100 foot ladder, outlining the specialized rescue operations of the vehicle. Mayor Parks asked if the same level of service could be given next year without the additional proposed personnel. Chief Wright explained that with only two fire fighters per truck, Temecula would not receive the service they needed or desired. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to accept the Ad Hoc Law Enforcement Committee report and refer to budget hearings. Mayor Parks questioned how structural fire tax is determined for the City of Temecula. Chief Glen Newman explained that of the 1% general tax which is derived from property taxes, structural fire tax is 5 1/2% of this 1% general tax. City Manager Aleshire informed Council that the current appraised value of property in Temecula is $1.6 billion. Chief Newman explained that these figures are over one year old. New figures should be higher, in view of the extensive growth in the City. He further stated, if the appraisal is higher, this would be applied toward fire protection. Minutes\5\1\90 -7- 05/15/90 ..... City Council Minutes May 1, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to accept the Ad Hoc Law Enforcement Committee report and refer it to the budget hearing. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu5oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 11. 1-15 Over-Crossing Traffic Control City Manager Aleshire introduced a report from the Chief of Police, Rick Sayre, who together with the Traffic Committee, has worked out a plan to hire people for traffic control on the freeway over-crossings. $50,000 has been appropriated, to be matched by developers and others. City Manager Aleshire recommended hiring the firm of All City Management to do this work. Mr. Aleshire announced that the Chairman of the committee, Sgt. Ron Roberts, was present to answer any questions. Councilmember Birdsall asked whether any work had been done to obtain the matching funds for traffic control. City Manager Aleshire reported that the City has received one $10,000 pledge from Bedford Properties and the Committee has been soliciting additional funds. Sgt. Roberts reported that a meeting had been held with the Chamber of Commerce, and they had agreed to draft a letter to all members of the Chamber requesting donations to this fund. Mr. Roberts reported that at present, $15,000 has been committed. Councilmember Mu~oz questioned how soon this traffic control would begin. Sgt. Roberts responded that All City Management would be contacted tomorrow, if this item is approved. Upon approval, traffic directors will be recruited from the Temecula area. Councilmember Muhoz requested a follow-up from the Committee on a commitment from Advanced Cardiovascular Systems for $500. Councilmember Lindemans questioned when the traffic control people would be in place. Sgt. Roberts answered that work should begin by the first of June. Minutes\5\1\90 -8- 05/15/90 City Council Minutes May 1, 1990 Mayor Parks asked Police Chief Sayre if he was familiar with All City Management and felt confident with their work. Captain Sayer reported that several agencies have used All City Management's plan for traffic control, and he feels confident in their ability to provide the desired level of service. Captain Sayer reported that the firm comes very highly recommended. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to authorize staff to enter into a contractual agreement with the firm of All city Management. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Birdsall moved and Councilmember Mu~oz seconded a motion to continue Items 12, 13 and 14 as follows: 12. Closed Personnel 8ession to Consider ADpointment of City Manager ~ursuant to Government Code, Section 54957. 12.1 Continue this item to a meeting on April 25, 1990, 6:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43172 business Park Drive, Temecula, California. 13. Closed Personnel Session to Consider APpointment of City Manaaer pursuant to Government Code, Section 54957. 13.1 Continue this item to a meeting on May 3, 1990, 6:30 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. #~nutes\5\1%90 -9- 05/15/90 City Council Minutes May 1. 1990 14. BUS tour of the City of Temecul& to new Plannin~ Commissioners. 14.1 Continue this item to a meeting on May 3, 1990, 1:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks None None 15. Assessment District 161 City Manager Aleshire reported this item is a request from the County for the City to approve Assessment District 161. Mr. Aleshire outlined the improvements and explained the County is currently administering this program. Permission from the City Council is required before continuing with this project as the streets now fall until the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula. Mr. Aleshire reported that the City Attorney has reviewed these documents. Councilmember Mufioz informed Council that the developers did not do an adequate job of making home owners aware that they would be responsible for this assessment. Mr. Mufioz suggested sending a letter of explanation, describing the services received for this assessment. Chuck Collins, Rampac Engineering, stated that each homeowner should receive, in their title report, the obligations associated with their home. Further notification is given when tax bills come due. Mayor Parks suggested that all tract maps within City limits that are a part of this Assessment District could be conditioned to indicate to new buyers, in bold print, that they are a part of this assessment district. city Manager Aleshire reported that within the next two months, staff will consider Assessment District 159, which is # ~ nutes\5\1 \90 - 1 O- 05/15/90 City Council Minutes May 1. 1990 located at the south end of town. When this item appears on the agenda, the City Manager will ask the County Engineer to give a report on the property owner notification process. Councilmember Birdsall stated that assessments must be on the white report, and is also in the preliminary title report and in the title policy of insurance. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded Councilmember Mufioz to approve a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-48 by A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TF~ECUL~ APPROVINg A CERTAIN UTILITY AgREEHENTBYAND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TF~ECULA AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REGARDINg ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 161 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 CITY F. ANAgER REPORT City Manager Aleshire advised there will be a report on the agenda next week regarding developer fees. The recommendation will be to set up developer fees for the City. These fees will go toward specifically named infrastructures such as parks, City Hall, police stations, etc. City Manager Aleshire stated that on the same agenda there will be a report regarding the fees previously collected by the County. Mr. Aleshire said he has received a letter from the County listing the total amount of fees collected for Riverside County. These fees had not been broken down for Temecula. Mr. Aleshire recommended not waiting for all the data on County developer fees before beginning work on City fees. Laurence Peabody, 26420 Paradise Valley Rd, Aguanga, spoke regarding the San Diego Landfill. Mr. Peabody stated that the report in the newspaper implying that San Diego County is no longer considering the Blue Canyon Site is incorrect. Mr. Peabody # ~ nutes\5\1 \~0 - 11 - 05/15/90 city Council Minutes May 1, 1990 reported that the County has retained Blue Canyon and is seriously considering it as a proposed Landfill. Mr. Peabody submitted background material to City Manager for his review. CITY aTTORNEY REPORT None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Moore reported the applications for the Public Safety Commission will be reviewed on Monday, May 7, 1990. Councilmember Mufioz requested that problems of no stop signs in City tracts be looked at by the new Traffic Commission. Councilmember Mufioz also asked for a report regarding the progress of moving the radio tower. City Manager Aleshire reported that the station has received FCC approval and is ready to move ahead with plot plan approval. He stated, however, they have not yet filed anything with the City. Councilmember Mufioz asked about the status of the letters to sign violators. Ms. Anne Houston-Rogers reported that she has personally contacted many violators but thus far it has not produced the desired result. Councilmember Lindemans requested action on the following: Requested placement on an Ad Hoc Committee to work with John McTighe on the tax and fee research with Riverside County. Requested Debt Advisory Committee be placed on next week's agenda. Requested research into franchise fees as another possible revenue source. 4. Requested that public comments be increased to three minutes. Mayor Parks received a letter from Walter Abraham, Riverside County, requesting that the City of Temecula take over the Historical District. Mayor Parks asked staff to look into this matter and give recommendations on how this should be done. #inures\5\1\90 .12o 05/15/90 City Council Minutes May 1. 1990 ADJOURNHENT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn to a meeting on May 2, 1990, 6:30 PM, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR ATTEST: F. D. ALESHIRE, CITY CLERK M ~ nutes\5\1 \90 - 13- 05/15/90 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD MAY 2, 1990 An ajourned meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:35 PM in the Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Muhoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks adjourned the meeting to a closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 (The Brown Act), which states an executive or closed session may be conducted under a personnel exception, for the purpose of appointment, employment or dismissal of a public employee. The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 PM. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to transact, the meeting was adjourned at 8:49 PM to a meeting to be held on Thursday, May 3, 1990 at 6:00 PM. ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR F. D. ALESHIRE, CITY CLERK nut es\ 1\9\90 - 1 - 05/07/90 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD MAY 3, 1990 An ajourned meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:37 PM in the Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Muhoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks adjourned the meeting to a closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 (The Brown Act), which states an executive or closed session may be conducted under a personnel exception, for the purpose of appointment, employment or dismissal of a public employee. The meeting was reconvened at 10:14 PM. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to transact, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM, to an executive session followed by a regular meeting to be held on Thursday, May 8, 1990 at 6:30 PM, in the Temecula Community Center, 2816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR F. D. ALESHIRE, CITY CLERK nutes%l%9%90 - 1- 05/07/90 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTMN 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 $102,026.41. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 22th day of May, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 4/Resos/59 05/17/90 &, ~0 · 0 r' bJ Z LiJ i-- 0 ~ ~ ~Z Z 0 C ~ O 0 0 ~- O ~ 0 r, hi O f'3 ~:'4 t':, -,0 .~'4 Z Ld ZH.d _ .,'r' ~Z O~ C' C' Z r._'~ .~ .0 '2' C" 3, b3 ';3 0'. 'C, ? -.,3 ~-] rn CG' (.0 [0 '30 &O LO O0 ht iH i,i .'.,d hi ~ Ld LO O] 03 tO tO g] r.O O0 0'~ :C, C' :3, C, C' C' '3, C' ,C' ,3, r-': 3, C, C, C'.4 ~'.~ ,C, 'C' ,3, '3' ,3, ':': ,~, :'. r_n Z -r -1" r-. r- ~-3 l?r ~ ,~, ~ r_l L,3,~-.--¢ r-.. f-.. ~ O. ~ C' 'C'.3,'3,,", '3',3' '3' ' ---'i ~'.:...%~ : .% .. -.. &. z ~ 'C' 2' .0 .0 ,~.'~-.9r'4 % ¥ ~ u D U C O © C, :D © C' '~' C' C, C, © © ,C, 0 C, ~.E.. 4J L] O C 0 L U Z~ r~, OZ ~0 Z C, 7 0"' 0 · , ,'-,0 .. ~ .. r.j .... ,r, i ~ ,J! CL ~i ill ~ ,~ m .v, ~ -_, 0 ,~ 2:: rj .Z. 0 h_j 0 0 LL >- Z 0 ,,... 0 ,3, · , C] ., ~..'.; .... ~ b.i Ld JJ _! C' C trJ C, C, ~ L ~ u c CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: ~) TITLE: DEPT HD MTG: .s. z~ APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT 23101-1 CITY ATTY DEPT: ;~,~E;R,~ CITY MGR RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council accept agreements and bonds for the improvements and to record Final Tract Map No. 23101-1 DISCUSSION This tract is located south of La Serena Way and east of Meadows Parkway, and is part of the Margarita Village Specific Plan 199. The tract has 51 residential units on a total of 17.95 acres. The minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. The developer is Marlborough Development Corporation. Tentative Tract No. 23101 was submitted to the County on December 9, 1987, and received approval from the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. A minor change on the map was processed on May 1, 1989. The site is graded and underground improvements are being installed at this time under approved plans and permits. The County is currently inspecting the installation of improvements. The Conditions of Approval have been met or mitigated through easements. The County forwarded the tract to the City Council for their approval. The following table lists the fees paid or to be paid by the developer for this tract. Amount Fire Mitigation Flood Control Fee Traffic Mitigation K-Rat Development Mitigation 20,~00.00 16,729.~0 7,650.00 169,650.00 227,970.00 * Paid at issuance of building pe,-,.its The following bonds have been posted for the project: improvements Streets g Drainage Water Sewer Faithful Performance Security $1.122,000 160,500 135,500 Material 8 Labor Security $561,000 80,250 67,750 Total $1,418,000 $709,000 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: TITLEAPPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT 23101-1 DEPT HD MTG: PAGE 2 CITY ATTY DEPT: CITY MGR Fiscal Impact Not determined Summary The site and proposed uses are consistent with surrounding land uses and zoning designations. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this project with the added Conditions of Approval. Fees To Be Collected The development impact fees are paid under the County schedule at the time of issuance of building peruits. OFFICE OF THE ROAD COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Ivan F. Termant Acting Road Commissioner County Administrative Center Mailing Address: PO Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Telephone (714) 787-6554 May 15, 1990 SUBMITTAL TO FRANK ALESHIRE, CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM: Acting City Engineer for the City of Temecula SUBJECT: Tract Map 23101-1 in the First Supervisorial District SPECIFIC REQUEST: Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance it is REQUESTED that the City Council approve said map. All required certificates and documents have been filed and the map is ready for recordation. IFT:GAS:MSB:rdb Acting City Engineer The City of Temecula Re: Tract 23101-1 2 May 15, 1990 The developer wishes to enter into the following agreements to cover the improvements within this subdivision for: IMPROVEMENT OF STREETS (Bond No. SUR 126106) WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (Water to be supplied by Rancho California Water District) (Bond No. SUR 126106) SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM (Service to be provided by Eastern Municipal Water District) (Bond No. SUR 126106) SETTING OF LOT STAKES AND SUBDIVISION MONUMENTS (Bond No. SUR 126107) MATERIALS AND LABOR (Bond No. SUR 126106) in the amount of $709,000 is also attached. SECURING TAXES, (Bond No. SUR 126064) The above referenced bonds are issued by Golden Eagle Insurance Company. This map complies in all respects with the provisions of Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code and applicable local ordinances. The dedications made on said map are for: 1. Lots "A" through "G" inclusive and the abutters rights of access along Meadows Parkway and La Serena Way are dedicated for public road and public utility purposes, and as part of the City Maintained Road System. 2. Lot "H", 1 foot barrier is dedicated to the City of Temecula for street and access control purposes. 3. Drainage easements are dedicated to public TO Rt~D~ID~ R4NCHO cHO TO ~ DIEGO VIC/NITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PROJECT SFFE ?--~ ~ 01 RiVERSiDE coun PL nnin DEP ::I - En DATE: ~ovemDer 23, .~ RE: TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. E. A. N~BER: 32533 REGIONAL TF.A~I NO. Specific Plans ,earn Dear Applicant: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the following action cn the above referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of ;;ovc~,~ber d. '.cJ3:'J · x APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions. ~DENIED tentative map based on attached findings. APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map. The tract map has been found to be consistent with all pertinent elements of th~ Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. ~ne pruj~:t will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has ~e~dopted. j, A conditionally approv~d. tentattv~-~-q~ract map shall expire ..~onths after the approval at the Board of Supervisor~ Heari~~r~d~c. of which is $trm~F~ab~ove~ unless within that period of time a fina~m~_~," b~E?l'.'~'",~j~_approved a~,t)!..e~i~)w,ith the County Recorder. Prior to the expirati d~~',-'~ ~~~Vi~(~lv~y~n~pl'~/. ~~.~.~b for an extension of time. Application shall') ~, ',~~t~e Plan~i'-~ '~~~~......~r_~ (30) days prior to the expiration date of the tenl~ "'~] ]~IF)B~)~U~ ~(F~u~b'~ '~:~na~y extend the peri od for one ~ear and upon further ap~.~t~en a sec~ond and a third )~ar. / · . ~,.~ i Very truly Yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director F:un Goloman, Pri~'~cipa) Planner FILE - WHITE APPLICANT - CANARY ENGINEER - PINK 29~-39 (~.v. L0/82) 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDF~ CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 ATTACHMENT "A" Trac~. No . 23 I O I -- 1 Condi ~.1 one of Approval March 6, 1990 The L~ndsca~lng, Zrri~atlon mnd Shading for ~hta Project ts hereby approved mubjec; ~o the following conQitionm: 1. One aOatttonal stree; tree shall be provtded on Lots Nos. 1, e, 32, 37, and 43 prior to ~he t~euance of a Certificate cf Occupancy. 2. County Service Area [CSA) No. 143 shall approve =ne plmnt material selection mn~ irri~attmn. ~f changes mre reQues~e~ by %he CSA, the applicant she11 resubmi% 8 CSA mpprove~ ~menaed copies 0~ ;he lenascape and drrtg~tion plan ~or s=ampea mpproval by the Planning Depmrtmen=, prior =o the issuance 0~ Cer=ific~=ee o¢ Occupancy. $1nce %he proposed pian=tng does no%' impact building, %he P~&nntng Departmen: ~nd the ¢8A do no: objeC~ :o :he issuance of ~ bui~dln~ permi: by :he Buil~in~ Departmen% pr4mr :o appreval by :he xc. applicant/represents=ire Butlding Debartmon= ¢$A # 143 ATTN. Bob K~s~ LeRoy D. Smoot CO~sSS,ONEIt & COUNTY SUI~¥E,'C~ OFFICE OF ROAD CO.~MIS$10NER 6 COUNTY ~L'RVEYOR TO: Health Department DATE: Attn: Mr. Ralph Luchs FROM: Road Department RE: Tract No. :..'The~above_said map has been received. for- transmittal of'Supervirsors. -'.The $tatis. pf construction is as. follows: .WA~_ERDISTRIBUTION SYSTEM to the Baord ........ SA]gITARY 'SEWETL SYSTEM Securities Posted [~' Installed,/Inspected and Approved Not Required L'-**' Please retain this memo until improvement · '-.by your Office.** plans.. are.received Please advise if your conditions of approval mentioned map has been satisfied. -~-~ Yes of the above [---.] APPROVED Date: TRACT 23101-1 STATUS OF FEES PAID TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AS OF MAY 10, 1990 CONSISTING OF 51 LOTS 1. FINAL TRACT MAP CHECKING FEE 2. IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK (SEWER - INSTALLED. WATER - INSTALLED STORM DRAIN UNDER CONSTRUCTION. STREET - NOT STARTED) 3. TRAFFICE MITIGATION 4. STRIPPING FEE (MEADOWS & LA SERENA) 5. MONUMENTATION INSPECTION (PERIMETER MONUMENTS INSPECTED BY COUNTY. ALL REAR LOT CORNERS MONUMENTED) 6. FIRE MITIGATION 7. FLOOD CONTROL FEE 8. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT (ST, S.D., SEWER, WATER AND UTILITY) 9. K-RAT FEE (ALL LOTS WITH IN T.T 23101) $ 1.510.50 65.800.00 10. ROUGH GRADING PLAN CHECK 11. ROUGH GRADING PERMIT (ROUGH GRADING COMPLETED) 12. PLOT PLAN LAND USE FEE 13. PRECISE GRADING PERMIT 7,650.00 1,775.00 466.00 20,400.00 16.729.40 1,439.24 995.50 3.315.00 1,445.00 30.00 169,650.00 RIVERSIDE CO~FI"f RC~D DE2~ FEES AKD SE~--JRI.--IES REPS~T 3/27/?~ FA I ..-"~3U- ~ P EPJOP~W3~N CE SECURITY i6O, 500 Sewer $ 125,500 'M~in=en~ce Re%en=ion (10%) for *(or Bonds if work is completed) Monument $ecuri:y Inspec%ion Fee, (0ffsi%e Improvements) Fee paid =o da~e (Credi=) Inspec=ion Fee Due Monumen= Inspection Fee Coun=y Traffic Signing and Striping Cos=s To=al Inspec'.ion Fees Due RCFC Drainage Fee Due $ignalization ¥-[tiga=ion Fee - $MD % 9 Road and Bridge Benefit Fee one year $ $ ¥.~TERIAL & LJ~OR $ECJKiTY. 5{i,OOD ¢ 80,250 $ 67,75O $ 709,05~ 141,800 19,700 $ 16,729.~0 $ 7,650 $ 70,900 466 **** PLEASE READ IN~~~S P--~O~ **** 1. Securities in the amoun= of $5,000 or less for improvements and $2,500 or less fcr payment of =axes mus= be cashiers check or ~oney Order. FAll in mane at top of Lhe agreement and complete last paragraph of each agreement with name and address of developer under "Conr_rac'-cr". PLEASE DO NOT DATE A~R .Fw~F~S. 3. All securities must be either bonds, instruments of credit, letters of credit or cashiers check. 4. All bonds, instruments of credit, and letters of credit must be on County Forms. DO NOT RE-TTPE FORHS. If forms are duplicated, they mus= be printed on both sides. All signaturms must be no%arized on white copy of agreements and on all securities. 6. Submit evidence of authority =o sign. 7. Unit prices are updated periodically. Bond estimates are sub'jec: to chan.ce. 8. Please fill out additional shee= wi~h names and personal residence addresses for each person signing agreements and securities. 9. Do not use Carbon paper on whi%e copy. IT iS TEE ORIGINAL RiVER3iDE county F nnin DEPA ' . IEnC DATE: :,'ovember 23, RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 231,St E. A. NLMBER: 32533 REGIONAL TEAM NO. Specific ~'la:~s ',earn Dear Applicant: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the following action on the above referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of ;;ovc,.~ber a. ICJ33 . x APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions. __ DENIED tentative map based on attached findings. APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map. The tract map has been found to be consistent with all pertinent elements of the Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. ~ne pruj~.~t will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declarat~ion has tJee~b~dopted. A conditionally approX. d tentat V~-~'-~ract map shall expire .~l~_.months after the approval a~t the Board of Supervisor~He. 'a~., ~-j~tc_ of which is sh~ab~ov~ unless within tha~ period of time a fina~.~...h~l,'.~4L;".l~approved a~.ffrle~.~th the County Recorder. Prior to the expiration d~t~;'i~~'~.~v~i~kfY~iFyira)rlpl~~. '.~:.~,g for an extension of time. Application shall~ l~.. -~'~~e Plamli' '~'-~j~']_i~ (30) days prior to th~ expiration date of the ten~k'"_~' ~~~ 7)~F~l~F'~"r~v "~~n~a,y extend the period for one }ear and upon further ap~tien a second and a third ycar.~ -~~_~ Very t rulyy ours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director .<un Go)c!man. Pri[',cipal Planuer FILE - WHITE APPLICANT - CANARY ENGINEER - PINK 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 30~' INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9220; KIN'ERSIDE COUNTY COIS BYRD, SHERIFF April 4, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department ~080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Regarding: Ms. Kathy Gifford, Planner Vesting Tract 23101 Marlborough Village RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Ms. Gifford: We are in receipt of your request dated March 16, 1988, received by this office on April 04, 1988. St. Deputy Snijders has reviewed the information contained within this case, and we offer the follow- ing for your upcoming report. According to the information you sent, upon completion of this pro- ject, there will be 263 residences. Assuming that each residence will have a minimum of three bedrooms, the approximate population growth of this project will be 1,052 persons. The desirable resident/deputy ratio is 1.5 deputies per 1,000 per- sons, so upon completion of this project, 1.5 deputies will be needed. This project will negatively impact the Lake Elsinore Station, unless provisions are made for the additional services needed. It is also important, that prior to the opening of this project, to attempt to incorporate a Neighborhood Watch organization, by contacting Deputy Snijders at this station, to set up a meeting for the residents, in an effort to keep criminal activity down. Sincerely, co s s n {D William D. ~eynolds, Captain Lake Elsinore Station 0 RSS:~G: KG :~cb FROM: Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: November 8, 1988 SUBJ£CT: VESTING TENTATIVE and TENTATIVE TRACTS located in the ' '-; {, F, JBMITTAL?O THE'JSOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA .~/y~~ Margarita Village Specific Plan {SP 199 Amendment No. 1) - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - Rancho California Zoning Area. R£COMMEJ~DF-D MOTION: Receive and File the Planning Convission action of 9-28-88 and 10-5-88 for APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. 1, 23373 Amended No. 1, 23470 and 23471 and Tracts 22915, 22916, 23100 Amended No. 1, 2310L 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1. Ro~. Streeter, Planning Director Prey. Agn. tel Dept.s. Comments Dist. AGENDA N RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE 1 - TAPE 6, SIDE 1) VESTING TRACT MAP 23373 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 32548 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 348 units - 31± acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23371 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 32546 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, east of Margarita Rd - 1183 units - 398~ acres - SP 19g Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT 23372 AMENDED NO. i - EA 32547 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 469 units on 66 lots - 44± acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A The hearings were opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32548, EA 32546, and £A 32547, approval of Vesting Tract )~ps 23373 Amended No. 1, 23371 Amended No. 1 and 23372 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions. Ms. Gifford also recommended approval of a waiver of the length to width ratio for Vesting Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. The subject tract maps were located within Village A of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, and would create 1763 residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the adopted specific plan. Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purviance asked about a fiscal impact report, and was informed this report had been furnished recently for Amendment No. 1 to the specific plan. Jim Resney, representing the applicant,-.briefly reviewed the development, advising they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement community which included a championship golf course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse facility in the center of the project. He then referred to Condition 33{f) for all three tract maps, which required front yards to.be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation, and requested that this requirement deleted for larger lots, as it was his opinion that these homeowners would prefer to do their own landscaping. The CC&Rs would require them to comply with specific standards. Mr. Resney requested that this condition be amended by adding to the end "or shall be installed within 75 days after close of escrow as provided in the CC&Rs in the 45x100 square foot lot areas". Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Map 23371 and Condition 14 for the other two tract maps required a debris retention wall where block walls were required at the top of slopes. Mr. Resney requested that this condition be amended by adding: "If applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Road Commissioner that a Master Homeowners Association or other entity will satisfactorily maintain the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, at his option, waive this requirement of a debris retention wall." He thought that if they could convince the Road Commissioner that there would be no silting problems and that the slopes would be maintained, the debris retention wall would not 53 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt it would be better not to have the small wall. Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and Condition 15 for the other two tract maps related to the minimum 30 foot garage setback from face of curb. Mr. Resney felt this condition conflicted with the specific plan development standards which allowed 16 foot driveways with roll up doors, setback either from the back of curb or the back of sidewalk. He would prefer to have the specific plan standards applied, but requested that the hemrings not be~continued. Lee Johnson advised the slump wall delineated in Road Department Condition 21 was a wall they had been requiring for the past three or four years when the Planning Department required a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on the size of the slope, the Road Department Design Engineer could require a two block high wall at the property line to keep the debris washing down the slope from crossing the sidewalk. They would be willing to consider any other alternative the developer might suggest, as long as it accomplished the purpose of this condition. He requested that this condition be retained. Commissioner Donahoe asked whether adding to the end "or as approved by the Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provide an alternative plan, and Mr. Johnson agreed that it would. Mr. Johnson advised the garage setback required by Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23371 (Condition 15 for Tracts 23372 and 23373) was the minimum setback required by Ordinance 460. He had read the language requested by the applicant, but would prefer to retain the condition as originally proposed in the Road Department letter. Mr. Resney explained they had been discussing the possibility of providing a 4 foot sidewalk, and would like to have a 24 foot setback rather than the 26 foot setback required by this condition. However, if the Road Department preferred the existing language, they would accept it. Mr. Johnson advised the condition would not alter the width of the sidewalk in any way. Commissioner Beadling referred to Mr. Resney's request that front yard land- scaping and irrigation not be required for the larger ldts, and stated she felt they should be required for all lots. Mr. Goldman requested that the condition be retained as originally written. There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. 1 and 23373 Amended No. 1 are located within Village A of the Margarita Village Specific Plan {No. 199); the three tract maps will provide 1763 dwelling units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372 Amended No. I has been conditioned with the specific plan's condition of approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan 199, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio will be needed for Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202, and the initial 54 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts have been found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by CGPA 150), Change of Zone Case 5107, and Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 460 and 348. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION: Upon motion by Con~issioner Oonahoe, seconded by Commissioner Bresson and unanimously carried, the Con~nission adopted t.~e negative declarations for EA 32546, £A 32547 and £A 32548, and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23371 Amended No. 1 with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, 23372 Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. Tract No. 23371 9 - Amend to reflect the September 30, 1988 Road Department letter. 23{2} and 23{3) - Amend to require the developer to comply with the parkway landscaping requirements as shown in Specific Plan No. 199 Amended No. 1 unless maintenance is provided by a homeowners association or other public entity. 26 - Delete the last sentence ("The final map for Vesting Tract 23371 shall show the park as a numbered lot"). 33(c) - Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, except for the clubhouse which may have screened equipment as approved by the Planning Department; however, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. Condition 34(a) for Tracts 23371, 23372, and 33(a) for Tract 23373 Add "and may be phased with the project". (to clarify that walls may be phased with the development of the tract. Condition 33(d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372, and 32{d} for Tract 23373 Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten feet unless approved by the Department of Building and Safety and the Fire Department per Specific Plan 199 Amended No. 1. 34(e) for Tracts 23371, 23372 and 33{e) for Tract 23373 - Delete Road Department Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373 A~d to the end "or as approved by the Road Department" 55 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEM 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SIDE 1 - TAPE 1, SIDE 1) TRACT MAP 23100 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 32318 - Marlborough Der. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 291 lots - 122.5~ acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23101 - EA 32533 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - east of Kaiser Pkwy, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87± acres - SP/R-2-6000 Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23102 - EA 32534 - Marlborough Der. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - north of La Serena Way, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4± acres - SP/R-1 Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23103 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 32535 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 18 lots - 29± acres - SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A The hearings were opened at 9:4g a.m. and closed at 10:08 a.m. STAFF RECDMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32318, 32533, 32534 anu 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps were located within Village B of the )~rgarita Village Specific Plan, and would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and the zoning which had been applied to the specific plan through Change of Zone Case 5107. Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relating to requirements for maintenance of the open space areas, park requirements, useable yard areas, and fencing requirements. tlr. Klotz suggested modifying' the last condition for each tract map by beginning with the phrase "Development of the". Commissioner Bresson requested that changes be made throughout to refer to either "public use trails" or "recreational trails" instead of "equestrian trails"; he felt these terms would more accurately describe their use. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as amended. It was his understanding that in the event any portion of the development agreement was held to be invalid {for any reason}, the conditions requiring compliance with that agreement would be null and void; this was confirmed by County Counsel. There was no further testimony, and the hearings were closed at 10:08 a.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 231D3 Amended No. 1 are located within Village B of the Margarita RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Village Specific Plan; the four tract maps would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots; the tract maps have been conditioned in accordance with the specific plan's conditions of approval to mitigate impacts on the Stephens Kangaroo Rat; the tract maps have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a w~iver for the lot length to width ratio will be needed for Tract 23103 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EI~ 202, and the initial studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts have been found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract maps conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. The proposed projects will not have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative declarations for EA 32318, EA 32533, EA 32534 and EA 32535, and approved Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 with a waiver of the,lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. Tract Map 23100 Amended No. I 22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the common open)space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association . Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract 23100, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended No. 1. 24. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 38. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. 1 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Map 23101 17(h) Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average flat area of 2000 square feet. 22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association). RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract 23101, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended NO. 1. 24. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 38. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Ma~ 23102 21. Amend to conform with Condition 33 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association. 33. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 35(b} Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 36. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23102 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. I99 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Map 23103 Amended No. 1 21. Amend to conform to Condition 22 (to provide for ~aintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association. 22. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 34(a) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 35. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. I shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 1-3 AND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE 1 - TAPE 1, SIDE 1) TRACT MAP 22916 - EA 32505 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 259 lots - 103.3m acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 22915 - EA 32504 - Rancho California Der. Co. - Rancho California Area - First $upervisorial District - south of Rancho Vista Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 lots - 91.6± acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23471 - EA 32518 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 155 lots - 44± acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23470 - EA 32517 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Rancho Vista Rd, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Schedule A The hearings were opened at 10:10 a.m. and closed at 11:10 a.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 subject to the roposed conditions, and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio for all our tract maps. These four tract maps were located in Village C of Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots, provide a 10 acre school site, a 5 acre park site and 3 tot lots. Staff had found the proposed maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, the adopted specific plan, and the zoning which had been applied to the property through Change of Zone Case 5107 Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions of approval; th~se changes related to the minimum lot.size, lot length to width ratio requirements, park requirements, landscaping/irrigation requirements, and a requirement for development of the tract maps in accordance with the adopted specific plan and approved development agreement. Commissioner Beadling questioned Ms. Gifford's recommendation for deletion of the conditions for Tract Maps 23470, 22915 and 22916 requiring landscaping and irrigation. Ms. Gifford explained these three tentative maps proposed minimum 7200 square foot lots and the County did not normally require landscaping and irrigation for lots of this size. Mr. Streeter felt this condition could be retained, as it was County policy to require landscaping and irrigation for 7200 square foot lots in the Rancho California area. Robert Kimble, representing the applicant, advised they would prefer not to provide the front yard landscaping and irrigation, and requested that the condition be Ueleted. Commissioner Beadling asked whether Mr. Kimble had seen the letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Pipher objecting to the density proposed in the area adjacent to their estate type homes. At her request, Mr. Kimble located Mr. Pipher's subdivision which was next to Rancho Vista Road. They were proposing the 72D0 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for this area. Ms. Gifford advised the tract map was a refiling of a previously RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 approved map, and there was no change in the density; the proposed tract map was within the'density range allowed by the specific plan. Commissioner Beadling quoted from the letter, which requested that the density be reduced tO the density originally proposed by the specific plan. She wanted to know what this density was, and was informed there had been no change in the density. Mr. Kimble requested that Condition 4 of the Flood Control District's letter for Tract 23471 be deleted. This condition required maintenance ramps in the Long Canyon Channel; these ramps were not needed because they had designed this channel for their underlying map with 4:1 slopes. Mr. Lotz agreed to the deletion of this condition. Mr. Kimble then requested that Road Department Condition 26 for Tract 22915 and Condition 28 for Tract 22916 be amended by adding to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner"; Mr. Johnson agreed to this change for both tract maps. Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and developed prior to the issuance of building permits for 150 units, and Mr. Kimble requested that this condition be amended to require the park prior to the issuance of occupancy for the 259th lot. Providing the fully improved park prior to 150 units would be a burden to the developer. Ms. Gifford advised Mr. Kimble's request would delay completion of the park until after the entire tract had been completed; staff felt 150 units would afford the applicant an opportunity to build some units, and at that point the improve- ments could be tied into road improvements. The park would also be useful for the tract to the north, which was being developed by the same developer. Mr. Kimble requested clarification of the new condition staff had suggested for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Mr. Goldman explained this condition referred back to the specific plan condi- tions, which required either a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply with the Countywide program being established by Riverside County. Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was actively involved with the task force appointed by the Board of Supervisors regarding the Stephens Kangaroo Rat program. There was no set program at the present time, and he wanted to know whether they would be charged the $750 per lot fee, or whether they would be held up until a specific program was estab- lished. He did not want to be delayed, as they would be ready to pull build- ing permits within the next few weeks. Mr. Klotz explained the Board had generally endorsed the concept of having a developer make a deposit of $750 per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted; this would allow the project to go forward. He felt this option would be available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily the ultimate fee, but was only a security to be deposited against the ultimate mitigation fee. This explanation satisfied Mr. Dudonay's concerns. Mr. Kimble advised it was their understanding that in the event Development Agreement No. 5 should be held invalid at some time in the future, the approval of the four tract maps would still stand, but the condition for RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 compliance with the development agreement would be null and void. Mr. ~otz advised this was explicitly provided within the development agreement. OPPONENTS: Bob Pipher, 41825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advised the development in Which he lived (known as Green Tree) contained approxim.tely g6 acres and he and his wife owned approximately one-third of this property. They had submitted the letter requesting that the portions of the subject tract maps adjacent to their area be required to create lots similar in size. Mr. Pipher had a map of the Margarita Village Specific Plan dated March 30, 1986, which showed the density in this area to be approximately half of the density currently proposed. Mr. Pipher advised this was an equestrian area, and people residing in the area needed riding trails. He requested a connecting trail from Pauba to Rancho Vista along the boundary between their subdivision and the subject development or along Kaiser Parkway; this would provide an additional landscaped buffer area. Mr. Pipher advised they had no problem with the proposed school site, but felt the circulation system proposed to serve the school was inadequate. In his opinion, Street "B" should be extended to Kaiser Parkway; this would then provide access to both the school site and the park from Kaiser Parkway. At the present time there was a steady flow of +~-~ and providing an access to the park site and school from Kaiser Parkway would help everyone in the area, in addition to making the park more accessible. Because of the traffic on Kaiser Parkway, Mr. Pipher thought it would be difficult for people living on the other side to reach the park. He therefore suggested that one or two parks be required on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, to benefit residents in that area. Mr. Pipher requested a solid wall along the boundary between their development and the subject project. The people residing in this area were requesting a buffer, and would appreciate anything the Commissioners could do to help them. In answer to a question by Commissioner Bresson, Mr. Pipher advised there was no street between the area he was representing and the subject site; the lots from the subject tract map were backing up against the lots in his subdivision. When Mr. Pipher again requested equestrian trails, Ms. Gifford briefly reviewed the proposed trail system, which included a trail along Rancho California Road, going up the Kaiser Parkway and 1~4D easement; no trails w~re proposed in the southern area as requested by Mr. Pipher. Commissioner Bresson requested that these trails be designated as public access or recreational trails instead of equestrian trails. Mr. Burnell advised that an equestrian trail had been established all along Pauba Road, going east and west, and there was a north/south trail in the Metropolitan Water District easement going by the school administration site, along Rancho California Road to Kaiser Parkway. The residents of the Green Tree area could use the trail along Pauba, which connected to the trail along Green Tree Lane. This was a regional trail system, established under the direction of the Parks Department. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Mr. Kimble advised they had met with the school district and showed them the tentative map; they were pleased with the configuration of the school site as well as the proposed street system. Mr. Burnell advised their original design showed the school/park site adjacent Kaiser Parkway, and the school district had objected to this plan because they did not want the children adjacent to a major street. Commissioner Bresson supported the tract map as currently designed, as it was satisfactory to the school district. There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 1I:10 a.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 22915, and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 are located within Village C of Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 (the Margarita Village Specific Plan); the four tract maps would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots; design manuals have been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a waiver for the lot length to width ratio will be needed for all four maps. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts were found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment !50), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 and Chanoe of Zone Case 5107; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 ana 460. MOTION: Upon motion by Com.,missioner Bresson, seconded by Con~issioner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 32470 and 23471, all with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions and based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommenda- tions of staff. Tract No. 23470 17{a) - All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 squQre feet net. 17{b) - Delete entirely 20- Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units, one tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 21 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 275 units, the second tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 27 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same} 36 - The development of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23470 shall comply with its Design Manual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No. I99 Amendment No. 1 and with Development Agreement No. 5 Tract No. 23471 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 19B8 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 200 units, one tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 26 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the.same) 32{f) - All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and manually operated, permanent underground irrigation. Flood Control Condition 4 - Delete entirely 35 - The development of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23471 shall comply with its Design Manual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and with Development Agreement No. 5 Delete Condition 4 of the Flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988. Tract No. 22915 24 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same) 32 - The development of Tentative Tract Map 22915 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. ! and Development Agreement No. 5 Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Commi ssi oner". Tract No. 22916 2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratio. 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units in Tentative Tract 22916, the park shall be fully improved and developed. 25 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same) 32 - The development of Tentative Tract )lap 23916 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 33 - Prior to issuance of grading permits, impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat shall be mitigated per the specific plan conditions of approval. Road Department Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner". 10 Zoning Area: R~ncho California Supervisorial District: First and Third EA No.: 3231B, 32533, 32534, 32535 Specific Plan Section Tract Nos.: 23100 Amendment No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amendment No. 1 Planning Commission: 9-28-B8 Agenda Item No.: 1-2 R. XVERSIDECOUNT~PLANNIRGD!~~ S"I'AFFRE)~OI[T 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 7. 8. 9. Existing Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Site Characteri stirs: Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: Tract Acreage 23100 Amd. 1 1~23 23101 '87 23102 16 23103 J~nd. I 29 Total 254 Marlborough Development Corp. Community Engineering Services, Inc. The four tracts will suNivide 254 acres into 605 residential lots and 18 open space lots. West of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Rancho California Road and east of Kaiser Parkway. R-R (Change of Zone 5107 heard by the Board of Supervisors on 9-13-88 proposes Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 zoning). To the west and south the tracts adjoin other portions of Specific Plan 199. To the east and north, the zoning is A-1-10, A-2-20 and R-T. The N-A-P property located in the southwest corner of the tracts is zoned R-1. Vacant land traversed with low hills. Located on eastern edge of Rancho California ion~nunity. Agricultural and rural land uses are orated east of Butterfield Stage Road. Not designated as Open Space and Rancho Villages (General Plan Amendment No. 150 proposes a general plan designation of Specific Plan 199, Amendment ~io. 1). Residential Lots Open Space Lots Density 287 5 2.4 263 8 3.0 37 5 2.3 lB - .6 605 18 2~ Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 ~nended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amended No. 1 Page 2 11. Agency Recmmnendations: See letters dated: Tract 23100 Amd. 1 23101 23102 23103 Amd. 1 Road: 7-25-88 7-22-88 Heal th: 4-19-88 4-19-88 F1 ood: 6-17-88 6-17-88 Fi re: 6-14-88 6-15-88 EMWD 4-15-88 4-15-88 Rancho Water Dist. 6-20-B8 6-16-88 Cal trans 3-30-88 Sheriff 4- 5-B8 4- 4-B8 7-22-88 .7-22-B8 4-19-88 6-23-88 6-17-88 6-17-88 5- 3-B8 4-28-88 4-19-88 4-15-88 4-18-B8 6-16-B8 3-30-88 4-5-88 4- 5-B8 12. Letters: Opposing/supporting: None received as of this writing. 13. Sphere of Influence: Not within a City Sphere. ANALYSIS: Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102 and 23103 ~mended No. 1 implement Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan {SP 199 Amendment No. 1). Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5107, General Plan Amendment No. 150 and Development Agreement No. 5 were heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 19B8. These tracts have been designed to be consistent with these documents. The table below summarize the tracts' relationship and consistency with the Speci. fic Plan's planning areas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the permitted number of residential units. COMPARISON OF ll~ AND SPECIFIC PLAN DWELLING UNITS Tract No. Proposed Specific Plan Permitted No. of Units Area No. of Units 23100 Amd. 1 287 8, 10-12 29I 23101 263 4, 6 263 23102 37 2, 3 37 23103 Amd. 1 18 7, 9 19 605 .... 610 Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amended No. 1 Page 3 Tract 23100 Amended No. 1 proposes a minimum 7200 square feet lot size and the development of the southern portion of Planning Area 5, the proposed park. The tract has been conditioned to comply with the Stephens Kangaroo rat mitigation included in Specific Plan No. 199. In conformance ~th the specific plan's conditions of approval, prior to issuance of grading permits for 160 units on Tracts 23100 and 23101, the park shall be developed to assure compatibility in grading and to meet neighborhood recreational needs. A lot line adjustment with the Rancho California Water District is also required prior to recordation of the final map. Tract No. 23101 proposes a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet but ensures a usable rear yard area per the specific plan conditions of approval. Tract 23101 will also comply with the specific plan's conditions of approval to mitigate Stephen's Kangaroo Rat impacts. Tract No. 23102 proposes a minimum 7200 square foot lot size. Tract 23103 Amended No. I proposes one acre minimum lot sizes along Butterfield Stage Road so as to provide a buffer and transition to wineries located to the east. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the County's required length to width ratio for lot 18 due to the difficult configuration of this parcel of land and restricted access on Butterfield Stage Road. All four tracts have been conditioned to mitigate impacts to the Mt. Palomar Observatory, school impacts, as well as comply with acoustical reports and the adopted specific plan and development agreement requirements. Environmental Assessments have been prepared on all four tracts. Environmental impacts were assessed in EIR 107 and EIR 202 prepared for the Rancho Village Specific Plan and the Margarita Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluation has 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. FINDINGS: 1. Tentative Tract No.s 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 are located in Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The four tracts All divide 254 acres into 605 residential lots. 3. The tracts have been conditioned per the Specific Plan's condition of approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amended No. 1 Page 4 The tracts have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan 199, Change of Zone No. 5107 and Development Agreement No. 5. A waiver for length to width ratio will be needed for Tract 22102 Amended No. Z. CONCLUSIONS: 1.' All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202 and the initial studies for these tracts and no significant impacts have been found. 2. The tracts are consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 150, Change of Zone No. 5107, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1. 3. Th~ tracts conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for EA Nos. 32318, 32533, 32534, 32535 based on a tlnding that the project will not have.a significant effect on the environment. APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 subject to the attached conditions of approval. KG :mp RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING D£PARTM£NT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23101 DATE: 9-28-88 STANDARD CONDITIONS S. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim; action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract 23101, which action is brought about within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify 'the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to c~operate fully in the defense,' the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision ~p Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page Z e A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. 8. [/~y delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the ! final map. ll~e subdivider shall comply with the street improvement .~recommendattons outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter'dated 7-22-88 a copy of which is attached. 10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. 11. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. 12. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. 13. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 4-19-88 a copy of which is attached. 14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control ~ecommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 6-17-88 a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. 15. The subdlvider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire ~rshal's letter dated 6-15-88 a copy of which is attached. 16. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Depar~ent 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 appeoval. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 3 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a All lots shall have a minimum size of 6,000 square feet net b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with 3.8(; of Ordinance 460. Section Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.BB of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 zone. When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot 'shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easement. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interi~ landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. h. Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average minimum flat area of 2000 square feet. IAmended by Planning Commission 9-28-B8) Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agenEies have been met. County Fire Department County Flood Control County Parks Department Eastern Municipal Water Dist. County Health Department County Planning Department Rancho Water District b. Prior to the recordation of the final map, General Plan Amendment No. 150, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1, Development Agreement No. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 4 19. 5, and Change of Zone No. 5107 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. All existing structures on the subject property shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map. Impacts to the Temecula Elementary and Elsinore Union High School District shall be mitigated at the development application stage in accordance with the dtstrtct's policies in effect at the time of tract submittal. Prior to issuance of grading permits for 160 units, the developer shall provide mitigation for removal of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat as follows: a. Memorandum of understanding between the developer and the California · Department of Fish and Game or b. Compliance with an adopted County program for the mitigation of removal of Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat, 22° The common open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the final map and shall be managed by a master m~t~gat(en-he~-o¢~rred association or CSA. {Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) 23. Prior to issuance of grading permits, for 250 units on Tracts 23100 and 23101, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 24~p~e~te~eee~a{~e~e~he~4Ra~sub~v~s~e~m~p~ehe~subd~v~der--sh~- subm+~--~he--~e~ew+n§--deeume~ts--~e--~he-P½ann~ng-9epar~ent-for-re~ew; wh&¢h-de~ume~s-sha~-be-sub~e¢~-te-the-approva~-ef--that--dep~rtrnent--and the--g~¢(ee--ef--~he--~ounty--6oun~e{:- (Amended by Planning Commission 9-2S-88) l~o-~.~e¢~t~eR-e~-~eve~s~-se~eRs-aR~-~est~et~oks~-~nd CAmended by Planning Commiss'ion 9-28-88) ~4.-:e;t~¢~e~so-~--~e~e~a~e~-the~e~-~y-~eCe~en~e: (Amended by Planning Commission ~he-Uee)awa%$em-ef-eevemaet~;-eend(t+on)-and--re~trictions--s:bmitted--for- pe~iew--~½a¥¥---~a)--pro~i~e-for-e-mi~fm~n-berm-of-6B-year$;--~b)--pro?ide fee-~e-e)tab)+~hment-of-a-property-o,ners*-mssociation-comprised--of-'the Conditions of ~proval Tentative Tract He. 23101 Page $ ewme~--ef-eaeh-+nd~v~dua~-~et-ee-ua~T--~e½--peev~de-¢ew-ewme~sk~p-e~-~ke- cor~n~n-~nd---~d~-cont~fn-te-~e~ew.~ng-p~em~--ve~bat+mt- (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) ~Ne~hw~t~sta~d4ng--a~y--pPev4s4eR-4n-~k4s-ge~ara~en-~o-~e-~o~a~y~ ~he-ge~ew~nff-p~ey~s~n-sha~-app~V+- (~nded bv P3anntng C~tsston 9-Z~8~) q~e--pwepee~y--ewmeesZ-assee4at4en-estab~4she~-heee~n-'sha~-maaa§e-aad een~4nueus~-ma~nta4n-~he-~eemmen-a~ea~v-mo~--pa~Gu~ae~V--des~w~bed se~-eP-t~ane~ee-~he-Zeemmen-aeea~-ee-an~-paet--~keeeef~--absen~--~he R~vers~de-or-the-~eunt~-sueee$~et-~n-~nte~eet: (Amended by Planning Commission g-28-88) The--pwepe~tv--ewmer~s--asse¢4at4en-ska~a-kave-~ke-~§h~-(e-assess-~he ma~n~a~a4ag--t~e--~emaea--~eaZ--and--sha~-kave-~ke-~gkt-~e-~ee-~e- ma~e~eean~e--assessmeR~---Am--assessmen~-~eR~-eece-¢wea~ed~-s~a~4-&e assessmen~--er--e~er-decamen~-¢rea~aS-~e-assessmea~-~ee~ (Amended by Planning Commission ~-g8-88) su¢~esse~-~n-4ntewes~.---A--pFeposed--amendmeat--~ha~--be--¢an~de~ed- Z~emmen-a~ea:: (~nended b~ Planntng Commission 9-28-88) ~n-:he-eveRt-e~-aRy-eeRf]4et-betweee-~k4s-geeaarae4en-aad-ehe-Aet4¢~es ef-~eee~peea~ea~-~he-g~a~s-ee-ehe-peepe~t~-e~ees~-assee~a~ee-Raaes a~d-Re~at4e~s~-4~-any~-~k4s-gee~a~a~4e~-ska~-¢e~re~:~- (Amended by Planning Co~nisston (9-g8-88) Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee simple title, to all common or common open space areas, free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which in the sole discretion of the County are acceptable. As a conditions prcedent to the County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of the County Counsel: {Amended by Planning Commission 9-2B-BS) Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 6 1) 2) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and (Amended by Planning Co~nission 9-2B-BS) A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-B8) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provide for a term of 60 years, {b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provisions verbatim: (Amended by Planning Commisison g-2B-BS) "Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: {Amended by Planning Commission g-28-88) The property owners association established herein shall, if dormant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners' association shall unconditionally accept from the County of Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of the 'con~on area', more particularly described on Exhibit ' ' attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the property owners' association and the decision to require that the association unconditionally accept title to the 'common area' shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside. {Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is conveyed to the property owners' association, the association, thereafter shall own such 'common area', shall manage and continously maintain such 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property owners's association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all.other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. {Amended by Planning Commission g-28-BB) This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 7 ' 25. 26. 27. 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area'. (Amendedby Planning Co~nission 9-28-B8) In the event of any con~tct between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control.' (Amended by Planning Commission 9-2B-BB) Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and .restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded. Prior to recordation of the final map, clearance shall be obtained from Rancho California Water District relative to the protection of applicable easements affecting the subject property. Lot line adjustments shall also be completed. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping requirements as shown in Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. l: 1) Prior to recordation of the final map the developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to, a parkway maintenance district for Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. 1 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway ~aintenance. 2) Prior to the issuance of building pemits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the County Road Department. 3) The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, quaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. 4) l~e developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the district. 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. Conditions of ApproYal Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 8 Street lights'shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: 1) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure mpproval of the proposed street light layout first from the Road Department's traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor. 2) Following approval of the street lighting layout by the Road Depart=mnt's traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an application with LAFCO for the formation of a street lighting district, or annexation to an existing lighting district, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. 3) Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall secure conditional approval of the street lighting application from LAFCO, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. 4)' 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 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. 2g. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following. Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet atmaturity. 3) All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. 4) Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. Z310! Page 9 30. 31. 32. cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department and Specific Plan No. Amendment No. 1. s) 6) Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where streets 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. 7) Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. 8) All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the proJect's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: 1) Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and COherent on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the Conditions of ~proval Tentative Tract No. 2310! Page I0 33. 34. 35. 36. 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 aleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily ivert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations. thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical heights shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benchtng} plan increase slope ratio {i.e. 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical heights shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: 1) l'he angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) The toes -" a.., tops of slopes sh~!l be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. 4) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: With the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety the developer will demonstrate compliance with the acoustical study prepared for Tract 23101 which established appropriate mitigation measures to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels below 65 Ldn. ~ndtttons of ~proval Ten~ttve Tract No. 23101 Page 11 37. 3B. b. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten {10) feet. c. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. e. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. fe Roof-mounted machanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the final building inspection approval, by the Building and S~fety Department, walls shall be constructed along Kaiser Parkway and Rancho California Road per the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and the Tract No. 23101 acoustical study. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and Planning Director. Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 19g Amendment No. 1. {Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) c. 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. de All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and Specific Plan No. lgg A~endment No. 1. fe Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. Amendment No. 1 Development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall comply with the provisions of Specific Plan No. 19g Amendmen~ ~o. I and Development Agreement No. 5. (Amended by Planning Commisison LeRoy D. Smoot OFFICE' OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUA,'TY $URVE'YOR July 22, 1988 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA92501 Re: Tract Map 23101 S6hedule A - Team SP Ladies and Gentl~en: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is ,understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra- tion-of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: 'Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed'. The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. 'l'ract !~al= 23101 , ,luly Z2.. 1988 Pag~ Z 3. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 4. ka Serena Way shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, (32'/44'}. 'A' (sly of 'B' Street), 'B', 'C' Streets (including offsite right of way to Butterfield Stage Road) shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. {¢4'/66'). 'A' (nly of 'B' Street) and 'N' Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. Modified {62'/90') as approved by the Road Con~nissioner. 7. Kaiser Parkway shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101, (38'/50'). · 8. "F", "G", 'I", "J", '0" and 'P" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. {40'/60'). "D", "E", 'H", "K', "L', 'M", "Q" and 'R' Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. {40'/60'). 10. The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on Kaiser Parkway at the intersection with 'N" and "0" Streets as approved by the Road Department. 11. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif. Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. 12. The landdivider shall post a deposit and execute an agreement with the Metropolitan Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. 13.~ The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%. ~14..The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the ~/' Road Department. J~ly ~2, 1988 Page 3 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on La Serena Way at the intersection with 'A' Street as approved by the ~ad Department. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet or as approved by the Road Con~isstoner. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. When blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road Commissioner. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). Primary and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road main- tained by the County shall be constructed within the public right of way in accordance with County Standard Ho. 106, Section B, (32'/60'} at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Cor~missioner. This is necessary for circulation purposes. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Electrical and comn~nications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. · Tract I~p 23101 July Z2, 1988 Page 4 25. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and g4 of the State Standard Specifications. 26. Standard-cul-de-sacs and knuckles and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. 27. Co~ner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. 28. Lot access shall be restricted on Kaiser Parkway and La Serena Way and so noted on the final map. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. -30. All centerline intersections shall be at gO° with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line. 31. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 23100, TR 22148, TR 23!03 and SP !99. 32. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area {CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment District' in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. 33. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street in~orovement plans. 3~ A striping plan is required for Kaiser Parkway and La Serena Way. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. 35. The landdivider shall comply with the recommendations for SP 19g as outlined in the Road Department letter dated June 2, 1988. Tr. act Map 23101 july 22, 19BB Page 5 GH:I h Very truly yours, Road Division Engineer KIENNE'T14 I., rDWARD~ ~ll[~r 1 Ill M&RIC&'T P, O. BOX 10~1 l'lii..~)N~N [ (714) RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVEJIIIDI~o ¢AI. IIrORNIA I~,lO~. June 17, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Specific Plans Kathy Gifford Ladies and Gentlemen: Re -. Tract 23101 ~..ca&cd Map This is a proposal to divide about 87 acres in the Temecula Valley area. The site is along the south side of La Serena Way between Kaiser Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This property is within the approved Specific Plan 199, Margarita Village. The area consists of ridges and natural watercourse that traverse the property. Offsite storm runoff enters this property from both the east and the south. Most of the offsite and onsite flows would be conveyed by storm drains or streets and discharged into the proposed open space along the site's south boundary. Storm drains would be installed along this open space to convey the nuisance flows; when major storms occur the open space would be used as a flood control channel. According to the approved drainage plan of Specific Plan 199, some ohsire runoff would be redirected to the south; this is acceptable if the permission is obtained from the affected downstream property owner(s). Following are the District's recommendations: This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Murrieta Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988: ae Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Con%missioner as part of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map; or -2- June 17, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department Re: Tract 23101 Amended Map No. 1 At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting defermen: of the payment of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build- ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading permit or building permit for each approved parcel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided however, this option to defer the fees may not be exercised for any parcel where grading or structures have been initiated on the parcel within =he prior 3 year period, or permits for either activity have been issued on %hat parcel which remain active. The 100 year offsite tributary flows should be accepted, safely conveyed through the property and discharged into adequate outlets. Appropriate erosion protection should be provided to all the fills exposed to the potential erosion hazards. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on %he final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, 'Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions". Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be re- corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, .additional drainage facilities should be installed. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape should also be provided. A drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or di- verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to ~he recordation of the final map. RIVER$ID£ COUNTY FIR£ DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD !rlR!~ CHIEF 6-15-88 TO: PLARNING DEPARTHEKI P!anninf & 4080 Lcmon S~rec~. S~iic Riverside, CA 9Z501 (714) 787.6606 TEAH I, KATHY GIFFORD Tit 23101-1~q----.--~ With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department reconnnends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2[") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Hintmum fire £1ov shall be 1000 GPH for 2 hours duration ac 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flo~ requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Dept.'* The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible buildinG material beinG placed on an individual lot. MITIGATION FEES Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigatic for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment~ he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and EnGineering staff. RAYHOND H. PEGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By GeorGe Tatum, Deputy Fire ~arshal ml ,,, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH April · · E%W'` I~, I,~ NOtE Brill lIP# -- " 11 APR 2 1 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DE:PT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside. CA 92502 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEHT Attn: Kin Gifford llt'"Y ~e~l. CA 4&-I01 OAS~ WTRtrrT Lil! ILIllOl! I"1 #OIT# *O' t"rl~ET Sill MISS10# ILVO. RE; Tract Map 23101; Being a portion of the Rancho Temecula granted by the government of the United States of America to Luis V~gnes by patent dated January I8, 1860 and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. California in Book I of ~atents at Page 37 and a portion of the Rancho ~auba granted by the government of the United States of America to Luis Vlgnes by patent dated Januar~ 19. 1860 and recorded in the Office of the San Dieoo County Recorder in Book ! at Page 45. (263 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of ~ublic Health has revlewed Tentative Map No. 23101 and recommends that: A water system shall be znstalled according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prindts of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet. along with the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location of valves ~nd fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications. and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part l, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code. California Administrative Code. Title 22. Chapter 16. and General Order No. ~03 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. when applicable. Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: Kim Gifford April lg, 1988 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "! certify that the design of the water system in Tract Hap 23101 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans o£ the Rancho California Water District and that the water service,storage and distribution system will be adeguate to provide water service to such tract. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for flre protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. _T~_9_~!ans must be submitted to the County_ ~urveygr's Office to review at least two weeks R[A~£ to the request for the recordation of the f~na] maD. ~nis Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It w~ll be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal Water D~strict agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and 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 sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be szgned by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "! certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 23101 ls in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water Dzstrict and that the waste disposal system =s adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract." The ~lan$ must be subm:tted %o the County Riverside County Planning Dept. P&ge Three AT'I'N: Kim Gifford April 19, 1988 ~yEy~y~r's Office to review at least two ~eeks Rrior to the for the recordation of the final ~R- It vii! be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely. Ma~~z. r. Environmental Heal SM:tac Offiee~. Stan T. Mills General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Disctot of Finance - Norman L. Tbom~-s Director of Engineering Tbomas R. McAliester Director of Operations & M~intenance Barbara J. Reed Dirm:tor of Administration - Rut~u and Tucker June 16, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9t_h Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Vesting Tract 23101 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doherty Engineering Services Representative F012/jkw169f R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C 3 28061 DIAZ ROAD . POST OFFICE BOX 174 - TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-061~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~I~'11~ICT J, P.O. BOx 231 March 30, 1988 Development Review 08-Rlv-79-8.23 Your Reference: YT 23101 Planning Department Attention Ns. Kathy Gifford County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RIVER~.;DE CTUK .~' PLA.N:~ING ~.EFA.~T;'.:-~- NT Dear Ns. Gifford: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Vesting Tract 23101 located east of Kaiser Parkway and west of Butterfield ~tage Road. This proposal is considerably removed from an existing or proposed state highway. Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal does not appear to have a significant effect on the state highway system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage should be provided prior to or with development of this area. We have no specific comment on this proposal. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M. Connally at (714) 383-~38q. Very truly yours, H~.' N .~L EWA~NDO WSK'I~ District Permits Engineer DATE: March 16, 1988 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duds Road Department ' Health - Ralph Lucha Fire Frotection Flood Control District Fleh & Game LAFCO. S Paisley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson R,VcR3,D= COUnt. PLAnnina RIVERS! ~.--. C 0U¢.~T'Y PLAt,IN H'4G Riverside County Parks Agri culture Con, hi ssi oner Airports Depart. GROFIT Eastern Municipal Water District Rancho. California Water Dist. Elsinore Union School Dist. Temecula Union School Dist. Sierra Club CLATRANS 3B Commissioner Bresson Commissioner Donshoe Sheri ff'$ Depart. VESTING TRACT 23101 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 32533 - Marlborough Development Corp. - Community Engineering Services, Inc. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First & Third Supervtsorial District - E. of Kaiser Parkway, W. of Butterfield Stage Road, S. of LaSierra Way - SP/R-2-6,000 Zone - 87.0 Acres into 263 Schedule A - (CONCURRENT CASE SP 199 Amd. ~1, CZ 5107, TR s3100, 23102, 23103) - (RELATED CASE SP 199 Margarita Village) - Mud 120/339 - A.P. 923-200-010; 923-210-001 ~lease revie~ the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for May 16, 1988. If it clears. it will then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to May 1, 1988 in order that we may lnclude them /n the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gifford at 787-6356 Planner CO,~NTS: The Elsinore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing student population casued by new residential, commercial and industrial con- struction. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of Ab 2926 and SB 327, this ~--~trict~ies a fee against all new development projects within its~ ~ DATE: SIGNATUR~ , / ~' , ~'~v~v~z~ .~--- PLEASE pt/n: name and title Joseph P. Enserro. Asst. Superintendrant ,4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 - ). R;V;R iD; counc.u PLAnnine DEPAR;iil;n; DATE: March 16, 1988 TO: Assessor Buildins and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duds Road Deparzmeuc Healr, h - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Gone LA~CO, S Paisley U.S. Fostal Service - luth E. Davidson 1588 Riverside County Parks Agri culture Comissioner Airports Depart. GROFIT Eastern Municipal Water District Rancho California Water Dist. £1sino~e Union School Oist. Temecula Union School Dist. Sierra Club CLATRA~ 38 Comissioner Bresson Connissioner Donahoe Sheri ff's Depart. R~VEr:TDF COtI~!T~' VESTING TRACT 23101 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 32533 - Marlborough Development Corp. - Community Engineering Services, Inc. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First & Third Supervisorial District - E. of Kaiser Parkray, ~. of Butterfield Stage Road, S. of LaSierra Way - SP/R-2-6,000 Zone - 87.0 Acres into 263 Schedule A - (CONCURRENT CASE SP 199 Amd dl, CZ 5107, TR s3100, 23102, 23'103) - (RELATED CASE SP 199 Margarita Village) · Mod 120/339 - A.P. 923-200-010; 923-210-001 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for May 16, 1988. If it clears it will then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to May 1, 1988 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gifford at 787-6356 Planner DATE: 4-5-88 SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title MODE OF FUTURE DELIVERY: CENTRALIZED. CONTACT WITH THE USPS GROWTH COORDINATOR REQUIRED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR DELIVERY LOCATIONS. ROY MOON GROWTH COORDINATOR 4080 LEMON STREET, 9'" FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 /ZO/8/eg Jamram i~ ~mm~ Jr. April 15, lgBB Riverside County Planning Depart~nent 4080 Lemon Street, gth Floor Riverside, California 92501 T~ ~/~. Cam SUB~lECT: VESTING ll~. 23101 - SP 199 - MARGARITA VILLAGE (Gifford) The District is responding to your request for con~nents on the subject project(s) relative to the provision of water and sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: Is not within EMWDIs: X water service area sewer service area Hust be annexed to this Oistrict's Improvement District No. .. to be eligible to receive domestic water/sanitary sewer service. in order Will be required to construct the following facilities: a.) Water Service b.) Sewer Service Con~nents were submitted to Riverside Co. {Feb. 15, 1988) regaraing SP 199 - Am dl. This is to reiterate those comments that sewers are to be gravity~regionally sized and no sewers will be allowed on private lands, or along lot lines. They are to be in streets. 24550 $~n jacmto $u'eet · Point Of~ce [~3z 858 · Hemet. C~J~orma 92343 · Telephone (714) g25-7676 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: 5 MTG: 5-zz-,,o DEPT :"Pe,,,,-,,~ TITLE: PLOT PLAN NO. 11442 DEPT CITY ATltY CITY HGR .~ RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council Receive and File Plot Plan No. 11442, based on the findings made by the County of Riverside Planning Department. DISCUSSION: An application to construct four commercial buildings with a total of 40,000 square feet of area on 3.98 acres. The project is located between Jefferson Street and Commerce Center Drive, south of Overland Drive. STAFF CONCERNS: Based on the County of Riverside Planning Department's findings and Conditions of Approval, and Traffic Mitigation measures, Staff has no concerns with this project. FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined. SUMMARY: The site and proposed use are consistent with current zoning and land use designations. Staff recommends that Council Receive and File Plot Plan 11442. FEES TO BE COLLECTED: $3,709.00 toward Flood Control. FROM: CITY OF TEHECULA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT This item should be: Set and noticed for public hearing Placed on agenda as a receive and file item Action taken at your discretion ~ , Vicinity Jeff Harcty &AIioc. Architecture ~-~: (714) 676,4~B OVERLAND PLAZA RlnCho Cllilornil Sample Board for: OVERLAND PLAZA A.P.N.: 921-480-044 & 045. (~) Stucco: La Habra ~X-71 "Miami Peach" (~) Tile: Lifetile "S" ~ 820 ~ Paint Frazee ~ 4350 "Pheasant" (~) Solar Grey Glazing (~) Bronze Aluminum EXHIBIT NO. ~-I Preparer / Applicant: Jeff Hardy & Assoc. 27349 Jefferson Ave., Temecula, CA 92390 (714) {~ CASE NO. I I ~'/'/~ ~108 676-082~ , I prepafar / Applicant: Jeff Hardy & Assoc. 27349 Jefferson Ave., ~108 Temecula, CA 92390 !714} 676-0828 .Z OVERLAND PLAZA A.P.N.: g21-480-044 & 045 SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: Jeff Adams SUBMII-FAL DATE: 3/13/90 SUBJECT: Plot Plan 11442 Amended No. 1 Planning Correction No. 1 RECOMMENDED HOTION: ADOPTION of a Ne9ative Declaration for E.A. 34225 and APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN 1Z442, Amended No. 1, Planning Correction No. 1 based on the followin9: 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinance 348. 2. The proposal is compatible with area development 3. Environmental concerns can be mitigated at the development stage through the conditions of approval. PROJECT LOCATION AND LOCATION: Construction of office and commercial building space on 3.98 acres west of Jefferson Avenue and south of Overland Drive in the newly incorporated City of Temecula. BACKGROUND: GENERAL PLAN: Southwest Area Community Plan a. LAND USE: "C" (Commercial) b. OPEN SPACE?CONS.: Areas Not Desi9nated As Open Space ZONING: a. SITE: M-SC b. ADJACENT: M-SC, C-1/C-P LAND USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT: a. SITE: Vacant b, ADJACENT: Vacant, Commercial, Industrial MAJOR ISSUES: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Liquefaction, Subsidence, 100 Year Floodplain, Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat. JA:gs DATE: 3-12- 90 TO: SURVEYOR ROAD BUILDING AND SAFETY LAND USE GRADING CODE ENFORCEMENT FLOOD CONTROL HEALTH FIRE PROTECTION RiVERSiDE county PLAnninc DEPARCi EnC RE: PLOT PLAN NO.11442,AHD #1, Plan Corr#1 ENVIRONMENTAJ. ASSESSMENT NO. J4zzb REGIONAl. TEAM NO. Five On March 12, 1990 the Riverside County (XX) Planning Director ( ) Planning Commission ( ) Board of Supervisors took the following action on the above referenced plot plan: XX APPROVED attached *conditions. APPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhibit attached amended conditions. APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhibit the attached conditions. APPROVED the Plot ~lan, Rev.ised .Exhibit the attached amended conditions': ~' · UPHELD the appeal. DENIED the appeal. APPROVED the WITHDRAWAL of the appeal request. APPROVED the WITHDRAWAL of the Plot Plan. the Plot Plan, ExhibitA,AMD#1, CORR.#1 , subject to the , subject to the , subject to , subject to DENIED the Plot Plan based on the attached findings. ADOPTED the Negative Declaration on the Environmental Assessment noted above. All actions are final ten {10} days after the date of this notice unless an appeal is filed within that period. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director REVISED 2/90 <'e~ff ry S~ms~- Planne ~- 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 PLANNINQ DIRECTOR' S HEARINQ CASE SUMMARY DATE: 03-12-90 Continued from: 2-26-90 CASE NO. PLOT PLAN 11442, A~encied No. i E.A. No. 34225 Planning Correction No.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Construction of office and commercial building space on 3.98 acres west of Jefferson Ave., and south of Overland Dr. in the newly incorporated City of Temecula. AREA: Temecula SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: Within the City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN: Southwest A~ea Community Plan a. LAND USE: "C" (Commercial) b. OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas Not Designated As Open Space c. COMMUNITY POLICIES: d. ADJACENT: Commercial ZONING: a. SITE: M-SC b. ADJACENT: M-SC, C-1/C-P LAND USE/AREADEVELOPMENT: a. SITE: Vacant b. ADJACENT: Vacant, Commercial, Industrial MAJOR ISSUES: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Liquefaction, Subsidence, 100 Year Floodplain, Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for E.A. 34225 and APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN 11442, A~ncled No. 1, Planning Correction No.1 based on the following: The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinance 348. The proposal is compatible with area development Environmental concerns can be mitigated at the development stage through the conditions of approval. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Design Development Inc. 27620 Commerce center Dr. Temecula, CA 92390 PLOT PLaN NO. 11442, Am~ No. 1, Plan Corr #1. Project Description: Commercial buildings with office, fabrication, and storage uses. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-480-044, 045 District/Area: Temecula ® The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of commercial office, fabrication, and storage uses on 3.98 acres. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, ~r employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning PLOT PLAN NO. 11442, Amd No. 1, Planning Corr ~1. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the 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 County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 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. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked ~h~£t A, Amen~d No. 1, Planning Corr. No. 1, or as amended by these conditions· In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department's transmittal dated 01-25-90, a copy of which is attached. PLOT PLAN NO. 11441 Conditions of Approval Page 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated 12-11-89, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated 03-09-90, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 12-07-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section's transmittal dated 12-20-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety - Grading Section's transmittal dated 12-19-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Geologist's transmittal dated 01-06-82, and 02-05-81, copies of which are attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Transportation transmittal dated 09-08-89, a copy of which is attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved Landscape, Irrigation and Shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. Prior to the issuance of building permits, six (6) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12. The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348, section 18.12 and include a rein shut-off devil. In addition, the plan will incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler heads with incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage. PLOT PLAN NO. 11442 Conditiono of Approval Page 3 18. 19. 20. 21. A minimum of 101 parking spaces shall be required in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 105 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of three (3) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning ." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Riverside County Flood Control Environmental Health Fire Department Building & Safety - Land Use & Grading Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. If signage is proposed, a separate plot plan accompanied by the appropriate fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 348 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to sign installation. PLOT PLAN NO. 11442 Conditions of Approval Page 4 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit M-1 (Materials Board) and Exhibit M-2 (Color Elevations). These are as follows: Use Material Color Roof Tile Walls Stucco Paint Glazing Molding Frazee %4350 Solar Grey Aluminum Lifetile "s" #820 La Habra #X-71 (Miami Peach) Pheasant Bronze Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screening A total of two (2) trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose a total of four (4) bins shall be located within the project, and 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 gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. 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 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. "This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated." Prior to the issuance of grading permits if required, or prior to the issuance of building permits if no grading permits are required, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 PLOT PLAN NO. 11442 Conditions of Approval Page 5 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 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 under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. A total of six (6) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Prior to 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 building permits a Lot Line Adjustment shall be submitted and recorded as shown on Exhibit A, Amended No. 1, Corr. No. 1 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. Building "B" shall maintain a minimum of approximately 2,432 square feet for home improvement space. Building "C" shall maintain a minimum of approximately 9,040 square feet for home improvement space. Any tenant improvement which changes the use of buildings "C" or "B" (the space allocated to home improvements) shall be cleared through the Planning Department. Curb and gutter shall be installed along the project boundary to the southeast and the flood control channel. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. OFFICE OF I~:)AD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR January 25, 1990 COUNTY ADf4~TI~TIV~ CD,'T!~ P.o. BOX 1090 ('714) ?$?.6554 ./ Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 (Office Fabrication & Storage Uses) REs Plot Plan 11442 - Amend #1 Team 5 - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Transpor~ation Planning staff has reviewed the traffic study for'~he above referenced project. The traffic study has been prepared in accordance with accepted traffic engineering standards and practices, utilizing County approved guidelines. We generally concur wi~h the findings relative to traffic impacts. The study indicates a projected Level of Service "C" at adjacent locations. The Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies relative to Category II Land Uses s~ates: 'A minimum of Level of Service 'C' is necessary for any new Category II land use." As such, the proposed project is consistent with this General Plan policy. The following conditions of approval incorporate mitigation measures identified in the ~raffic study which are necessary to achieve or maintain ~he required level of services Prior to ~he issuance of building permits for ~his project, ~he following ~raffic lanes mus~ be in place at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Roads two nor~h~und f~rough lanes, 1 northbound right turn lane, one norr~htmund left turn lane, 1 Iou~.Jtbound through lane, one southbound right turn lane, 2 souf. hbound left turn lanes, fJ~ree eas~mci through lanes, 1 eastbound right turn lane, one eastbound left turn lane, ~wo westbound through lanes, 1 westbound right turn lane, and ~wo westbound left turn lanes. Wl~h respect referenced item, recommendations ~ to the conditions of the Road De~t approval for the above has ~he following O3UNTY ~~ ~ * 4080 l.~fON STRE~ · RIV!3t.~D~ CAL!I~R,qA 9ZSO 1 P10t Plan 11442 - Amend #1 January 26, 1990 Page 2 Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by ~his permit, the applicant shall complete ~he following conditions no cos~ ~o any government agency: No additional right of way shall be required on Overland Drive and Commerce Center Drive since adequate right of way exists. o The ~raffic signal mitigation fee has been met on this p=o~ect by T~ 16178. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by th~s permit, the applicant shall construct the following at no cost to any government agency ~ 4. No additional road improvements will be required at this t~me. ® Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1. All work done within County right of way shall have an encroachment permit. 7. All driveways shall conform County Standards and shall improvement plans. to the applicable Riverside be shown on the street ® All entrance driveways shall be channeltzedwith concrete curb and qu~er to prevent 'back-on' parking and interior drives from entering/exiting driveways for a minimum distance of 35 feet measured frcsa face of curb. o The street design and improvement concept of ~his project shall be coordinated with TR 16178 and PP 9814. 10. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall cc~ply with Road Departsent s~andards and require approval b~ the Road Cos~issioner and assurance of continuing sm/ntenance through the establishment of a landscape malntmmace dAstrlct/malntemance agreement or similar mechan/m as approved by the Road CamcLssloner. Landscape plmm shall be aubmltted on standard Count~ Plan sheet format (24' z 36'). Landscape plmm shall be su]~ltted Plot Plan 11442 - Amend January 25, 1990 Page 3 with the street improvement plans and shall depict ~ such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are to be placed within the public road rights-of-way. Sincerely, Lawrence A. Toezper Road Division Engineer LTlJw County of Riverside TO: FROM: RE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. RON~I~TAL PLOT PLAN 11&&2, AHENDED NO. 1 DATE: December 11, 1989 REALTH SPECIALIST IV Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No. 1 dated December 1, 1989. Our current c~ents will remain as stated in our memo dated September 13, 1989. SM:tac ' DEC 151..B9 R.,,=-~..~ COUNTY GEN. FOR.M 4. (Rex ~/87, Tl: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ~IVEI~..$IDE COU~CFY PLM~4ING DE~T. lATE: 0~-1..~-~9 At~tn: leff~ Martinez, ~nmental Health $Dec2alxst IV Plot Plan 11442 The ~nv~ronmenta! Health Servzces has reviewed Plot Plan 11442 and has no ob.iectlon$. Prior to any bulldlna plan aDproval. the follovinq items are required: Will serve" letters from water and sewerln~ a~enc 2es. o If there are to be any hazardous materials. a c!~£a~q9 ~9[ from the Environmental Health Servzces Hazardous Materxals Manaaement Branch (3on Mohoroskl. 358-5055), will be required indlcatlna that the mro.~ect has been cleare~ for: a. Underaround storaoe tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (In accordance wzth AB 2185). d. Waste reduction manaoement. $M:tac cc: Jon Mohorosk~, Hazardous Materials Branch C~I~F I~NG fNF.~R 'TE!.~PI, IONI: FAX NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNI~ March 9, 1990 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 5 Jeff Adams Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 11~2 Amended No. 1 Revised Report This is a proposal to construct an office fabrication and storage business on 3.98 acres in the Temecula area. The site is located on the south side of Overland Drive approximately 550 feet west of Jefferson Avenue. A 72" storm drain presently discharges flows to an existing un- lined trapezoidal channel which traverses this site. This is Line C-1 and these flows are discharged into Line C located at the southern boundary of the property. The developer proposes to extend the storm drain to replace the open channel. The Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and are normally not required of other types of new development. Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti- gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate. Following are the District's recommendations: A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall, equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The new development in this case includes a total of 3,98 acres, At the current feerrate of $932.00 per acre, the mitiga- tion charge equals $3709.00. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If Area Drainage Plan fees or mitigation charges have already been paid on this property in conjunction with an earlier land division or land use case, the developer should contact the District to ascertain what charges are actually due. MP~ 09 '90 16:14 RIVERSIDE GO, FLOOD DIC-,TPICT P.3x~I Riverside County Planning Department Re: Plot Plan 11~2 Amended No. 1 Reviaed Report - 2 - March 9, 1990 The open channel should be replaced by an underground facility designed to District standards with adequate capacity to convey all the flows presently carried by the open channel. Major flood control facilities are being proposed. These should be designed and constructed to District standards including those related to alignment and access to both inlets and outlets. The applicant should consult the District early in the design process regarding materials, hydraulic design and transfer of rights of way. All flood control facilities should be constructed to District standards. All facilities that the District will assume for maintenance will require the payment of one time maintenance charge equal to the "present worth" of maintenance costs from the time of acceptance through 1998. If the storm drain system is to be District or Road De- partment maintained, inspection of the storm drain system to be built with this tract must be performed by either the County Road Department, or the Flood Control Dis- trict. The engineer (owner) must request (in writing) that one of these agencies accept the proposed storm drain system. The request should note the tract number, location, and briefly describe the system (sizes and lengths). Request to the District should be addressed to Kenneth L. Edwards, Chief Engineer, Attn: Frank Peaira, Planning Engineer. If the District is willing to accept the system, an agreement between the owner and the Dis- trict must be executed. A request to draw up an agree- ment must be sent to the District to the attention of Michael Rawson. If the storm drain system is to be pri- vately maintained, the applicant may have the facility inspected by an approved private consultant. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be submitted to the District and County for review and approval prlor to recordation of the final map. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. MAR 89 '98 16:14 RIVERSIDE CO, FLOOD DISTRICT P.4/4 Riverside County Planning Department Re: Plot Plan 11442 Amended No. 1 Rev$sed Report -3- March 9, 1990 An encroachment permit should be obtained for any work on District facilities or within District right of way. The encroachment permit application should be processed and approved concurrently with the improvement plans. The properry's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area and outlet points. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. 10, A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and ap- proval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Zully Smith Of this office at 714/787-2704. c: Jeff Hardy enlor Civil Engineer ZS:bjp pp11442a PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405 INDIa. CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF 12-7-89 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 121'!'! STREET RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 TO: PLANNING DEPARTI~ENT ATTN: JEFF ADAHS RE: PLOT PLAN 11442 - AHENDED ~1 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. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 GP~ 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. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2~x2t), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the racer system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and apacin~, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plane shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local eater company with the following certification: #l certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." Install a complete fire sprinkler.system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 CPHor greater. The poet indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within $0 feet of a hydrant, and setnisus of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement chat the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered eust be included on the title page of the building plans. RE: PP 11&&2 Page 2 ® Install a superwised water flow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per Uniform Building Code. 8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, buildins(s) eust be area separated into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code. 10. Certain designated areas will be required to be ~aintained as fire lanes. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 12. Prior co issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $413.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in Building and Safety. 15. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Buildins Code, Section 503. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineerin8 staff. RAYHOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist December 20, 1989 Administrative Center * 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Jeff Adams County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA g2501 RE: Plot Plan 11442, Exhibit A, Amended #1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: Where no specific uses for proposed structures are indicated, Building and Safety may require additional Planning Department approvals. If the proposed project is to be "phased," an approved exhibit indicating which structures and on-site improvements are required for each "phase" should be required. An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site signage will be required. The site is located in a special studies zone. Prior to the issuance of building permits, written clearance is required from the following: * Temecula Valley Unified School District Prior to issuance of building peTmits, the applicant shall provide the Land Use Division~"~,th evidence of recordation of a Certificate , Prior to the issuance -,-'~-butldtn9 permits, the applicant shall conform with an approved floor plan indicating the maximum number of tenants allowed. Each space shall be labeled with a number or a letter. Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020 Planning Department PP 11442, Exhibit A, Amended December 20, 1989 Page 2 If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review. Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning Department must be attached. Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must be in conformance with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B, per Ordinance 655. Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping may be required. Consult your Conditions of Approval. Very truly yours, Senior Land Use Technician BUILDIN; AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADIN(] SECTION PLANNING / JEF_~e~ADAMS Deoe~er 19, 1969 ~P 11442 - Amended "Grading Seot~on"?as reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this s~te. plan ~s acceptable. Consequently, 'the "~rad~n~ section" recommends approval o~ ~hia proJest if the following oondl~ione sre included. Prior! ~o co~msnoinq any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, ~he appliCan~ shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the B2ilding and Safe2y Department~ I Provide verification that any existing grading was permitted and approval to construct was obtained from ~he Building and. Safety Departmem~. Offsi2e grading will require written legal permission. DATE: August 30, 1989 RiVERSiDE counc . PL, nnln DEPARQ EiK TO: Assessor Butldtng and Safety - Land Use Butldtng and Safety - Grading Surveyor - Ken Tetch Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control Otstrtct Fish & Game U.S. Postal Servtce- Ruth E. Oavtdson U.S. Fish &Wtldltfe Services County Superintendent of Schools Eastern Hetropolitan Water District Rancho California Water County Southern California Ed£son Southern Cal£fornia Cas General Telephone Caltrans #8 Temecula Union School District Els/more Union Hish School District Couuisioner Dave Turner CSA ~1~3 Sheriff Department PLOT PLAN 11442 - (Tm-5) - E.A. 342Z5 - Design Development Assoc., Inc. - Markham & Associates - Temecu]a Area -First Supervtsorial 01strtct - I~ly of defferson, SEly of Overland Dr. - I~SC Zone - 3.98 Acres - RELATED: PP 9814 - REQUEST: Office fabrication & storage uses - Hod 119 - A.P. 921-480-044,45 · , -, ,. ~.~ '~ ,, ! (~ 1''''~ ~ , .. y-' Please review the case descr~bed-'~.above, *along,;'wfth '*'* ' ..°the*attached case map. A Land Otvtston Co~tttee meeting has~been tentarty.ely scheduled'fbr September 2~, 1989. If ~t clears, it will then go to public ~eartng.~_.*_." *' .'~'* " :*"~ ' L Your comments and reconnendattons' are requested prior to September 22, 1989 in order that we may include them tn the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this ttem, please do not hesitate to contact ~leff Adams at 787-13~3. Planner COle~ENTS: DATE: $EP 0 R MI SISNATURE PLEASE prtn.t name and title CHIEF 04 - 7 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 STAT~ C~ CA~iA---~I.ISlN~SS, TRAN~d&olrrATR3N AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Dt~TIIICI' I, P.O. BOX ~31 SAN I['IIN&RD#MC), ~ ~P2402 TDD (714) ~ Septezxd:)er 8, 1989 Development Review 08-Riv-15-6.0± Your Reference= PP 11442 Planning Department Attention Jeff Adams County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Jeff: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan 11442 located westerly of Jefferson, Southeasterly of Overland Dr. in the Temecula area. This proposal is somewhat removed from an existing or proposed state highway. Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal does not appear to have a significant effect on the State highway system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage should be provided prior to or with development of this area. We have no specific comment on this proposal. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J. Neville at (714) 383-4384. Very truly yours, District Permits ~ngineer ¥ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: G MTG: ~' DEPT :'T~-~,..', TITLE: PLOT PLaN NO. 11518 /~MENDED NO. I DEPT HD CITY ATllF CITY MGR RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council Receive and File Plot Plan No. 11518, Amended No. 1, based on the County of Riverside Staff Report's Findings and Analysis and subject to the attached conditions of approval. BACKGROUND: Case No.: Applicant: Proposal: Location: Site Description: Environmental Action: Plot Plan No. 11518 Amended No. 1 Margarita Development Company Temeku Country Club Construct a 6,344 square foot Golf Maintenance Facility within Specific Plan No. 199, on a 1 acre site. Located at the terminus of South General Kearney Road, adjacent to the Heritage Mobilehome Park. Project on vacant property currently undergoing mass grading for golf course construction. Negative Declaration. ANALYSIS= The County of Riverside Planning Department conducted an analysis of this project and determined it to be an appropriate use of the site within the framework of Specific Plan No. 199. The project was initially approved at a Planning Director's hearing on February 5, 1990. A Negative Declaration for the project was adopted at that hearing. City of Temecula Planning Staff reviewed the County Report and Conditions of Approval. A site survey was also conducted to review site conditions and adjacent development. A letter has been attached to this report which was received from the Heritage Mobilehome Park. It indicates that concerns have been resolved and that the Heritage Park has no objection to the development. PP NO. 11518 Page Two FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined. FEES TO BE PAID: No project submittal fees will be refunded to the City. The case was completed by County Planning Staff. The project is subject to applicable County Development Fees, including Kangaroo Rat mitigation, flood control fees and traffic impact fees. The staff is recommending that the City Council Receive and File the County approved project. ~n4)~l~a~.~. Kathy G~fford RIV~SIDE COUNTY P~NNING DE~. 4080 Lemon St., 9=h Floor ~iverside, CA 92501 PLOP PLAN 111518 TEH~ COUNTRY CLUB HA~ENANCE AREA Dear Mrs. Gifford: I have met with Mr. Jim Reshey of The Buie Corporation and we have reached a written understanding as to the planting/screening of the maintenance area from view of the homes at Heritage Mobilehome Estates. We therefore have no objections to the plot plan, in fact we are very happy to have Temeku Country Club as our neighbor. CC' Very truly your~ J. Resney - The Buie Corporation RiVE:DiDE count.u PL6nninG D PARcm nc February 9, 1990 II~: Plot Pl&n No. 11518; Amended No. 1 E~vir~mental AsMsment Ira. II~g~m~ll Tea. Iio. Specific ~sans I~r ~ppllunt: On 2-5-90 the Riverside County ~ Planning Dtrector [] Plinnlng C~lsslon L] ~ard of Supsvisors ~ok ~e ~11~tng actton on the above ref~ced plot plan: X APPRO~O the condt tt ohs. APPROVED the Plot Plan, Exhtbtt A anewdad conall tlons. APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revtsed £xhtbtt attached contit tlons. APPROVED the Plot Plan, Revised Exhtbtt attached mended conditions. UPHELO the appeal. OE#IED the appeal. APPROVEO the k~TiORAWAL of the appeal request. APPROVE:) the WITHDRAWAL of the Plot Plan. DEI~IEO the Plot Plan based on the attached findings. ADOPTED the Bored Plot Plan, Exhibit , subject to the attached subject to the attached , subject to the , subject to the Negative i)eclaratton on the Environrental Assesment Thts action my be appealed to the [] Planntng C~mtsston [] Board of Supervisors ~thtn ten (10) days of the date of this notice.. The appeal ~ust be rode In ~ttng and subettted ~th a fee tn accordance~tth the fee Khedule to the ~pproprtate departaent. A~ appeal of a~y condition constitutes an appeal of the &ctton as a ~hole and requires · new publlc beartrig before the ~proprlite hearlng body. Very trul.y yours, RZYERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG DEPARTHENT Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director KG: mp r.,~: ~ e~lttat, ve ~6..43 I~lsed 0,-10-,66 40~0 LEMON STREEt1:, P FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALiFORNLJ, g2501 (714) 717-6181 Katherine Gifford, Planner III 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (61g) 342-8277 · - PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING CASE SUMMARY DATE: 2-5-90 CASE NO. PLOT PLAN NO. 11518 Amended No.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Golf Course Maintenance Facility located east of La Sierra Way on South General Kearny Road. AREA/DISTRICT: Rancho California Area in the City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN: Specific Plan lgg, Amendment No. 1 ZONING: a. SITE: Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. I b. ADJACENT: Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 LAND USE/AREA a. SITE: Graded site golf course b. ADJACENT: Mobilehome park to north, residential development west of La Sierra Way. MAJOR ISSUES: Planning staff was concerned with treatment on the north as it interfaces with the mobilehome park. The applicant is constrained in landscaping the northern edge due to easements. The applicant has reached an agreement with the mobilehome park owner to landscape slope areas off-site if mitigation is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for E.A. 34363 and APPROVAL of Plot Plan 11518 Amendment ~1 based on the following 1. Plot Plan 11518 Amendment ~1 is consistent with Specific Plan 199 Amendment ~1. 2. Plot Plan 11518 Amendment ~1 is consistent with Specific Plan lgg Amendment ~1 zoning. 3. The project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. KG:gs RIVERSIDE COOlfrY PI.AJININ$ DEPART)gENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Margarita Development Company 16935 Bernardo Drive San Diego, CA 92127 PLOT PLAN NO. 11518 Amendment ~1 Project Description: Golf Course Maintenance Facility Assessor's Parcel No.: 946-060- 007 City of Temecula, Rancho Calif. Area ® ® 0 The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan 11518 Amendment ~1. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the 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 County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 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. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way, and shall comply with Ordinance No. 655. The applicant shall comply with the street inq~rovement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department transmittal dated 12/21/89, a copy of which is attached. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated 12/6/89, a copy of which is attached. PLOT PLAN gO. 11518Amendment tl Conditions of Approval Page 2 e ® 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittal dated 1/8/90, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 12/7/89, a copy of w~ich is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Building and Safety transmittal dated 12/22/89, a copy of which is attached and Grading letter of 11/8/89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the Eastern Municipal Water District letter dated 10/18/89 and UCR Archaeological letter dated 10/30/89, copies of which is attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten {10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. A minimum of 16 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Sixteen parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of 1 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than 1 inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: 'Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning ." PLOT PLAM NO. 11518 Amendment tl Conditions of Approval Page 3 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Health Planning Department Riverside County Flood Control Fi re Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of building permits the following additional and/or revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: $4§R~Rg P~e§~am (Deleted at Planning Director's Hearing 2-5-90) E4§h~4R§ PlaR (Deleted at Planning Director's Hearing 2-5-90} Color and Materials Board Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit A. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit A. No roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on any building within the project site. In accordance with the written request of the developer to the County of Riverside, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement by the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities, no building permit shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any units within the subject property until the developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities. 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 South General Kearny Road. 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. PLOT PLAN #0. 11518Amendment ll Conditions of Approval Page 4 22. 23. 24. 25. 28. One trash enclosure which is adequate for the project shall be centrally located within) the project, and 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 opaque gate with a self-latching device which screens the bins from external view. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. This project is located within thirty {30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be minimized, especially during the late night and early morning hours. All outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plan passing through the luminare. P~,4e~, ee She 4ssuamee e~ a bu4:~d4n§ pe~m4e am eu~dee~ ~4gh~4m~ p~am sha~ be subm4~ed ~e~ P;ammimg 94~e~e~ app~eva~ shew4mg ~he ~e~a~4em~ amd ~ype ~he 4ssuam~e e~ e~upan~y pe~4~s, (Deleted at Planning Director's Hearing ~-5-gO) ~e~eee ~4§hes, 4~ ~equ4~ed by eke Read gepa~(mene, T~a~4e ~a~eey aeee~danee w4~h ~he s~anda~ds e~ Q~d4nan~e 4S~ and ~he ~e~ew4~§+ (Deleted at Planning Director's Hearing 2-5-90) aT Geneu~en~y w4~k ~ke f4~4n§ e~ 4mp~eYeme~ p~ans w4(k ehe Read gepaP~men~ ~he deYe~epe~ sha;~ seeu~e app~eYa~ e~ ~he p~epesed s~ee~ ~4~#e4n§ ~aye.~ ~em ~4~se ~ke app~ep~4a~e ue4~4~y pv~veye~ and ~hen ~ke Read DepaP~men~e ~af~4e en§4neePT Fe~4ew4n§ appPova~ e~ ~ke s(Pee~ ~4§ke4n§ layeu( by (he Read DepaP~qen~s e~a~4e en§4neeP~ ~he deve~epe~ ska~ a~se ~4;e an app~4ea~4en w4~h ~AFGO ~eP eke ~ePma~4on e~ a sePee~ ~4~h~4n§ PP4OP ~O ~he issuance e( bu4~d4n§ pe~nn.t(sv eke develepeP ska~ seeuPs pe~m4(s, (Deleted at Planning Director's Hearing Z-5-gO) This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. Mitigation shall be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in the development of this project. PLOT PLAN NO. 11518 Amendment Conditions of Approval Page $ 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. All existing structures on the subject property shall conform to all of the applicable requirements of Ordinance 348. Prior to 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 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Prior to 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 instal led underground. Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit A, a land division shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with 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 Grading permits, four (4) sets of landscaping an irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Road Department for the following parkway: South General Kearny Road. Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section .that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348 and Specific Plan 199 Amd. tl. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. KG:gs:mp OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR L~Rov D. $moo~ ROAD CO~HI. SSIC~'[.,R & CCX,,.~ITY S~dRVL'YC~ December 21, 1989 COCNTY ADML~IS'I';~TIV[ CE'~TIR MAlt. INC, ADOR! SS= P.O. BOX I090 RP, T. JLSIDC CALtI'ORN[A 9Z502 (714) 117.6554 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: (Golf Course Maintenance) Plot Plan 11518 - Amend #1 Team SP - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 Ladies and Gentlemens With respect referenced item, recommendations: to the conditions of the Road Department approval for the above has the following Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall complete the following conditions at no cost to any government agency: Sufficient right of way along South General Kearny Road shall be conveyed for public use to provide for a 66 foot full width right of way terminating in a standard cul-de- sac as approved by the Road Department. e The applicant by design is requesting a vacation of the existing dedicated rights-of-way along South General Kearny Road. Said vacation shall be applied for by the applicant and approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the issuance of a building permit. e Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Dep~nt the sum of $2,625.00 towards mitigating traffic impacts for signal require- ~entso This amount represents 1.5 acres x $1,750.00 per gross acre = $2,625.00. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall construct the following at no cost to any government agency: COUNTY ADMIN15'TRATIV[ CENTER * 4080 LJ:MON STRLt"T * RJV-r. R51DE, CAUFORN'tA 9250! Plot Plan 11518 - Amend December 21, 1989 ¥age 2 e e ® e e 10. 11. South General Kearny Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter and match up asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by the Road Commissioner within a 66 foot full width dedicated right of way in accordance with County S~andard No. 103, Section A. (44'/66') Asphalt emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along South General Kearny Road in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a miD~mum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by County. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1. All work done within County right of way shall have an encroachment permit. All driveways shall County Standards improvement plans. conform to and shall the applicable Riverside be shown on the street The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 23371, TR 23372 and SP 199. truly~ YO. s, LJ:Jw County of Riverside 2R~S. IDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: December 6, 1989 ironmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No. 1 ~d November 29, 1989. Our current comments will remain stated in our memo dated October 19, 1989. County of Riverside I ~verside County .P~nning Dept. /n: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DATE: Plot Plan 11518 October 19, 1989 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan 11518 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to any building plan submittals, the following items will be submitted: 1. -"Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies. A clearance letter from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (Jon Mohoroski [714] 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: a. Underground storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185) d. Waste reduction management. SM:cr cc: Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch KENNL~'H L EDWARDS 1995 MARKET ~'T'REET P.O. BOX 1033 TELEPHONE ,.714) 787-2015 F~,X NO (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Specific Plan Team Kathy Gifford January 8, 1990 Attention: JAN 1 2 1990 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 11518 Amended No. 1 This is a proposal to construct a golf course maintenance facili- ty in the Temecula Valley area. The site is along the south side of South General Kearny east of La Serena Way. This development is within tentative Tract Map 23371-1. The grading plans and improvement plans of Tract Map 23371-1 are being reviewed by the District now. The building permits on this plot plan should not be issued until the plans for Tract Map 23371-1 have been approved. The Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and are normally not required of other types of new development. Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti- gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate. Following are the District's recommendations: A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The new development in this case includes a total of 1.5 acres. At the current fee rate of $932,00 per acre, the mitiga- tion charge equals $1,398.00. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. -2- January 8, 1990 Riverside County Planning Department Re: Plot Plan 11518 Amended No. 1 If Area Drainage Plan fees or mitigation charges have already been paid on this property in conjunction with an earlier land division or land use case, the developer should contact the District to ascertain what charges are actually due. e The building permits for this project should not be is- sued until the District approval for Tract Map 23371-1 has.been granted. Questions regarding this matter may be referred to the Subdivi- sion section of this office at 714/7872333. c: Rick Engineering enior Civil Engineer ZS:slw PLANNING & ENGINEERING 4C~109 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 9ll01 (619) 342~886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF 12-7-89 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDF~ CA 92501 (714) 787~606 TO: ATTN: RE: PLA/qNING DEPARTMENT KATHY GIFFORD PLOT PLAN 11518 - AMENDED 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. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 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. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2½x2½), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. 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." 6. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Section 503. Subject: Plot Plan 11518 Page 2 e Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as required by the Uniform Building Code. In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section 505 (e) of the Uniform Building Code. 10. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. 11. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 12. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 13. 14. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $345.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. 16. 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. PEGIS Chief Fire Department Planner. Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist December 22, 1989 Administrative Center * 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: K. Gifford County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Plot Plan 11518, Amended #1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: If the proposed project is to be "phased," an approved exhibit indicating which structures and on-site improvements are required for each "phase" should be required. An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site signage will be required. If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review. Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning Department must be attached. Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must be in conformance with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B, per Ordinance 655. Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping may be required. Consult your Conditions of Approval. Very truly yours, Rob~re~s~"'~c~-~ _........ Senior Land Use Technician Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020 RIVERSIDE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEP I 0N TO: KATHY G I FFORD FROM: TONY HARMON DATE: 11/8/89 RE: P.P.11518 AMENDED # 1 PLANNING The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Provide verification that any existing grading was permitted and that approval to construct was obtained from the Building and Safety Department. Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass or ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15° in vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Landscape plans are to be si~ned by a registered landscape architect and bonded per the requirements of ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Grading in excess performance security Safety department. of 199 cubic yards will require to be posted with the Building and In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Building and Safety department- this may require a written clearance from the Planning Department. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86, and 284-46. Thank you. o/D~eaors Jc'~n M. Couduces. Presklem Richard C. Kel~eT. VKe Presidem Win. G. Aldridse Chester C Gilbert Rod~e~ D. Setns Juani,~ L Machek Riverside Co. Planning Dept. 4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor Riverside, Ca 92501 SUBJECT: "~.~T '"~ I. k '~ The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: /Is not within EMWD's: ~"water service area sewer service area /Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to be served by EMWD: Sewer Service Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, lift stations, force mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers, treatment, and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations will be allowed. ~E,.~'~..~ ~T- 4. G,,~,..~. ~Ea.r~,,.,~ ~ ~',,..,-a /l.~,..~r~,.,,.: ' ~ /LT ~,'~ A ~Z r~.,9~,~, t " " · EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Planning Department 2045 S. SanJacinto Street · Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacimo, California 92383-I)00 · Telephone (714) 925-7676 DATE: October 10, 1989 , TO: Assessor Building and Safety - Land Use Building and Safety - Grading Surveyor - Ken Teich Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services County Superintendent of Schools County Parks Eastern Municipal Water District Rancho California Water District Southern California Edison Southern California Gas General Telephone Elsinore Union Temecula Union Please review the case-jescribed above,--along RiV;:I3iD counc: PLAnninc NOV - 2 ~ COU~'I'Y RECEIVED IN Or.T 18 1989 PLOT PLAN 11518 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 334363 First Supervisorial District - Margarita Development Company - Rick Engineering Kearny Road, East of LaSerena Way - REQUEST: Golf Course Maintenance Facility - RELATED CASE 199 and Tract 23371) - Mod 119 - A.P. g46-060-007 with ~the-<Lattached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting.. has been tentatively schedqled?'for November 13 1989. If it clears, it will then go to.public hearing..",~ ',, : ..:~.' ~' Your comments and recommendaJ~i!ons '~re requested-prioK' t~',NoCem~.e~ 13, 1989 in order that we may include them in the '~t~ff-report for-this-particular-.case. Should you have any questions r~'ga[ding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gifford at 787-6356. Planner. DATE: /0/$/~'~' SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title EASTER~ IN FO.C..'-.,,ATION CENTER Arc~aec:c:',:,:~ ;'-'search Unit unl;6rS.;y O: {.-~i,fornia Rivers~Oe C;,. 92521 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMF. NT GRADING SECTION TO: KATHY GIFFORD FROM: TONY HARMON DATE: 11/8/89 RE: P.P. 11518 AMENDED # 1 PLANNING The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Provide verification that any existing ~rading was permitted and that approval to construct was obtained from the Building and Safety Department. Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass or ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Landscape plans are to be signed by a registered landscape architect and bonded per the requirements of ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Grading in excess performance security ~afety department. of 199 cubic yards will require to be p6sted with the Building and In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Building and Safety department- this may require a written clearance from the Planning Department. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 2~84-88, and 284-48. Thank you. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: '3' MTG: DEPT TITLE'TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037 AMENDMENT NO. 1 DEPT HD CITY ^TT¥ CITY MGR RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council RECEIVE and FILE Parcel Map No. 25037. Amendment No. 1 BACKGROUND Case No.: Applicant: Proposal: Location: Existing Zoning: Swap Designation: Parcel Map No. 25037. Amendment No. 1 Preferred Equities and Sunnergy Development To construct a planned industrial development with seven condominium style industrial parcels and one common area parcel on 2.55 acres. Southerly of Rancho California Road, westerly of Kathleen Way (see attached map). I-P Restricted light industrial. Analysis The Southwest Area Plan designates this area as light industrial. This category allows research and development, industrial and office uses. The project site has previously been graded and is located in an (IP) industrial zoned area. The surrounding areas currently being developed with similar business type uses. Summary In conclusion, the project appears to be compatible with the existing and proposed development of the area and staff recommends the City Council APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map No, ;75037, Amendment No. 1, subject to the conditions circulated in the attached County Staff Report. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 1990 (AGENDA ITEM 7-1 - Tape 2B) PARCEL MAP NO. 25037 - EA 34157 - Preferred Equities & Sunergy Development - Temecula Area - First Supervisorial District - southerly of Rancho California Rd, westerly of Kathleen Way - 7 condominium lots, 1 cmmon lot - 2.55t acres - SCHEDULE E - PROJECT: Planned Zndustrtal Development (7 condominium style industrial buildings) The hearing opened at 1:45 p.m. and closed at 2:15 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for E.A. 34157 based on the finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and approval of Parcel Map No. 25037, Amended No. 1 based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report. The applicant is proposing a planned industrial development with seven condominiums parcels and one common area parcel on 2.55 acres. The site in question is located southerly of Kathleen Way and westerly of Rancho California Road in the city of Temecula. Currently the site is vacant and has been graded. Surrounding parcels consist of industrial uses and business parks to the north and east and vacant and graded land to the south and west. Presently the site is zoned I-P as well as to the north and east, and R-A-gO to the south and west. The proposed project site lies within the Southwest Area Community Plan where the land use designation is Restricted Light Industrial. Staff explained that with this land use designation it would allow research and development, industries and offices in an industrial and business park setting. The proposed pr6ject is consistent with the zoning and land use designation of the Southwest Area Community Plan and is compatible with area development. All environmental concerns will be mitigated through the conditions of approval. Mr. Richards explained the plan to the Cmmnisston and said this plan is a planned industrial development that is in a way an industrial condominium. He referred to the site plan and explained what is being done on the plan in question. He stated that the proposed project would be sharing parking, landscaping that surrounds the property and parking that is within the conmnon a~a. TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT Anthony Polo, (Markham & Assoc.), 41750 Winchester Road, Suite "N", Temecula, said the reason they have designed the project the way they have is for general efficiency. Mr. Polo pointed out that in addition to the benefit of parking and landscaping, he said that there is a access idea that would be brought up by the Road Department. He noted if they develop a parcel for each of these buildings, each parcel would be required to contain its own parking and have adequate access to it. Cmm~tsstoner Beadling asked Mr. Polo could they build to the edge of parcel 6. In answer to Commissioner Beadltng's concern, Mr. Polo stated this parcel is the building footprint on which the foundation would be built and he noted that they are required to build to this point. At this point, Mr. Polo referred to the conditions of approval. 27 ~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION MINUTES March 14, 1990 Hts first concern was Condition t22 in the staff report that would require him to obtain clearance and/or permits from certain agencies; his concern was why would he be required to obtain a clearance from Environmental Heal'th. He noted that the clearance letter he has received from Environmental Health did not ask for anything prior to building permits. Mr. Polo's request was to have Environmental Health deleted from the list of agencies. Condition #22 - Conditions of Approval - DELETE the word 'Environmental Health' Mr. Polo's next concern was Condition t23 in the staff report that would require him to put in setbacks. He referred to the exhibit of the proposed project and noted that on this exhibit there is a slope that is 7 ft. high and this property currently is zoned residential. According to the ordinance this slope would be a 50 foot setback. At this point Mr. Polo explained the reason why this particular slope would not have any structure on it even if it is graded. He noted that the area to the south is Restricted Light Industrial according to SWAP. Mr. Polo expressed that he has talked to staff regarding the setback concern and they have reached an agreement with staff regarding the setback. Staff explained that what was agreed upon was that Mr. Polo would take the setback to 7b feet. What Mr. Polo is asking for in this condition is to have it changed so that it would reflect the site plan as approved. Staff noted that they have considered the request of the applicant. Mr. Chiu said that they feel that a 7~ ft. setback would be to small so they agreed that 10 ft. would be acceptable. However, on the south side where the applicant is proposing a setback at a minimum of 5 feet, staff felt that this would not be a sufficient setback from the property line. Staff felt that a minimum of 15 feet would be an adequate requirement. After staff's conmnents, Mr. Polo stated that 15 ft. is the minimum requirement by ordinance. He stated that he was told by staff if he went to 7~ ft. it would be adequate. Mr. Richards questioned Mr. Polo by asking him what is in the area to the south, is it a slope. Mr. Polo said this area is a continuation of the pad in question and it is owned by the same developer with no grade differential. Mr. Polo explained that the o~mer is planning to take care of this issue when a planned industrial development is done on the back portion of this area. After the above discussion, staff amended Condition t23. Condition t23 ADD to the end of this condition the following wording The rear setba~shall not be less than 7.5 feet. Mr. Polo's next concern was Condition t30 in the conditions of approval that would require them to submit to the Planning Department seven copies of the parking, landscaping, irrigation, signage and shading plan. Mr. Polo's desire was to have this condition to read 'prior to the building permtt'. 28 ~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 1990 Condition f30 AMENDED to read: Prior to the building permit, seven (7) copies of a parking .... Mr. Polo referred to Condition f3g in the conditions of approval that would require him to construct a block wall along the southerly property line. He noted that this property line is the one that has the large slope and he felt that by placing a block wall at this location would serve no purpose. Mr. Goldman commented that the pad in question is lower than the adjacent property so he is asking that the slope be the depth separation. At this point staff deleted Condition 13g. Condition of Approval ~39 -OELETED Mr. Polo's next concern was Condition ~40 in the staff report that is a requirement to place trash enclosures on the site. He explained why it would not be a good idea to have seven trash enclosures scattered throughout the site. Mr. Polo noted they would like to follow the design of the plot plan instead of the condition. After the above discussion staff amended condition /40. Condition of Approval /40 - AMENDED to read: Two (2) trash enclosures which is adequate to enclose a total of two (2) bins shall be distributed throughout the project, and 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 an opaque gate with a self-latching device which screens the bins from external view. Mr. Polo's next item of concern was condition ~45 in the staff report and what he is asking for is could he get clearance from the Geologist. He noted that the project in question is not in the Subsidence Zone. After a brief discussion staff decided to leave this condition as is. Mr. Polo's next item was Condition of Approval ~46; he wanted clarification of what this condition meant. Staff explained briefly. The next item of concern was Condition of Approval t51a. Mr. Polo explained that they have turned in to the Planning Department a archaeological report so he felt this condition had already been met. Condition 51a - DELETED Lastly, Mr. Polo questioned the paleontologtcal resources which conditions for clearance by the museum and also a paleontologist to come on site. He noted that the site in question was ruff graded and is flat and has a 1% grade on it and what they are going to do with this area is place a parking lot on it and excavate the footings. With this being done he wondered if this condition would still be appropriate. 29 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, lg90 Mr. Chtu explained that they have contacted the San Bernardino County Museum and have explained to them that the lot has been graded. The museum feels even though the lot had been graded, it does not necessarily mean that there are no further artifacts still present on the site. So what they request'of the applicant is when he is ready to grade that they be extremely sure that there are no artifacts present. There was no one present in opposition. Ms. Lind noted that an additional finding would have to be added. ADD - Finding f6 - The proposal project is consistent with the General Plan that will be formulated by the City of Temecula. Mr. Johnson questioned Condition f26 in the condition of approval that refers to street lighting. He explained that the Road Department is currently in charge of street light requirements. He noted that he would like to add Condition ~21 to the Road letter that would relate to street lighting and delete condition ~26 from the conditions of approval. ADDED to Road Letter Condition f21 to read: Street 1tghts shall be r~red in accordance with Ordinance 460. DELETE Condition of Approval ~26. Hearing closed at 2:15 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicant is proposing a planned industrial development with seven (7) condominium parcels and one (1) conmnon area parcel on 2.55 acres; the site is vacant and has been graded. Surrounding land uses consist of industrial developments, business parks, and vacant parcels; the site is presently zoned I-P, and the surrounding zoning include I-P, R-A-20 and M-SC; the Southwest Area Community Plan designates the site as Restricted Light Industrial; environmental concerns include fault hazard subsidence Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat, paleontologtcal resources and lighting on Mt. Palomar Observatory and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan that will be formulated by the City of Temecula. The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the Southwest Area Community Plan and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; the proposed project is consistent with I-P zoning and environmental concerns will be mitigated through the conditions of approval. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner, seconded by Cmmisstoner Smith, and unanimously tarried, the Commission recommended to the Temecula City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA 34157 and approval of Parcel Map 25037, Amended No. 1 subject to the conditions of approval as amended and based on the above findings and conclusions as amended. 3O Zoning Area: Temecula Supervisorial District: E.A. Number: 34157 Regional Team No.: 5 Fi rs t TENTATIVE PA&CEL NO. 25037 AMENDED NO. 1 Planning Commission: 3/14/90 Agenda Item No.: 7-1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer/Rep.: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Reccrnmendations: 12. Letters: 13. Municipality: Preferred Equities & Sunergy Development Markham and Associates Planned industrial development with seven condominium style industrial parcels and one common area parcel. Southerly of Rancho California Road, westerly of Kathleen Way I-P I-P, R-A-20, M-SC Graded vacant parcel Vacant parcels, industrial development and business parks. Southwest Area Community Plan Land Use: Restricted Light Industrial Total Acreage: 2.55 Total Lots: Seven condominium style industrial parcels and one common area parcel. Proposed Min. Lot Size: 2557 Sq. Ft. See letters dated: Road: ~-20-1B93-14-90 (Amd. at the Planning Commission on 3-14-90 Health: 12-15-89 Flood: 11-28-89 Fi re: 12-05-89 Bldg. & Safety Land Use: 12-12-89 Bldg. & Safety Grading: 12-12-89 County Engineering Geologist: 3-1-90 S.B. County Museum: 8-24-89 U.S. Postal Service: 8-23-89 So. Calif. Edison: 8-18-89 Opposing/Supporting: None received City of Temecula ANALYSIS PRO,1ECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a planned industrial development with seven condominiums parcels and one common area parcel on 2.55 acres. The project site is located at the southerly of Rancho California Road and westerly of Kathleen Way in the City of Temecula. TENTATTVE PARCEL !~P NO. 25037 AgEtiDED MO. 1 Staff Report Page 2 Land Use and Zoning: The site is currently vacant and has been graded. Surrounding land uses include industrial uses and business parks to the north and east, vacant and graded land to the south and west. The site is zoned I-P. Surrounding zoning includes I-P to the immediate north and east, R-A-20 to the south and west, and M-SC to the further north and east. General Plan Consistancy/Land Use C~npattbtlity: The project site lies within the Southwest Area Community Plan. Land use designation for this area is Restricted Light Industrial. This land use category allows research and development, industries, and offices in an industrial and business park setting. The proposed planned industrial condominium subdivision is zoned I-P and has adequate access and the necessary community services. Also, the area is in intransition of transforming into a major industrial and business park center of the City of Temecula. Since the proposed project is consistent with the zoning and land use designation of the Southwest Area Community Plan, and it is compatible with the area development. Therefore, staff determines the proposed project to be consistent with the policies within Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Environmental Assessment: The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 34157 indicated that the site is subject to fault hazard and subsidence. Other environmental concerns which may impact the site or be impacted by the project are: Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat, paleontological resources, and lighting on the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Nevertheless, all environmental concerns will be mitigated through the conditions of approval. The archaeological report on file at the Archaeological Research Unit at UCR was previously conducted for the underlined Parcel Map No. 19626-1 and no cultural resources were found. FINDINGS: 1. The applicant is proposing a planned industrial development with seven (7) condominium parcels and one {1) common area parcel on 2.55 acres. 2. The site is vacant and has been graded. Surrounding land uses consist of industrial developments, business parks, and vacant parcels. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037 AMENDED NO. 1 Staff Report Page 3 3. The site is presently zoned T-P, and the surrounding zoning include I-P, R-A-20, and H-SC. 4. The Southwest Area Community Plan designates the site as Restricted Light Industrial. 5. Environmental concerns include fault hazard subsidence Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat, paleontological resources, and lighting on Mt. Pal omar Observatory. 6. The proposed project is consistent with formulated by the City of Temecula. 3-14-90). CONCLUSIONS: the general plan that will be {Added at Planning Commission on 1. The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the Southwest Area Community Plan and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. 2. The proposed project is consistent with I-P zoning. 3. Environmental concerns will be mitigated through the conditions of approval. RECO!~ENDATIONS: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 34157, based on the findings that the project will not have s significant effect on the environment; and APPROVAL of PARCEL MAP NO. 25037, AMENDED NO. 1, subject to the conditions of approval, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in this staff report. JC:gs:sc PLANNING COI~I55ION HEARING DATE: MARCH 14, 1990 RIVERSIDE COONTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TEMTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037, AMENDED NO. I The following conditions of approval are for a planned industrial development with seven condominium style industrial parcel and one common area parcel on 2.55 acres. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037, AMENDED NO. I and EXHIBIT A, AMENDED NO. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. e The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Board of Supervisors approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460. ® All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the County Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. ® Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor. TENTATIVE PARCEL FAP NO. 25037 /IJqENDED g0. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 2 e m 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel map boundary to a County maintained road. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated ~-2~-8~T 3-14-90, a copy of which is attached.(Added at Planning Commission 3-14-90). The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health reccmmendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 12-15-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 11-28-89, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 12-5-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated 12-12-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated 12-12-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Engineering Geologists 's transmittal dated 3-1-90, a copy of which i s attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San Bernardino County Huseum's transmittal dated 8-24-89, a copy of which is attached. TEIITATTVE PARCEL MAP #0. 25037 ARENDED #0. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 3 ae A paleontologist shall be on site for the entire grading operation. The paleontologist will be authorized to divert and direct grading operations to facilitate the evaluation and, if necessary the salvage of exposed fossils. The project proponent will pay for the analysis of any fossil finds and subsequent report preparation and curation. 18. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the U.S. Postal Service's transmittal dated 8-23-89, a copy of which is attached. 19. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Southern California Edison Company's transmittal dated 8-18-89, a copy of which is attached. GRADING: 20. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 21. Grading plans shall conform to the Hillside Development Standards as presented in the Comprehensive General Plan. All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing {benching) plan, increased slope ratio (e.g. 3~t, retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. driveways shall not exceed a 15% grade. DEVELOPFIEFrr STANDARDS: 22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Building & Safety Road Department Fire Department San Bernardino County Museum Riverside County Flood Control County Engineering Geologist {Deleted at the Planning Commission on 3-14-90). Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. 23. Minimum side yard setback shall not be less than 10' and rear yard setback shall not be less than 15'. Also, a minimum of 10' setback may be TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP NO. 25037 AMENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 4 24. 25. provided in lieu of 50' along the southerly property line and shall be landscaped. The waiver of 40' of the required 50' setback is due to the existing slope constraint adjacent to the property line. The rear setback shall not be less than 7.5 feet. (Amended at the Planning Canmission on 3-14-90). Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the I-P zone. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in this subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461. ~ s~Fee~ ~4§k~4n§ 4s p~epesed ~e be 4Rs~a~ed 4R ~k4s sbu~4v4s4eny 4~ ~ke ~el~ew~e§+ aT geeduw?eRe~y w4ek eke ~4~4R§ e~ subd4v4s4ee 4mp?evemeae p~aas w~ek eke Read Depaw~meee~ eke deve4epew ska~ sevuwe appw~va~ ef eke se~ee~ ~ay~ ~ f4~s~ ~ke g~ke~ Ga~4d~a Ed~se~ G~pa~y bT ;e.~ew4~g app?eva~ e~ eke s~wee~ ~4ghe4Rg ~aye~e by eke Read gepa~eme~eZs e~a~e e~g4~ee~ eke deve~epe? sha~ a~ee ~4~e app~4eae4e~ w4ek EA~6g ~ew eke d4s~4e~ ~ anne~a~4~ ~e an e~4s~4n~ eT P?4e~ ee eke weeewdae4eR ef eke f4ea~ map~ eke deve~epe~ sha~ seeu?e ee~d~e4e~a~ app?eva~ e~ eke se~eee ~4§he4.§ app~4~ae4ea ~em 6A;GO. (Deleted at the Planning Commission on 3-14-90), PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FILIAL NAP 27. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, Amended No. 1, or as amended by these c ondi ti ons. 28. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. 29. 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. TERTATIVE PARCEL MAP MO. 25037 NE11DED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 5 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Prior to the ~ssua~ee ef §~ad~g e~ building permit, seven (7) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, Signage and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section, 18.12, and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 348. (Amended at the Planning Commission on 3-14-90). Master improvement plans presented on Exhibit "A", Amended. No. 1 shall be coordinated with the master improvement plans for Parcel Map 25037, Amended. No. 1, on file with the Planning Department. Said plans shall include the use of native specimen trees and shrubs. A minimum of 125 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 130 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A, Amended. No. 1. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of five (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the botton of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than i inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning ." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Parking lot landscaping shall include a bermed and landscaped setback from adjacent streets. An additional three percent {3%) of the parking area shall be landscaped {exclusive of the setback} with a minimum of one {1) specimen tree per eight {8) parking spaces. TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP NO. 25037 ANEPlDED #0. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 6 35. Loading spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.13, Riverside County Ordinance 348. 36. 37. Building elevations and floor plans shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibits B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, and B-7. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibits M-1-1, M-1-2, M-1-3 (Color Elevations) and Exhibit M-2 (Materials Board). These are as fol 1 ows: Material Col or ~/ Roof Mission Tile Peach Trim St one Guadel aj a ra 3) Wall Stucco Santa Fe 38. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screening P~4e~ te the ~4ma~ b.~d~m§ ~Rspee~em app~eva~ by the Bu4~d~R§ aRd $afe~y depaFtmeR~ a s~ ~ee~ h~gh deee~a~ve b~eek wa~ ska~ be e~st~ue~ed a~eR§ ~he seu~he~y p~epe~y ~4ne where abuts ~he R-A-;Q ~e~e. The ~equ4~ed wa~ she~; be sub~e~ ~e ~he app~a~ e~ ~ke ~4~ee~ ~ ~he gepa~me.~ ~ Bu4~d4m~ a.d ;a~e~y a.d ~he P~a..~.~ g4~e~e;, (Deleted at the Planning C~mission on 3-1~90) 6ever (~Two (2) trash enclosures which is adequate to enclose a total of sever ~two (2) bins shall be distributed throughout the project, and 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 an opaque gate with a self-latching device which screens the bins from external view. (Amended at the Planning Commission on 3-14-90). Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. Landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened from industrial streets and'open space areas. 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 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. TENTATIVE PARCEL IIAP NO. 25037 /~ENDED #0. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 7 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of Riverside demonstrating compliance with all conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Parcel Map No. 25037, Amended. No. 1 and E.A. 34157. 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 the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Five Class I bicycle lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. All utilities except electrical lines rated 33kV or greater, shall be installed underground. One center-identification monument sign, in accordance with Ordinance 348, shall be allowed for the industrial area. Other signage shall be allowed in conformance with Ordinance 348. No billboards shall be permitted for the industrial area. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following conditions shall be complied with: aT P~4e~ ~e ~#e ~eee~da~4e~ e~ ~#e ~4~a~ map. ;ke subd4v4de~ ska~ p,e~4de a. a~ekaee-l~4~a~ ~epe~ ~e~ P~a,,4,§ ~epa~e.~ app,eva~. ~he Pep~ sha~ be peP~ed by a ~ua~4~4ed a~skaee~4s~ us4n~ sha~ be 4~p~a(ed 4n~e ~he des4g~ ~ ~he ~4na~ map as d4~e~ed by ~he P~a~n4ng ~epa~en~, (Deleted at the Planning C~mission on 3-14-~0). TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25037 NqEIIDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 8 Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that the total project will be developed and maintained in accordance with the intent and purposes of the approval: a. The document to convey title b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded c. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the project The approved documents shall be recorded at the same time that the subdivision map is recorded. Ce A property owner's association with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property, of the owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the association. ENVIROPP!ENTAL CONSTRAIRT SHEET CONDITIONS 52. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet {ECS) shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. EIIVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET C011DITIONS: 53. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the Office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordation of the final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note(s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. me "County Geological Report No. 681 was prepared for this property on February 16, lggO by Soil Tech and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department." be "This property is located with thirty {30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps TENTATZVE PARCEL HAP NO. 25037 /UqEIIDED #0. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 9 54. 55. 56. that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminare." The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the Riverside County Surveyor." Prior to any use allowed by this Plot Plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. JC:gs:sc 2/06/90 VAC ~ WY. X VAC ~ GP.~~ VAC ~.0~...,, HILLY~ \ vAo ~~ HI~Y "'~AC~. ~' 4/4'x~ raLLY '~,lll~ IIREFERRED EQUITIES & SUNERGY D[V. - ~ ~ED INDUSTRI~ DEV. A~: ~~LA ~ ~ ~t. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~R.3W. ~'. ~.~o ~.3~ (10 AC. roll. ~ CP-S.W.A.P. cN PREFERRED EOUITIES & SUNERGY I:~: ~ -'~/~'.]~:lIi,]~l,' INDUSTRIAL DEV. TEMECULA '- Ilq~. Okt ~st.I ~fim,.,, 'r.e s..,.sw. Am,No,; e,,.s4o ~:s, '1 l:~1111/111~llle: DIAZ RD.---~ .... 100 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR March 14, 1990 --Neve~e ~- ~(~r- ~999- COL,."NTY ADMI~ISTRATfLT CENTER ~IAIUNG ADDRESS: P.O. BOX IO90 PjVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 (714) 275-6740 RO~ COMM~I~ & CO~ ~R%TYOR Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Ladies and Gentlemen: RE: PM 25037 - Amend #1 Exhibit A Schedule E - Team 5 - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 *As amended at P.C. 3-14-90 With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvements, street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses. with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/ or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. e The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER * 4080 LEMON STREET * RIVERSIDE, CALIE'ORNIA 9Z50! PM 55037 - Amend #1 - Exhibit A Nevembe~-aG~-½989- March 14, 1990 Page 2 10. 11. 12. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. Kathleen Way shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 111. (28'/39') Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. The developer/owner shall submit a detailed soils investi- gation report addressing the construction requirements within the road right of way. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho California Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of Ordinance 461. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Camino Real in accordance with Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalks). The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights of way to provide for primary/ secondary access road(s) to a paved and maintained road. Said access road(s) shall be constructed in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60') at a grade and alignment approved by the Road Commissioner. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, a written agreement may be entered into with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. PM ~5037 - Amend #1 - Exhibit A Nevembe~-~g~-½989- March 14, 1990 Page 3 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with PM 23968. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. A striping plan is required for Kathleen Way. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall comply with Road Department standards and require approval by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing maintenance through the establishment of a landscape maintenance district/maintenance agreement or similar mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. Landscape plans shall be submitted on standard County Plan sheet format (24" x 36"). Landscape plans shall be submitted with the street improvement plans and shall depict only such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are to be placed within the public road rights-of-way. Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make application for and pay for their reapportionment of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit. The applicant shall provide CC & R's to insure access to all parcels. PM 25037 - Amend #1 - Exhibit A · Ne~embe~-~-½989 March 14, 1990 Page 4 '21. EB: jw Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file, after receiving tentative approval, for an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. V_ry truly~ ES17b 'ru ~ v~sa~mogna~tn~neer ~ *As amended at P.C. 3-14-90 [,E¢ 19 '89 18:16 MARKHAM COUNTY RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT of HEALTH RIV~B$II:TE COUNTY PLANNING 4060 Lemon StrOll Riverlide, CA 92502 ATTNI John Chiu Ul&l,l# l&llllll IOll IA¥11Y l?llll Ill NOR?NMOAbWAY ~(MON&, CA 4~1~0 Nell! I1O NO~?N I?i?l I?. IltlJ ,NOLO. CA illOl &ill ILlliBel LAK! ILi,#~l, CA, JlllO Pill SPIllS! PALM IPRINQI, CA I/ti! tOY NORTH 'O' lllll! ilVllilll 1010 LINDEN ~lvtRlfp[. CA. lUlllOll Jill ¥1llIO~ BLVD. RB:t PARCL~, MAP 26037: Portion o~ Pircel 3 of PM 19626-1 ¢6 Loll) ~entlemen: The Depmrtment of Public Health hil reviewed Tenettire ~ip No. 25037 and rlCollndl thlt: A wirer I¥1ten shall be tnl~llied &ccordino to pllnl and lpeciflcation as approved by the water comp&n~ and the Health Depirtment. Permanent 9rintl Of the pl&nl O~ the wirer IylteB be tubmitred in triplicate, with i minimum not loll thin one inch eqUall 200 ~eet, &lonq with the ort~lnil driving to the County OurYoder, The printl lhal! Ihow the internll pipe diimlter, Lociteen of ~llYel and fire h~dr&ntll pipe ~otnt opecjOlt&riehl, lnd the lile o~ the mien it the .~unction of thl new l¥1tem to the 1Xiltinq Iyltem, The pl&nl 1hall comply in FOlDOCLI with Div. $, Fire i. ChiDelF ? Of the Ciltfornii Health ind Gt[ety Code, Call/ernie Adminiitri~lve Code, Title 22, Ch&~ter 16, and Donerat Order No. 203 of the Public Otilitlel COUilliOn of the St&to of Ciliforni~. when ipolic&bie. The el&ns Ih&il be liDned by I registered engineer and water company with the following Clrttflc&tion: "l certify thio the deliqn of the water lyltem in Parcel Map 25037 &¢~oFdlnce with the water lyetom expansion the Binoho California Wirer DOltricO and that the water letvice. itoraqe and diltribution lyetom viii be adequate to provide wirer letvice to luch tract DEC 19 '89 1Z:i? MARK~ & ASS0¢IATESxRIVERSID~ Biverside County PItnnin~ Dept. Pi~e Two ATTN: John Chiu December 15, 1989 This certification does not constitute A guarantee that it will supply water to such tract map At Any specific quantities, flows or prelimres for fire protection or Any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by A responsible official of the water This De~&rtment has A statement fro~ Bincho California ~tter District agreeln~ to serve domestic water to each And every lo~ in the subdivision on demand providing s&tllfAc~ory financial Arrangements Are completed with the lubd~vtder. It will be necessary For financial trrtnoements to be made ~rio~ to the recordation of the final map. Tl~is Department has i statement from the EAstern Hunsoil&! ~Ater District &qreein~ to Alloy the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewerl of the District. The sewer system shall be installed tccordtn~ to plans And specifications As approved by the Distrzct. the County Surveyor And the Health Department. Permanent prints of the slams of the sewer s¥1tem Ihii! be submitted in triplicate, Alon~ w~th the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location Of manholes, complete profiles, pipe And dotnt specifications And the size of the sewers At the ~unction of the new system to the existing s¥1tem. A single plat indicating location of lever linel And water lines Ih&ll be a ~ortion of the sewage plane And profSill. The Plans shall be siqned by t registered engineer And the lewer district with the following certification: "l certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map 2503? is in Accordance with the sewer lystem expansion plans of the ELstern Municipal WAter District And that the waite dt19os&l lyltem is idlqu&te At this time to treat the inticiptttd wastes from the proposed tract DEC 19 '89 12:17 MARKHAM ~ ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE ATTO, John Chiu December 15, 1959 It will be necese&r~ tot fintnci&l &rramoements to be com~ietei~ ~ln&lized prior to record&&ion of the [in&i miD. ~-r~vironmentii He&lth Services S1¥1: tac KENNETH L EDWARDS 1995 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015 FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. Planner .7~ Area: Re: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the /(//~,~___~/~='-'y"~ 6~-)~-~-~~£~uz~~'~'~ Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of yOy~ /~o~-~-/ The project will be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~ave been constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. Very truly yours,_ JOHN ". KASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer DATE: '~/~r~. ~ /'~'~ PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY C~UFO,,,S FIRE DEPARTMENT ~"71~%~t fROTEc~*~L*~ IN CO OPERATION WITH THE ~~ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION ~}~:~ ~¥ GLEN J. NEW~ ~' "', FIRE~I~ ~ ' · '"t' Z2-5 D~C 0 6 1~9 3760 lZ~ STREET & ENGINEERING Ri~I~ ~ mVE~mDE, CA 9Z50t ATTN: JOHN CHIU RE: PM 25037 AMENDED #1 - REVISED LETTER With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced parcel map, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 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. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2½x2½), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company 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. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 6. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. e Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check o~ money order in the amount of $413.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. Subject: Parcel Map 25037 Page 2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. e Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 10. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as required by the Uniform Building Code. 11. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Michael E. Gray, Deputy Fire Department Planner December 12, 1989 Administrative Center * 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: John Chiu County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Parcel Map 25037, Amended #1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: Where no specific uses for proposed structures are indicated, Building and Safety may require additional Planning Department approvals. If the proposed project is to be "phased," an approved exhibit indicating which structures and on-site improvements are required for each "phase" should be required. An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site signage will be required. Prior to the issuance of building permits, written clearance is required from the following: o Temecula Valley Unified School District The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall conform with an approved floor plan indicating the maximum number of tenants allowed. Each space shall be labeled with a number or a letter. If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review. Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning Department must be attached. Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020 Planning Department PM 25037 December 12, 1989 Page 2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Land Use Division with evidence of recordation of a Certificate of Parcel Merger. Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must be in conformance with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B, per Ordinance 655. Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping may be required. Consult your Conditions of Approval. Very truly yours, Robert~Linares ~~ Senior Land Use Technician OOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADING SECTION TO: JOHN CHUI PLANNING FROM: TONY HARMON DATE: 12/12/89 RE: P.M. 25037 AMD. 1 The information provided on this pro~ect did conceptual grading plan. However, ~ufficient supplied for us to recommend approval with conditions. not include a information was the following Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety-department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to and/or cut slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass or ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Grading in excess performance security Safety department. of 199 cubic yards will require to be posted with the Building and In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Building and Safety department- this may require a written clearance from the Planning Department. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86, and 284-46. Thank you. :IiVE:I iDE counc.-, i,L nnin( DEi' EnC March 1, 1990 Soil Tech, Inc. 41607 Enterprise Circle North P.O. Box 1568 Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: David L. Jones Michael K. Mason John T. Reinhart Anthony B. Brown SUBJECT: Seismic/Geologic Hazard Project No.: 3074-P-89 Tentative Parcel Map No. 25037 A.P.N.: 940-310-026 County Geologic Report No. 681 Rancho California Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed the seismic/geologic aspects of your reports relative to the Willard fault on this site. These reports are entitled 1) "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Parcel 22 of Parcel Map 18254," dated May 1, 1989; 2) Geotechnical Testing/Grading Report, Parcels I through 3 of Parcel Map 19626- 1, Parcel i of Parcel Map 19626-2, dated April 12, 1989; Geotechnical Testing/Grading Report, Parcel Map 19626-2, dated October 2, 1989; and your response to County review dated February 16, 1990. Your reports determined that: There are no active faults related to the Willard fault on the subject site. There is no significant hazard of surface fault rupture on the subject site. No mitigation measures relative to surface fault rupture were made in your report. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE E BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342~277 Soil Tech, Inc. March 6, 1990 Page -2- It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and satisfies the additional information requested under the California Environmental Quality Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval of the report is hereby given. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joseph A. Richards, Panning irector pf Engineering Se~ogis~ // CEG-1205 / I / SAK: bam c.c. Markham & Assoc. - Anthony Polo Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2) Planning Team 5 - John Chiu DATE: August 8, 1989 RiVE:I iDE CCXlnCY Pl., nnin DEP&:ICI IEnC TO: Assessor Building and Safety - Land Use Bulldtng and Safety - Grading Surveyor - Ken Teich Road Oepartment Health - Ralph Luchs Fi re Protection Flood Control 01strict Fish & Game U.S. Postal Servlce - Ruth E. U.S. Fish &Wlldltfe Servtces County Superintendent of Schools Rancho California Water Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Temecula Union School District Lake Elsinore Unified School District Conmnissioner Dave Turner Temecula Chamber of Commerce UCR - Archaeological Unit ATTN: Dan McCathy San Bernardino County Museum ATTN: Bob Reynolds .~,. ~t~nun i ty Plans PARCEL MAP 25037 - (Tm-5) - E.A. 34157 - Mountainview Assoc. And Preferred Equities & Sunergy Der. - Markham & Assoc. - Temecula Area - First Supervisorial District - S of Rancho California Rd., W of Kathleen Way - I-P Zone - 2.55 Acres - Schedule E - No Waiver - RELATED: PM 23968 - REQUEST Planned Industrial Development ~7 condominium style industrial bldgs.) - Nod 119 - A.P. 940-310-026 Please review the case described above, along with Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled clears, it will then go to public hearing. the attached case map. A Land for August 31, 1989. If it Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to August 31, 1989 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact John Chtu at 787-1363. Planner COIftENTS: The site is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Construction excavation will result in impacts to nonrenewable vertebrate fossils. The applicant must employ a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a plan of mitigation which should include but not be limited to (1) monitoring and salvage during excavation; (2) preparation of specimens, including processing of adequate samples of sediments for recovery of microvertebrate fossils; (3) identification of specimens and curation into an appropriate museum repository; and (/+) a report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered.specimens.._ ~. ~-- I~ATE: 8/24/89 SIGNATURE ~ ~. .~~. PLEASE print name and tttle Dr. Allan D. Griesemef', Museums Director 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 Southern Ca//forn/a Edison Company P O BOX 410 1OO LONG BEACH BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801 LAND $1rRVlC£$ DIVISION REAL. I~RORERTI[$ AND ADMINIC, TRATIVIE .e~IrRVICE$ TELEPHONE (2 I 3) 491-2946 FAX (213) 4~ 1.2675 Riverside County Road Department P.O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Attention: Subdivision Section SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25037 August 18, 1989 Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Tentative Parcel Map No. 25037 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and'complete'exercise of any easement(s) held by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said tentative parcel map. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's rights, title and interest in and to said easement(s), nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for relocation of any affected facilities. In the event that the development requires relocation of facil- ities, on the subject property, which facilities exist by right of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation. If additional information is required in connection with the above mentioned subject, please call Dennis Bazant at (213) 491-2644. Very truly yours, S. R. SHERMOEN Regional Mana~~ ~-- Real Properties Agent 19956(7)pmh cc: Riverside County Planning Dept., Attn: Markham & Associates John Chiu November 9, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92507 Attention: John Chiu Regarding: 25037 - Planned Industrial Development Bulldlng Setbacks Dear John, As per a previous discussion held with Anthony Polo of Markham and Associates we are prepared to modify the proposed setback on our referenced development from 7.5 feet to 10 feet for the southerly side yard setback. We would like to handle this change as a condition of approval rather than with a new exlbit due to timing considerations. As previously mentioned we feel that the 50 foot setback is essentially met offsite due to the 100+ feet of existing slope directly adjacent to the property line. This slope physically constrains the adjacent property owner from building within 50 feet of the proposed structures. The subject Planned Industrial Development is for office buildings and therefore the intent of the setback to separate Industrial uses is less appropriate than for an office project. In addition, the nieghboring property is currently in process with a general plan amendment to change to commercial zoning. The rear yard setbacks are currently shown as 5 feet instead of the 15 required, this is due the adjacent rear parcel being the same ownership. The developer intends to address any rearyard setback concerns during development of the rear property. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely} /~ .... ~Jo~h{n He~d~~ SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE: 5/~/90 SUBJECT: Resolution No. 90 -_ .... Declaring Fire Hazard Presented by Weeds and Providing for Recovery of Costs Conjunction with Weed Abatement. in RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move that the City Council of Temecula: (1) Approve the attached Resolution No. 90- which declares hazardous weeds a public nuisance, provides for the abatement of said hazardous weeds within the City of Temecula as set forth in Government Code Section 3~561.5, e~t seq.~ and authorizes the recovery of the costs of abatement, including a reasonable administrative fee of $140.00 per parcel. (2) Set a public hearing for June 19, 1~0, for the purpose of hearing and considering all objections or protests, if any to the proposed removal of weeds and the costs associated therewith. JUSTIFICATION: This action is required as the first step abating fire hazards under the Hazard Reduction Program. in GLEN J. NEWMAN County Fire Chief db Attachment: Cost Justification COST JUSTIFICATION: Since the inception of the Hazard Reduction/Tax Lien Program in 1984, the administration fee has been $100 per parcel worked. There is a need to adjust the fee to reflect the rising costs to run the program. The following is the present annual cost average number of parcels: and breakdown per Fire Prevention Technicians (?) X $22~680 = Fire Captain (1) X $?0,265 = Vehicles (? @ 18,000 miles) X $ 4~860 = Operating Costs (mist) = Office Space = $158~760 $ 70,265 $ 34~020 $ 16,200 $ 30,000 Total = $30~245 Average number of parcels ~200/average cost = $140 per parcel. Contractor costs are assessed per parcel worked~ included in these calculations. so they are RESOLUTION NO 90- A RESOLU~ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING HAZARDOUS WEEDS A PUBLIC NUISANCE, PROVIDING FOR ABATEMENT OF SAID HAZARDOUS WEEDS, FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEE FOR THE COSTS OF ABATEMENT INCLUDING A REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMF~NT CODE SECTION 39565 WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecula, has determined that Pursuant to Government Code Section 39561.5, et se~_., it is their intention to abate the growth of hazardous weeds growing within certain areas of the incorporated territory of the City of Temecula, and WHEREAS, such weeds are growing on the property more particularly described in the list of parcels, attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that these hazardous weeds are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated as provided by Government Code Section 39571, et sea_. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a fee will be charged to the landowner in an amount sufficient to cover the reasonable and necessary costs of the abatement including an administrative fee in the amount of $140.00 per parcel. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Fire Chief, or his designated appointee, is hereby authorized to give the notice necessary to destroy said weeds and notify the owners of the above-referenced parcels of the Council's intention to conduct a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on June 26, 1990, for the purpose of hearing and considering all objections or protests, if any, (a) to the proposed removal of weeds, and (b) to the establishment of fees to cover the costs of such removal. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Clerk is to advertise the public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 6062a Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 3/Resoa58 05/15/90 ':'9 t 4.S00':}4~ -? 'I 43L':007~ 914300 07 S 9 ! 450 r"> 009 ¢ ! 9021 ':}0? 919031 ':"~ 0 c- 9 t 9051 ':'-) ! 2 .. 7 '..'., .~.'.,'-. ~ '-7 !. 9082('".}2 919082005 9 :[ 9,:}9 t 004 c.~ 19091 ,:">06 ? I ? t ,:},:"x}09 ,:::'" c:, ! 220.'.') "'- 9122"}07_, :~ t c)., --[ ,. ;5 i] 9 i 9 !3 i,:::,i 9 ! 9 ! 61 ()0 ~ ~ 91610(:-2 91916 ~ 005 919162001 91916200~ '9 ! -9183001 919 ! 84004 919200010 919200011 9 ! 92 ! 0C '} ! 9192 ! 0002 ~ t 92 i 0006 ? '[ c~ ! 924,'.'..>,]; :':. ,c, ! 92400 [ 0 ':? ! 926'2,'}"Z~ ':~';" 19262(: :)4 '7 i 9262006 919231015 · ? 19 ..' ~ ~ ,:'-.~ 1 / 919291003 9 ! 929! 00.4 919291 '-.-.'" 192?20 '." 919TO '. 005 9 ! 9313001 919313002 91932.]003 919323004 9.19.U 230,.'} 5 92102004 92 ! 0T, 0014 92 ! 030015 9210.U0016 9210 .Z 0017 921040003 "-..° 21040027 '.=.2 ! 05001 92 i 050020 "~21090017 92 ! ':} ?"_],'} 1 E: ~2 ! I i 1002 92 ! l 12007 921 ! '20(' 16 921 ! 200 ! 7 921130007 921 ! :;'.'.'>009 921140011 92! I 40012 92114;}0 ! ':92! i 62002 921 ! 63007 921 i 8000.T 921 ! 80004 921192002 921192003 '~-2120 ! 015 921202002 ~921 ,' - ! 00 ! 9-.-1..-! 1002 921211003 921211014 9212 ! 2004 921 ':2230 () 5 921 '~ '-' ' 3" · 921232005 92 ! 24-200? 921242,:"x} 8 '::'Z 12.~ ! 0 ! 4 :':'21 9 ~ I U 700 (]) 2 '? 21 ~ 70003 9214000 i 7 921400044 921400045 921480007 ~::214~004~ :~ 2 ! :'4 80 045 92 ! 480059 9220230 ] 8 9220240 i6 ~220%2022 9220~3018 9220.5.40 ! 8 ?:'2205402.5 922034030 922034031 '~22':}.54032 ~)22041009 922041010 922042007 922043014 922043015 92205 '2004 ¥'22052005 :' 22'}62C! ! 77 '::'22;} 72 :} ! C:' :~ 22':}720 ] 2 922072018 'F:"22C7202 ! 92212':]:' 010 922120011 922 !200 :[ 2 '~22 ! 300 i 5 '922 i ':."} O08 "722 ! r:0010 ~22 ! 5'}022 92216'D,.'} ! 0 :D ."D. ,'7'. 1 .&F]F) t ~ 922 .T ,?}015 922 !60018 9221 .'a"} C~24 '::?2'2 ! 7000 T '9'22170002 '-7' 22 ! 70006 c722170007 922 i 70008 '9221900O3 c722190C~08 922190C) ]. I o ~. ,'?, 1 '.W':.('~ i 5 9221 S~0022 ~2219002], 922 ! 90024 o9'.--., ! ~.'7.-,~',~"'~'.".' ~--. '::' 2 '_' 2000 ~'"~ 7 · a 4 "~ 0 2 C" 0 0 :L ':;' 4- 4 ,:": 9 2 0 21 '~-4~ 1C O012 9 '-~ 4 ]. 0'1'.'0 ! 9 044 ! ,:1:, 00 ..'5':, 0 944132017 ?.'44 )' 40,] 01 '-~44 t 4001 ]. c:, ZL ~ ,'5 ....'.. "~.5 '" '7;' 94508000 L=,, 945 ('~ 80006 945110 ,:'.~ 05 9451 ! ;-)o 13 ?'4'~ 120004 c:" 451 '4001 '2 945 ! 70007 9451700(-~9 945170 :} 1 ('.~ 9451 ~:; a001 94518C, 003 9451 De004 ':)Z.I~-=' '" 0 ., 4 .., 1 S 0010 """Z[~' I :..-.'r"if'~ I ? '! 60 '? 0002 946090005 946 ! 0C"002 946! OC!01 ! 9461 r.-~ 0012 94610 C)'.':;' I .~ RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA IN SUPPORT OF SCA 1, THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND SPENDING LIMITATION ACT OF 1990. WHEREAS, the State of California faces serious problems in its fiscal policy which threaten the critical areas of education, transportation, health services, law enforcement and other taxpayer services, thereby endangering the state's current and future economic health; WHEREAS, SCA 1 would alter the Gann spending limit to allow the state greater flexibility in making use of all available revenues generated by California's strong economy; WHEREAS, it would allow the state to raise the gasoline tax to provide increased funding for maintenance and improvement of highway and mass transit projects without reducing funds for other state programs; WHEREAS, it would continue the guarantees of Proposition 98 that grades Kindergarten through 12th and the community colleges receive 40% of the state budget; WHEREAS, without a change in the Gann spending limit, it will be impossible to maintain the generally high level of education, transportation, health, law enforcement and other vital services to the residents of California; WHEREAS, SCA 1 is supported by a broad coalition including the Governor of California, State Superintendent of Schools, California Taxpayers Association, League of Women Voters of California, California School Boards Association, California Chamber of Commerce, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Retired Teachers Association, California Professional Firefighters, California State Automobile Association, California Business Roundtable, University of California board of Regents, California State University Board of Trustees, and many others; Reso-57 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve as follows: Section 1: That the City of Temecula does support passage of the traffic congestion relief and spending limitation act of 1990 (SCA 1). Section 2: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTEl'} this 1st day of May, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: F.D. Aleshire, City Clerk [SEAL] Re~o-57 Fromm4 The.~, .~g.Mo. Se~ · SutMSv. M~6.1~00 Yes on transportation There are three measures on the June ballot - Propositions 108, 111 and 116 - designed to confront Califorma's massive transportanon problems. Two, Propositions 108 and 116, authorize bonds for major rail projects: the third. 111, confronts the state's badly deteriorating streets and highways. The Bee recommends a Yes vote on all three. Proposition 111 must pass. Because it loos- ens Califomia's increasingly unmanageable government spending limits. it is crucial to the maintenance of all state services. from health to higher educanon. In addition. Prop- osinon 111 authorizes the state to increase gasoline taxes - currently among the lowest in the country. - from 9 cents to 18 cents a gallon. The new taxes will raise $18.5 billion over the next 10 years, primarily to upgrade and build state and local roads - needs that have been neglected for more than a decade. iT he gas-tax measure is oriented toward full funding for the State Transportation Im- provement Plan. an extensive list of highway projects approved in 1988 that includes road improvements in virtually every community. Its critics say that some of those projects no longer make environmental sense, or even relieve congestion. Where that's true, every effort must made by state and local officials to substitute better plans. Rut in most cases. it seems not to be true. The bulk of the gas- tax money will go to a long list of traffic miti- gation measures - diamond lanes, traffic- management systems, sound walls: to ur- gently needed improvements in local streets; and to expansion of local transit systems. For commuters stuck in traffic and confronted with a network of rapidly deteriorating roads. those needs should be obvious. proposition 111 also makes possible the implementation of Proposition 108, a $1 billion rail and light-rail bond measure. if the voters approve it on June 5. Along with Prop- osition 116, a $1.9 billion rail-bond initiative, 108 would give the state an opportunity to in- vest in mass transit alternatwes that will be- gin to give Californians some real alterna- ' rives to cars and bet n to restore balance to the state's highway dependent transporta- tion system. The two measures idenufv rail corridors. including Sacramento ligl~t-rail extensions, San Joaquin Valley rail improve- ments and Bay Area to Sacramento interc~w rail lines, as places where bond money will be spent - on rolling stock and improved tracks, roadbeds and stations - to expand rail passenger sennee. The reasons for 108 and 116 should like- wise be obvious. In many of the most con- geared parts of Los Angeles and the Bay Area - as well as in Sacramento - the cost of ex- panding freeways is prohibitive and likely to produce more air pollution and generate more traffic. The two bond measures are thus companions. both politically and in the development of a balanced transportation policy, to the highway improvements that Proposition 111 makes possible. They, too. deserve to pass. There xs one troubling aspect about Proposition 116, which was placed on the ballot by initintive and was thus subject to no overall fiscal planning. Planning trans- potration systems and issuing bonds by. ini- tiative is never ideal: it becomes partlc,,t,~ty problematic at a time when California is ap- proaching a limit on the amount of new debt it can prudently absorb in each election cy- cle. Indeed. if Proposition 111 does not pass. and the Gann limit on spending therefore re- mains unchanged - or if any other serious fiscal crisis should occur - issuance of rail bonds approved under Proposition i08 or 116, or both, will have to be postponed in fa- vor of other, even more pressing state needs. If necessary, rail bonds tentatively scheduled by the Legislature for 1992 and 1994 may al- so have to be delayed. Nonetheless, given the urgency of the state's transit needs and the fact that the in- frastmcture funded by 108 and 116 is likely to generate far more in economic growth - and the tax revenues to pay off the bonds - than it costs, both rail measures should be approved now. Without them. the state's gridlocked roads and its dirty air can only get worse. All three major pant candidates for governor, John Van de Kamp. Dianne Fein- stein and Pete Wilson. have si_Lmed ballot ar- guments in favor of Proposition 116. All sup- port all three trans0ortauon initianves. Yes on 108. 111 and 116. STATEMENT TO THE WAYS & MEANS TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING PROPOSITIONS 111 AND 108 AND THE CALTRANS 1990-91 BUDGET Submitted by Arthur l~auer Executive Vice President Californians for Better Transportation April 25, 1990 Mr. Chairman and members, Californians for Better Transportation is pleased to have this opportunity to testify at the hearing regarding the overview of the governor's proposed 1990- 91 Celttans budget. As has been pointed out to you by Mr. Leonard, chairman of the CaLifornia Transportation Commission and Caltrans' very able director Bob Best, the state's transportation program is terminally ill unless Propositions 111 and 108 are approved by the voters in June. The lack of funding has caused Caltrans to propose a budget that is 23 percent less than the current budget for next fiscal year. This proposed budget is a precursor of future budgets. The cuts often represent Hobbsian choices which are really acts of desperation. For example, the Transportation Planning & Development Acetaunt is reduced by $40 million from the State Transit Assistance Program to sustain elements of the highway program which itself is reduced 22 percent. A transportation budget that reflects decisions of this sort is unfortunately not a broad based transportation program. but rather a group of expenditure categories with very limited goals and objectives. It is for this reason that CBT and other groups have been seeking the passage of Propositions 111 and 108. In regard to the campaign efforts, one of the questions that members of CBT's board of directors has repeatedly heard during meetings with service dubs and with newspaper editorial boards around the state relates to exactly how the Proposition Ill and 108 funds will be used. The public needs the confidence that funds will be spent as intended. Therefore, we strongly support your staff recommendation to essentially adopt a dual budget-the proposed budget, which assumes no new revenues, and an alternative budget that assumes the additional $718 million that the passage of Proposition 111 will make available to the highway program next year. This action will communicate to Californians what they can expect in the first year after both propositions are enacted. CALIFORNIANS FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION ISSUES COMMITTEE I.D. 891955 Jack D. Makeste~ Pres~aent Arthur E, Bauer Trea.~urer CAMPAIGN UPDATE PROPOSITIONS 108, 111 and 116 Why Vote for Propositions 111 and 1087 Take A Look at Caltrans' Proposed 1990-1991 Budget California's transportation budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year was the subject of a recent hearing of the Assembly Ways & Means Transportation Subcomittee. Tlae subcomittee. chaired bv Assemblyman Steve Clute (D-Riverside) was told that the governor's proposed budget assumes no new revenues. Consequently, it presents a stark picture of the conditions that California's transportation program will face if Propositions 111 and 108 are not approved by the voters. The legdslature's budget arm, the highly regarded non-partisan, Office of the Legislative Analyst, concluded the following regarding the Caltrans budget: o Caltrans' total budget will be down by 23 percent from the current fiscal year. o Expenditures for the highway program will be off 22.4 percent and for the mass transit program they will be off 29.9 percent. o Over 765 positions will be cut, including 513 dedicated to the design and engineering of state highway projects. O Cali.fornia will be unable to match federal highway funds anticipated to be made available during the 1988 State Transportation Improvement Program period. which ends in 1993. Callfornia's transit assistance program is eviscerated with Caltrans proposing to transfer $104 from transit projects to offset diminished highway funds. Essentially, this will be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Californians for Better Transportation also presented testimony to the subcommittee. The statement is attached. California Transportation Commission Cuts Contracts to be Awarded In a budget balancing action, the California Transportation Commission postponed going to contract for the construction of 29 state highway projects having a value of 5280 million due to lack of funding. This brings the total contracts postponed this year to $230 million. Among the projects postponed included $85 million on the Century FrEeway in Los Angeles, $83 million on 1-215 in Riverside County. $51 million on Route 36 between San Bernardino and Redlands. and $15 million on 1-880 in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. These projects are assured of fundin~ if Propositions 111 and 108 are enacted in June. Should Propositions 111 and 108 not b~ enacted. the construction time for these projects w'til be extended over the next decade. Opposition Emerges to Propositions 111 anti 108 Remnants of Paul Gann's tax reform group, Arthur Laffer. a gadfly economist, San Diego and Orange County. no growth advocates, and others have formed Citizens Against Unfair Taxation to oppose Propositions 111 and 108. The major elements of their argument is that voting for these measures will do away with the Gann expenditure limit, cause inflation and trigger a recession, and will not address congestion. None of these assertions are true, but since when are people constrained by the truth? Sacramento Bee Endorses Propositions 108, 111 anti 116 The "newspaper of record" for state government endorsed the three transportation propositions in its lead editorial Sunday, May 6. A copy of this editorial is enclosed. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: TITLE: DEPT HD 5/8/90 MTG: Information Item Regarding CITY A'FI'Y DEPT: CM Development Impact Fees CITY MGR ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive a report regarding development impact fees and provide input to staff. PURPOSE The purpose of this item is to provide an overview of the process to be followed in order t establish development impact fees. It is also to receive input from the City Council concerning th types facilities necessary to be provided as the community grows. BACKGROUND The City Council has shown an interest in establishing development impact fees in order to ensur that new developments in the City of Temecula pay for and provide public facilities necessary t maintain the quality of life in the City. Presently, the City does not have a development impact fee system in place to guarantee th, developments will pay for necessary public facility improvements needed to support the demanc placed on the community from this growth. The City will not be in a position to adopt permanet development fees until such time as the General Plan has been prepared and adopted. Th completion of the General Plan is a complicated process which will take several months t complete. Therefore, a need exists now to establish interim development impact fees which can satisfy th requirements of state law and be imposed on developments which will take place prior to th adoption of the City's first General Plan. Attached is a letter to the City Manager which describe the process which could be followed to establish interim development impact fees for the City c Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT \ The cost to prepare the interim development fees will be dependent on the type and number c facilities to be included in the study. The total cost of this study will be recouped through th collection of these fees as development takes place. EXHIBITS 1. Letter to the City Manager dated April 24, 2. Proposal to provide consulting 3. City Attorney letter dated April 17, 1990 4. Proposed Interim Ordinance 1990 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES F'J ENGINEERS & PLANNERS April 24, 1990 Mr. Frank Aleshire City Manager City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Dear Mr. Aleshire: The purpose of this letter is to follow-up from our meeting and to address your request to have Willdan Associates describe a process and present a proposal for the preparation of development impact fees for the City of Temecula. As we discussed, the City of Temecula is a long way away from preparing and adopting its' General Plan and, therefore the establishment of permanent development impact fees is not possible at this time. However, the City does have the ability to begin working on permanent development impact fees and should move as quickly as possible to establish and adopt interim development impact fees. The City Attorney has indicated that the City of Temecula must comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66000 in order to establish development impact fees. This section of the code requires the City to articulate the purpose and use of the proposed development fees as well as the relationship between new development and the need for these fees. The City must demonstrate that the amount of the fee imposed upon the individual development is reasonably related to the impacts caused by that development. The City Attorney also summarized the requirements for establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project to be: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. 2. Identify how the fee will be used. 3. Determine the nexus between the fee being imposed and the development being required to pay the fee. 6363 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE 250 · SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122-3939 · (619) 457-1199 · FAX (619) 452-6680 April 24, 1990 Page - 2 Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or a portion of the facility attributable to the development on which the fee is being imposed. Willdan Associates has extensive experience in the preparation development impact fee programs and has completed similar programs in communities throughout California including Chula Vista, San Marcos, Escondido and Apple Valley. The following briefly summarizes the process for creating development impact fee programs: 1. Determine the facilities required to accommodate development. 2. Establish service level or capacity requirements for each facility. Determine land use information, including the existing and build out land uses. o Calculate the existing facility demand and ultimate demands based upon the facility service level or capacity requirements. 5. Prepare cost estimates for each facility. 6. Determine what types of development will impact each facility. Establish development impact fees based upon the information obtained above. o Prepare the necessary documents, Development Impact Fee Report and specific resolutions and ordinances for the City Council's consideration. Meet with the effected property owners to review this information and to discuss the process which will be followed by the City to adopt development impact fees. 10. Establish finance policies for the City's use when considering development proposals. April 24, 1990 Page - 3 The specific preparation of development impact fees for the City of Temecula is somewhat more complicated than for most cities. As a new city, the General Plan has not been established. Consequently, much of the information generally used to prepare and adopt development impact fee programs is not available. As a result, permanent development impact fees can not be established at this time. However, before the General Plan and specific facility. master plans are prepared and adopted, Willdan Associates would propose to undertake the work necessary to establish interim development impact fees to be charged any development which occurs prior to the adoption of the City's General Plan. Attached is a proposal and time frame necessary to prepare these interim development impact fees for the City of Temecula. After the General Plan has been completed there will be a need for the City to prepare detailed Master Plans for each of the facilities identified in the development impact fee report. From these Master Plans more specific cost estimates will be made, timing of improvements identified, and then the permanent development impact fees can be established that reflect this information. The work undertaken to prepare the interim fees could also be used when the permanent fees are established. We would be happy to discuss the proposed process with you and to present the City Council with an information item on their next agenda to clarify the actions which need to be taken in order to prepare development impact fees. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES Philip O. Carter Manager Growth Management Services General Plan Elements Public Facilities ELement Master Plans civic Facilities Parks Libraries Police Stations Fire Stations Circulation Systems Maintenance Facilities Quality of Life Element Define those which make a Quality Community Create a system to guarantee a quality Community as it develops Geographical Information Systems PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY FOR CITY OF TEMECULA April 24, 1990 ._. A. Introduction This proposal addresses the request to prepare interim development impact fees for the City of Temecula. The results of this undertaking will be the creation of a list of proposed facilities necessary to maintain the quality of life in the City of Temec- ula as growth occurs, including the preliminary cost estimates for these facilities, a methodology to be used to create the interim development impact fees and the documents necessary for the City to adopt the fees. Be Proposed Approach and Methodology Based on the meeting held with the City Manager requesting that this work be undertaken and our own understanding of the scope of work, we offer the following outline of the tasks required to successfully complete the project. Task 1. Meet with City to determine what facilities will be required to maintain the quality of life in the City as development takes place. Task 2. Collect existing development information and project the ultimate residential and non-residential build out of the City. Task 3. Collect data necessary to establish the level of service or capacity required for each facility Task 4. Evaluate facility impact fee information for other cities for comparison purposes. Task 5. Develop the specific methodology to assess the impact fees for each type of future development. Task 6. Determine historical and projected future increases in service and facilities costs in order to arrive at a proposed annual adjustment factor for each impact fee. Task 7. Identify and apply applicable local, State and Federal statutes including Government Code Section 66000 (AB1600) to the fee methodologies where appropriate. Task 8. Prepare a Interim Development Fee Report from the information developed in Tasks 1-7 above, for staff and City Council review. Present the Report to the City Council. Task 9. Along with the Interim Development Fee Report, present the neces- sary ordinances for City Council consideration. This task will be completed with assistance from the City Attorney. Task 10. Together with a final report and fee ordinances, make at up to two presentations before the City Council. Task 11. Prepare a documentation manual that provides criteria and methodology for use by City staff and/or consultants for the preparation of the final development impact fees. re Time Schedule and Fee It is proposed that the Interim Development Impact Fee Report be presented for City Council consideration within sixty (60) days following the execution of this agreement. The fee for this project will be a fixed amount of $ Project Team Resumes The project team resumes are attached. LAW OFFICES BURKE, WILLIAI~IS ~: SOR~NSI~IN 3200 B~ISTOL STREET SUITE ~0 COSTA MESA, CALIFO~NI~ 9~ April 17, 1990 LOS ANGELES OFFICE ONE WILSHIRE BUILDING 6~4 SOUTH GRANO AVENUE, tl*- FLOOR LOB ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900~7 (Zl3) Z36-O6OO TELECOPIEI~: (a13) a3~-a7oo Mr. F. D. Aleshire City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Public Facilities Fee Ordinance Dear Frank: This letter is intended to be both an introduction and guide to Assembly Bill 1600 (#AB 1600") and Government Code Section 66484 regarding the establishment and imposition of development fees for construction of public facilities, and an explanation of the enclosed ordinance conditioning all future development on payment of public facility fees. We will supplement and expand upon this information as particular conditions arise, of course, but we hope that this correspondence proves to be a helpful introduction to the law as it applies to the City of Temecula. I. AB 1600 (Government Code Section 66000 Et Seq.) Following the United States Supreme Court decision in Nollan vs California Coastal Commission, (1987) 483 U.S. 825, the California Legislature enacted AB 1600 which is codified at Government Code Section 66000, et seq.. In essence, Section 66001 requires cities to make certain determinations before establishing, imposing or increasing development fees. These required determinations compel a city to articulate the purpose and use of purposed development fees as well as the relationship between new development and the need of the fees. More importantly, a city is required to demonstrate that the amount of a fee Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 2 imposed upon an individual development is reasonably related to the impacts caused by that development. A. APPLICATION OF AB 1600. Government Code Section 66001 states that #[i]n any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by local agency on or after January 1, 1989, a local agency must do all of the following: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. 2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may be made in a capital improvement or circulation plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relation- ship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 1. #Fee.# For the purposes of Government Code Section 66001, #fee# means a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged to a development for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities. (Government Code Section 66000(b)) A fee does not include: (1) fees charged in lieu of parkland dedication pursuant to Government Code Section 66477 ("Quimby Act Fees#); (2) fees for processing applications; (3) fees collected pursuant to development agreement; or (4) fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement to the Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 3 extent that those fees exceed the need for the public facility attributable to the development. 2. #Public Facility.# Development fees are generally limited to financing the construction, expansion, and upgrade of public facilities. (Government Code Section 66000(d)) Development fees cannot generally be charged to offset the cost of maintenance of public facilities. (Government Code Section 65913.8) 3. If a City makes the findings required by Government Code Section 66001 when it establishes or increases a fee. is it required to make the same findings for imposition of a fee on an individual protect? The Legislative Counsel has issued an opinion stating that Government Code Section 66001 requires local governments to make the findings required by Government Code Section 66001(1) not only at the time that a fee is established, but also at the time that a fee is imposed. (Legislative Counsel of California Opinion No. 18851, July 20, 1988) As a general rule, it should not be difficult for the City to make Section 66001 findings at the time that the city imposes a fee that has previously been #established.# The City should be able to simply readopt the Section 66001(a) determinations made at the time that the fee was established. However, sometimes, there may be a project which warrants a fee greater or lesser than that contemplated upon establish of the fee. In that case, new and specific determinations should be considered. II. BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FEES In addition to the public facilities fees available to the City under AB 1600, any new road fee that can be imposed during the subdivision process should comply with the bridge and major thoroughfare provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Under Government Code Section 66484, a city may require by ordinance the payment of a fee to defray the actual or estimated costs of constructing bridges over Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 4 waterways, railways, freeways, and canyons, or of constructing major thoroughfares, as a condition to subdivision map approval or issuance of a building permit. The ordinance must refer to the circulation element of the general plan (Govt C § 66484(a)(1)), and provide for determining in a public hearing a fair method of allocating costs and apportioning fees within the area to be benefited (Govt C § 66484(a)(3)). Provision for filing protests by the owners of a majority of the property in the area to be benefited must also be included in the ordinance. Govt C § 66484(a)(6). Fees collected under the ordinance must be deposited in a planned bridge facility or major thoroughfare fund and may be expended only for construction of the improvements. Govt C § 66484(e). In addition, the local agency may impose a reasonable charge on property within the area benefited by a bridge or major thoroughfare to reimburse either the subdivider or the local agency for construction of the bridge or thoroughfare. Govt C § 66489. Conceivably, this Section could be the basis for assessing existing developments, but I have never heard of it being used in this manner. III. PROCEDURAL REOUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE PROGRAM Enclosed is a detailed outline of the steps that should be taken in order to establish a public facilities fee. In brief, the steps are as follows: Prepare a Capital Facilities Plan establishing a master plan of needed facilities at build- out. Prepare a "nexus" analysis establishing the demand for new facilities created by new developments, while deducting existing demand. Reduce the new facilities to a dollar total, deduct existing demand, and then divide the total by the total number of units, square feet or another appropriate measure of new development. Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 5 4. Example: (a) 100 miles of arterials needed = $100M (b) Existing deficiency = 50 miles; that is, new developments create demand for 50 miles = $50M. That figure can be further apportioned to 60% commercial = 30 miles = $30M, and 40% residential = 20 miles = $20M. (c) At build-out, there will be 3,000,000 additional square feet of commercial M = $10/sq ft. impact fee ($30M · 3,000,000). There will also be 4,000,000 square feet of residential = $5 sq. ft impact fee ($20M ? 4,000,000). IV. INTERIM PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE. Developing the above of analysis is likely to take considerable time, particularly in terms of allocating the deficiencies between future and existing development. In the meanwhile, a substantial number of building entitlements will have been granted, and those projects will avoid paying any fees. Consequently, I recommend adopting an interim ordinance requiring that all persons presently pulling building permits agree to pay any future public facilities fees that the City ultimately establishes. Enclosed in draft interim ordinances providing for bridge and major thoroughfare, police station, civic center fees, and non-residential park fees. Please note that all persons pulling building permits will be required to post security for the maximum amount of the future fees. This will insure that the City will be able to collect the fee once it is established. It will also insure the developer that whatever fee ultimately paid will be fair. The major provisions of the interim ordinance are as follows: The interim ordinance includes a maximum fee that can be charged. Although this limit is not legally required, it is very helpful in determining what the security to be posted should be. I understand Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 6 Willdan is already working on developing what the fee should be. Fees are levied to offset the cost of road improvements, a police station, and a civic center. Also, to complement the existing Quimby (parkland) fee on residential development, a parkland fee is levied on nonresidential development. Findings are included regarding the impact on health and safety resulting from the various public facility deficiencies. This finding is necessary to impose the fees on vesting maps. This is likely to be a highly controversial issue, involving a significant risk of litigation. However, it should also be noted that although vesting maps are not subject to new regulations, the County did include in its development agreements exemptions to permit the imposition of new regulations, including the following: "Regulations imposing Development Exaction; provided, however, that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to the Property unless such Development Exaction is applied uniformly to the development either throughout the COUNTY or within a defined area of benefit that includes the Property." Because this contractual provision overrides the protection of vesting maps, it makes it possible to impose new fees on properties subject to development agreements. Lastly, one complication in adopting an impact fee ordinance is taking into account the impact fees already being collected. Obviously, any new fee program should only be for public facilities not provided for in the existing programs. At this time, there are actually two fee programs in place. First, pursuant to Riverside County Ordinance Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 7 No. 659 (enclosed), all residential development in RSA 49 (Temecula) pays the following mitigation fees: RSA 49 - $1,157.00 Public Facilities Fee $ 350.00 Regional Parkland and Recreational Trails Fee $ 260.00 Habitat Conservation and Open Space Lank Bank Fee Second, the development agreements provide for higher fees, and further, that the County is to retain a portion of such fees, even those collected after incorDoration. Apart from whether County retention of fees is legal (and I find it very suspect), we must determine just what the fees are for so that we can determine the actual level of the City's deficiencies. The fact that additional time must be taken to determine how the existing impact fees are to be used further supports adopting an interim ordinance to bridge the time until the final ordinance is ready. CONCLUSION I hope the foregoing information provides a helpful guide to the general requirements for the establishment and imposition of public facilities and traffic fees. Should you have any questions regarding any issues discussed in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Scott F. Field city Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA sff/LTR15410 sff/LTR15410 PROCEDURAL REOUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES. A. Preliminary Analysis Bo Identify the reasons why the city wants to establish, increase or impose the fee. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. (a) To construct certain new facilities. (b) To rehabilitate certain types of public facilities. (c) To defray the cost of certain public services. (d) To defray the cost of specific community amenities. Is there a general or specific plan provisions that specifies a required size, level or prevalence of public facilities, services or community or rehabilitation of the improvements? Is there an already adopted capital facilities plan which indicates the need for the improvements or contains a timetable for construction ore rehabilitation of the improvements? Prepare a Capital Facilities Plan, refer to one already created, or prepare a staff report that identifies the purpose and use of the fee, and includes the following elements: A master plan of public facilities needed to accommodate trend growth and build-out of master plan. Determinations and definitions of the level of service or capacity required for each facility. -8- sff/LTR15410 A needs analysis comparing the anticipated required capacity of facilities with the currently required capacity of facilities. A deficiencies analysis comparing the existing facilities with the currently required capacity of facilities. Development fees cannot be charged to mitigate existing deficiencies not attributable to future development. A determination of the types of development to which the fee will be applied. A determination of the cost of the needed facilities including administration and financing costs. The amount of the fee based on the need for the public facility created by each type of development. C. Determine whether environmental review of the proposed plan is necessary. Prepare a Developer Fee Ordinance and Resolution. If a fee is to established and imposed regularly upon a variety of different developments, then an ordinance and resolution containing the elements specified below should be adopted. Developer Fee Ordinance 1. Preliminary Elements. (a) Purpose of the fee (b) Findings as to need and use nexus 2. Definitions (a) Identify the capital improvement plan or other plan for the facilities. (b) Define development project. -9- sff/LTR15410 3. Establish the developer fee. Indicate when the fee is to be paid. Thus for, example, payment at the building permit stage for all development projects except residential developments. (Government Code Section 66007) Provide a procedure to give fee credits for required improvements. 6. Establish an appellate process. Establish which projects #in the pipeline" will be subject to the fee. Developer Fee Resolution. 1. Title 2. Purpose 3. Section 66001(a) findings 4. Adoption of the capital improvement plan Method of calculating the developer fee and Section 66001(b) finding Establish the amount of the developer fee for each type of development 7. Provide for cost indexing. The City should set a date that fees can first be imposed after a #final action# on the fees. (Sixty days minimum unless findings are made regarding the current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. (Government Code Section 65962)) -10- sff/LTR15410 E. Notice and Hearinq Fo Government Code Section 65962 requires compliance with the following conditions of Government Code Section 54992 before establishing a development fee: At least one public meeting at which oral or written presentations can be made. Fourteen (14) day mailed notice to parties which have requested such notice. The notice shall contain the time and place of the meeting, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement of the availability of the date described below in subsection (3). Data Indicating the estimated cost of the facility and the revenue sources anticipated to fund the facility must be available to the public ten (10) days before the hearing. For a bridge and major thoroughfare fee, additional steps must be taken, including allowing for a majority protest. Post collection procedures. Deposit fees collected for a particular public facility into a separate account which shall not be commingled with other monies except for the purposes of temporary investment. (Government Code Section 66006(a)) Commit money to a particular project upon collection or during the budgeting process. Make findings regarding the need for the fees if the fees have not been expended or committed within five years. (Government Code Section 66001(d)) Refund the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the fee if findings cannot be made regarding the continuing need for the fees. (Government Code Section 66001(e)) -11- sff/LTR15410 Within 60 days of the close of each fiscal year, for each separate account or fund established, make available to the public the following information: (a) the beginning and ending balance for the fiscal year; (b) the fee, interest, and other income collected during the fiscal year; (c) the amount of expenditures from the account, categorized by public facility; and (d) the amount of refunds made during the fiscal year pursuant to step 4. (Government Code Section 66006(b) The City must review the information complied pursuant tot step 5 at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public. (Government Code Section 66006(b)) -12- jec/ORD12300(041790-2) ORDINANCE NO. 90-__ AN URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUIRING AGREEMENTS TO PAY FEES TO DEFRAY COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. This is an interim measure adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 2. The purpose of the Ordinance is to provide a mechanism for preserving the opportunity for imposition of fees pursuant to a fee program to be considered in the near future in order to insure that future development shall pay its fair share of the costs of constructing public facilities and transportation systems adequate to serve that development. SECTION 3. This Council finds that: (a) The Circulation Element of the Southwest Area Community Plan of the County of Riverside shows that major thoroughfares and bridges need to be built. (b) The n.ewly incorporated City of Temecula requires a civic c~enter in order to provide municipal services to the residents and businesses of the City. The City intends to develop a plan in the immediate furute esstablishing the level 9of municipal services to be at build-out. At this time, it is estimated the City will require the following: Civic Center site of 100,000 square feet 50,000 square feet square feet square feet square feet acres. City Hall; Police Station; Community Center; Performing Arts Center; Maintenance Yard. The estimated cost of these facilities is $ (c) Ordinance No. 659 of the County of Riverside, as the same was incorporated into the Temecula Municipal -1- jec/ORD12300(041790-2) Code by Ordinance No. 90- , does not adequately address the need for public facilities and major thoroughfares and bridges as caused by new development within the City of Temecula. (d) Government Code Section 66484 authorizes the City to require by ordinance the payment of a fee as a condition of approval of a final subdivision map or as a condition of issuing building permit for the purpose of defraying the cost of constructing major thoroughfare and bridges. (e) Article , Section of the California Constitution and Government Code Section 66001 et. seq. authorize the city to require the payment of a fee on new development to defray the cost of public facilities. (f) The Circulation Element of SWAP identifies many intersections and thoroughfares of the City as providing traffic levels of service ("LOS") as Level #D# or lower. According to , at LOS D and lower, the risk of traffic accidents increases substantially. Consequently, any development contributing traffic to thoroughfares and intersections at LOS D or lower, either now or at ultimate build-out, poses a substantial danger to the health and safety of residents of the development and the immediate community. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be applied to all otherwise vested developments unless the owner can demonstrate that the development does not contribute to intersections and thoroughfares at LOS D or less. (g) Ordinance No. of the County of Riverside, as the same was incorporated into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-m, does not address the demand placed on City recreational facilities by nonresidential development. At this time, it is estimated that every square feet of nonresidential development demands acres of local or community parkland. The estimated cost of parkland is $ per acre. (h) Without the City Hall, maintenance yard, police station and additional parkland described above, the City will be unable to provide adequate basic municipal services, including police protection, road maintenance, fire protection, solid waste collection and park services. Consequently, any development contributing additional demand for such municipal services poses an immediate danger to the health and safety of the future residents of the community. Accordingly, the fees to construct the -2- jec/ORD12300(041790-2) facilities should be imposed on all building permits, including those for vested maps. SECTION 4. No building permit shall be approved within the City; provided, however, that building permits may be issued upon execution by the applicant of an agreement, accompanied by security, providing that the applicant shall participate in a fee program adopted by the City in order to finance, in total, or in part, public facilities and major thoroughfares and bridges within the City. SECTION 5. The City Attorney shall develop a form of agreement providing for participation in any fee program adopted by the City for payment of all or part of the cost of providing public facilities and major thoroughfares and bridges within the area. The agreement shall provide for the posting of security to insure payment of the fees established by the program upon adoption of the program. The agreement shall also provide that, should a fee program not be adopted on or before [ Date ], the agreement shall be of no further force or effect and the security shall thereupon be released. The agreement shall further provide that nothing therein shall limit the applicant's right to protest or otherwise oppose adoption of a fee program. As the amount of fees which may be required by a fee program cannot be ascertained until adoption thereof, the City Attorney shall fix a maximum commitment in the agreement. That amount shall be as follows: Bridqe and Major Thoroguqhfares Fee per unit Single-Family Unit Multi-Family Unit Non-Residential per 1,000 square feet City Hall. Police Station & Maintenance Yard Fee Der unit Single-Family Unit Multi-Family Unit Non-Residential per 1,000 square feet -3- jec/ORD12300(041790-2) Communitv Center. Performing Arts Center Fee per unit Single-Family Unit Multi-Family Unit Non-Residential per 1,000 square feet Parkland Fee per unit Non-Residential per 1,000 square feet In the event that the fee program provides for higher fees, the agreement shall provide that the differences between such fees and the above amount shall be waived. SECTION 6. only until [ Date repealed. This ordinance shall remain in effect ] and, as of such date is SECTION 7. This ordinance shall not apply to development which is exempt from property taxation. Nor shall it apply to permits for remodeling or reconstructing existing structures to the same number of individual dwelling units or equal commercial building area, or to permit for construction of retaining walls, patio covers, swimming pools, and other non-inhabitable residential structures. SECTION 8. Should any person in receipt of any permit or entitlement believe that they have a vested right to develop without compliance with this Ordinance, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only upon recommendation by the Planning Commission and after due notice and public hearing thereon by both bodies. SECTION 9. The City Council determines that it is necessary for the proper functioning of the City government, and therefore necessary for the protection and preservation of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare, that this Ordinance be adopted as an urgency ordinance and that the same take effect immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 10. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. This Ordinance shall remain in effect until and may, thereafter, be extended in the time and manner provided by law. -4- jec/ORD12300(041790-2) SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 12. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 1990. day of ATTEST: RON PARKS MAYOR F. D. ALESHIRE City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss. I, F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-__ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the city Council on the day of , 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinan6e was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: F. D. ALESHIRE CITY CLERK Scott F. Field City Attorney VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE 2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE SUITE I CAMARILL0, CALIFORNIA 93010 (805) 987-3468 TEIECOPIER: {805} 482-9834 LAW OFFICES 3200 BRISTOL STREET SUITE 640 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 April 17, 1990 LOS ANGELES OFFICE ONE WILSHIRE BUILDING 624 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, {ITM FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 (213i :='36-0600 TELECOPIER: (213) 236-2700 Mr. F. D. Aleshire City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Public Facilities Fee Ordinance Dear Frank: This letter is intended to be both an introduction and guide to Assembly Bill 1600 (#AB 1600#) and Government Code Section 66484 regarding the establishment and imposition of development fees for construction of public facilities, and an explanation of the enclosed ordinance conditioning all future development on payment of public facility fees. We will supplement and expand upon this information as particular conditions arise, of course, but we hope that this correspondence proves to be a helpful introduction to the law as it applies to the City of Temecula. I. AB 1600 (Government Code Section 66000 Et Seq.) Following the United States Supreme Court decision in Nollan vs California Coastal Commission, (1987) 483 U.S. 825, the California Legislature enacted AB 1600 which is codified at Government Code Section 66000, et seq.. In essence, Section 66001 requires cities to make certain determinations before establishing, imposing or increasing development fees. These required determinations compel a city to articulate the purpose and use of purposed development fees as well as the relationship between new development and the need of the fees. More importantly, a city is required to demonstrate that the amount of a fee Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 2 imposed upon an individual development is reasonably related to the impacts caused by that development. A. APPLICATION OF AB 1600. Government Code Section 66001 states that #[i]n any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by local agency on or after January 1, 1989, a local agency must do all of the following: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. 2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may be made in a capital improvement or circulation plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relation- ship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 1. "Fee.# For the purposes of Government Code Section 66001, #fee# means a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged to a development for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities. (Government Code Section 66000(b)) A fee does not include: (1) fees charged in lieu of parkland dedication pursuant to Government Code Section 66477 ("Quimby Act Fees#); (2) fees for processing applications; (3) fees collected pursuant to development agreement; or (4) fees collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement to the Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 3 extent that those fees exceed the need for the public facility attributable to the development. 2. "Public Facility.# Development fees are generally limited to financing the construction, expansion, and upgrade of public facilities. (Government Code Section 66000(d)) Development fees cannot generally be charged to offset the cost of maintenance of public facilities. (Government Code Section 65913.8) 3. If a City makes the findinqs required by Government Code Section 66001'when it establishes or increases a fee, is it required to make the same findinqs for imposition of a fee on an individual project? The Legislative Counsel has issued an opinion stating that Government Code Section 66001 requires local governments to make the findings required by Government Code Section 66001(1) not only at the time that a fee is established, but also at the time that a fee is imposed. (Legislative Counsel of California Opinion No. 18851, July 20, 1988) As a general rule, it should not be difficult for the City to make Section 66001 findings at the time that the City imposes a fee that has previously been "established.# The City should be able to simply readopt the Section 66001(a) determinations made at the time that the fee was established. However, sometimes, there may be a project which warrants a fee greater or lesser than that contemplated upon establish of the fee. In that case, new and specific determinations should be considered. II. BRIDGE AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FEES In addition to the public facilities fees available to the City under AB 1600, any new road fee that can be imposed during the subdivision process should comply with the bridge and major thoroughfare provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Under Government Code Section 66484, a city may require by ordinance the payment of a fee to defray the actual or estimated costs of constructing bridges over Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 4 waterways, railways, freeways, and canyons, or of constructing major thoroughfares, as a condition to subdivision map approval or issuance of a building permit. The ordinance must refer to the circulation element of the general plan (Govt C § 66484(a) (1)), and provide for determining in a public hearing a fair method of allocating costs and apportioning fees within the area to be benefited (Govt C § 66484(a)(3)). Provision for filing protests by the owners of a majority of the property in the area to be benefited must also be included in the ordinance. Govt C § 66484(a) (6). Fees collected under the ordinance must be deposited in a planned bridge facility or major thoroughfare fund and may be expended only for construction of the improvements. Govt C § 66484(e). In addition, the local agency may impose a reasonable charge on property within the area benefited by a bridge or major thoroughfare to reimburse either the subdivider or the local agency for construction of the bridge or thoroughfare. Govt C § 66489. Conceivably, this Section could be the basis for assessing existing developments, but I have never heard of it being used in this manner. III. PROCEDURAL REOUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE PROGRAM Enclosed is a detailed outline of the steps that should be taken in order to establish a public facilities fee. In brief, the steps are as follows: Prepare a Capital Facilities Plan establishing a master plan of needed facilities at build- out. Prepare a "nexus" analysis establishing the demand for new facilities created by new developments, while deducting existing demand. Reduce the new facilities to a dollar total, deduct existing demand, and then divide the total by the total number of units, square feet or another appropriate measure of new development. Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 5 4. Example: (a) 100 miles of arterials needed = $100M (b) Existing deficiency = 50 miles; that is, new developments create demand for 50 miles = $50M. That figure can be further apportioned to 60% commercial = 30 miles = $30M, and 40% residential = 20 miles = $20M. (c) At build-out, there will be 3,000,000 additional square feet of commercial M = $10/sq ft. impact fee ($30M ~ 3,000,000). There will also be 4,000,000 square feet of residential = $5 sq. ft impact fee ($20M · 4,000,000). IV. INTERIM PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE. Developing the above of analysis is likely to take considerable time, particularly in terms of allocating the deficiencies between future and existing development. In the meanwhile, a substantial number of building entitlements will have been granted, and those projects will avoid paying any fees. Consequently, I recommend adopting an interim ordinance requiring that all persons presently pulling building permits agree to pay any future public facilities fees that the City ultimately establishes. Enclosed in draft interim ordinances providing for bridge and major thoroughfare, police station, civic center fees, and non-residential park fees. Please note that all persons pulling building permits will be required to post security for the maximum amount of the future fees. This will insure that the City will be able to collect the fee once it is established. It will also insure the developer that whatever fee ultimately paid will be fair. The major provisions of the interim ordinance are as follows: The interim ordinance includes a maximum fee that can be charged. Although this limit is not legally required, it is very helpful in determining what the security to be posted should be. I understand Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 6 Willdan is already working on developing what the fee should be. Fees are levied to offset the cost of road improvements, a police station, and a civic center. Also, to complement the existing Quimby (parkland) fee on residential development, a parkland fee is levied on nonresidential development. Findings are included regarding the impact on health and safety resulting from the various public facility deficiencies. This finding is necessary to impose the fees on vesting maps. This is likely to be a highly controversial issue, involving a significant risk of litigation. However, it should also be noted that although vesting maps are not subject to new regulations, the County did include in its development agreements exemptions to permit the imposition of new regulations, including the following: "Regulations imposing Development Exaction; provided, however, that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to the Property unless such Development Exaction is applied uniformly to the development either throughout the COUNTY or within a defined area of benefit that includes the Property." Because this contractual provision overrides the protection of vesting maps, it makes it possible to impose new fees on properties subject to development agreements. Lastly, one complication in adopting an impact fee ordinance is taking into account the impact fees already being collected. Obviously, any new fee program should only be for public facilities not provided for in the existing programs. At this time, there are actually two fee programs in place. First, pursuant to Riverside County Ordinance Mr. F. D. Aleshire April 17, 1990 Page 7 No. 659 (enclosed), all residential development in RSA 49 (Temecula) pays the following mitigation fees: RSA 49 - $1,157.00 Public Facilities Fee $ 350.00 Regional Parkland and Recreational Trails Fee $ 260.00 Habitat Conservation and Open Space Lank Bank Fee Second, the development agreements provide for higher fees, and further. that the County is to retain a portion of such fees. even those collected after incorporation. Apart from whether County retention of fees is legal (and I find it very suspect), we must determine just what the fees are for so that we can determine the actual level of the City's deficiencies. The fact that additional time must be taken to determine how the existing impact fees are to be used further supports adopting an interim ordinance to bridge the time until the final ordinance is ready. CONCLUSION I hope the foregoing information provides a helpful guide to the general requirements for the establishment and imposition of public facilities and traffic fees. Should you have any questions regarding any issues discussed in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Scott F. Field City Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA sff/LTR15410 sff/LTR15410 PROCEDURAL REOUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES. A. Preliminary Analysis Be Identify the reasons why the city wants to establish, increase or impose the fee. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. (a) To construct certain new facilities. (b) To rehabilitate certain types of public facilities. (c) To defray the cost of certain public services. (d) To defray the cost of specific community amenities. Is there a general or specific plan provisions that specifies a required size, level or prevalence of public facilities, services or community or rehabilitation of the improvements? Is there an already adopted capital facilities plan which indicates the need for the improvements or contains a timetable for construction ore rehabilitation of the improvements? Prepare a Capital Facilities Plan, refer to one already created, or prepare a staff report that identifies the purpose and use of the fee, and includes the following elements: A master plan of public facilities needed to accommodate trend growth and build-out of master plan. Determinations and definitions of the level of service or capacity required for each facility. -8- sff/LTR15410 A needs analysis comparing the anticipated required capacity of facilities with the currently required capacity of facilities. A deficiencies analysis comparing the existing facilities with the currently required capacity of facilities. Development fees cannot be charged to mitigate existing deficiencies not attributable to future development. A determination of the types of development to which the fee will be applied. A determination of the cost of the needed facilities including administration and financing costs. The amount of the fee based on the need for the public facility created by each type of development. C. Determine whether environmental review of the proposed plan is necessary. Prepare a Developer Fee Ordinance and Resolution. If a fee is to established and imposed regularly upon a variety of different developments, then an ordinance and resolution containing the elements specified below should be adopted. Developer Fee Ordinance 1. Preliminary Elements. (a) Purpose of the fee (b) Findings as to need and use nexus 2. Definitions (a) Identify the capital improvement plan or other plan for the facilities. (b) Define development project. -9- sff/LTR15410 3. Establish the developer fee. 4. Indicate when the fee is to be paid. Thus for, example, payment at the building permit stage for all development projects except residential developments. (Government Code Section 66007) 5. Provide a procedure to give fee credits for required improvements. 6. Establish an appellate process. 7. Establish which projects "in the pipeline" will be subject to the fee. Developer Fee Resolution. 1. Title 2. Purpose 3. Section 66001(a) findings 4. Adoption of the capital improvement plan 5. Method of calculating the developer fee and Section 66001(b) finding 6. Establish the amount of the developer fee for each type of development 7. Provide for cost indexing. The City should set a date that fees can first be imposed after a "final action# on the fees. (Sixty days minimum unless findings are made regarding the current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. (Government Code Section 65962)) -10- sff/LTR15410 E. Notice and Hearing Fo Government Code Section 65962 requires compliance with the following conditions of Government Code Section 54992 before establishing a development fee: At least one public meeting at which oral or written presentations can be made. Fourteen (14) day mailed notice to parties which have requested such notice. The notice shall contain the time and place of the meeting, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement of the availability of the date described below in subsection (3). Data Indicating the estimated cost of the facility and the revenue sources anticipated to fund the facility must be available to the public ten (10) days before the hearing. For a bridge and major thoroughfare fee, additional steps must be taken, including allowing for a majority protest. Post collection procedures. Deposit fees collected for a particular public facility into a separate account which shall not be commingled with other monies except for the purposes of temporary investment. (Government Code Section 66006(a)) Commit money to a particular project upon collection or during the budgeting process. Make findings regarding the need for the fees if the fees have not been expended or committed within five years. (Government Code Section 66001(d)) Refund the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the fee if findings cannot be made regarding the continuing need for the fees. (Government Code Section 66001(e)) -11- sff/LTR15410 e Within 60 days of the close of each fiscal year, for each separate account or fund established, make available to the public the following information: (a) the beginning and ending balance for the fiscal year; (b) the fee, interest, and other income collected during the fiscal year; (c) the amount of expenditures from the account, categorized by public facility; and (d) the amount of refunds made during the fiscal year pursuant to step 4. (Government Code Section 66006(b) The City must review the information complied pursuant tot step 5 at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public. (Government Code Section 66006(b)) -12- j ec/ORD12300 ( 041790-2 ) ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUIRING AGREEMENTS TO PAY FEES TO DEFRAY COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND BRIDGES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. This is an interim measure adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 2. The purpose of the Ordinance is to provide a mechanism for preserving the opportunity for imposition of fees pursuant to a fee program to be considered in the near future in order to insure that future development shall pay its fair share of the costs of constructing public facilities and transportation systems adequate to serve that development. SECTION 3. This Council finds that: (a) The Circulation Element of the Southwest Area Community Plan of the County of Riverside shows that major thoroughfares and bridges need to be built. (b) The newly incorporated City of Temecula requires a civic c~enter in order to provide municipal services to the residents and businesses of the City. City intends to develop a plan in the immediate furute esstablishing the level 9of municipal services to be at build-out. At this time, it is estimated the City will require the following: The Civic Center site of 100,000 square feet 50,000 square feet square feet square feet square feet acres. City Hall; Police Station; Community Center; Performing Arts Center; Maintenance Yard. The estimated cost of these facilities is $ (c) Ordinance No. 659 of the County of Riverside, as the same was incorporated into the Temecula Municipal -1- jec/ORD12300 (041790-2) Code by Ordinance No. 90- __, does not adequately address the need for public facilities and major thoroughfares and bridges as caused by new development within the City of Temecula. (d) Government Code Section 66484 authorizes the City to require by ordinance the payment of a fee as a condition of approval of a final subdivision map or as a condition of issuing building permit for the purpose of defraying the cost of constructing major thoroughfare and bridges. (e) Article , Section of the California Constitution and Government Code Section 66001 et. seq. authorize the City to require the payment of a fee on new development to defray the cost of public facilities. (f) The Circulation Element of SWAP identifies many intersections and thoroughfares of the City as providing traffic levels of service ("LOS") as Level #D# or lower. According to , at LOS D and lower, the risk of traffic accidents increases substantially. Consequently, any development contributing traffic to thoroughfares and intersections at LOS D or lower, either now or at ultimate build-out, poses a substantial danger to the health and safety of residents of the development and the immediate community. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be applied to all otherwise vested developments unless the owner can demonstrate that the development does not contribute to intersections and thoroughfares at LOS D or less. (g) Ordinance No. of the County of Riverside, as the same was incorporated into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90- , does not address the demand placed on City recreational facilities by nonresidential development. At this time, it is estimated that every__ square feet of nonresidential development demands acres of local or community parkland. The estimated cost of parkland is $ per acre. (h) Without the City Hall, maintenance yard, police station and additional parkland described above, the City will be unable to provide adequate basic municipal services, including police protection, road maintenance, fire protection, solid waste collection and park services. Consequently, any development contributing additional demand for such municipal services poses an immediate danger to the health and safety of the future residents of the community. Accordingly, the fees to construct the -2- jec/ORD12300(041790-2) facilities should be imposed on all building permits, including those for vested maps. SECTION 4. No building permit shall be approved within the City; provided, however, that building permits may be issued upon execution by the applicant of an agreement, accompanied by security, providing that the applicant shall participate in a fee program adopted by the City in order to finance, in total, or in part, public facilities and major thoroughfares and bridges within the City. SECTION 5. The City Attorney shall develop a form of agreement providing for participation in any fee program adopted by the City for payment of all or part of the cost of providing public facilities and major thoroughfares and bridges within the area. The agreement shall provide for the posting of security to insure payment of the fees established by the program upon adoption of the program. The agreement shall also provide that, should a fee program not be adopted on or before [ Date ], the agreement shall be of no further force or effect and the security shall thereupon be released. The agreement shall further provide that nothing therein shall limit the applicant's right to protest or otherwise oppose adoption of a fee program. As the amount of fees which may be required by a fee program cannot be ascertained until adoption thereof, the City Attorney shall fix a maximum commitment in the agreement. That amount shall be as follows: Bridge and Major Thorogughfares Fee per unit Single-Family Unit Multi-Family Unit Non-Residential per 1,000 square feet City Hall. Police Station & Maintenance Yard Fee per unit Single-Family Unit Multi-Family Unit Non-Residential per 1,000 square feet -3- j ec/ORD12300 ( 041790-2 ) Community Center. Performing Arts Center Fee per unit Single-Family Unit Multi-Family Unit Non-Residential per 1,000 square feet Parkland Fee per unit Non-Residential per 1,000 square feet In the event that the fee program provides for higher fees, the agreement shall provide that the differences between such fees and the above amount shall be waived. SECTION 6. only until [ Date repealed. This ordinance shall remain in effect ] and, as of such date is SECTION 7. This ordinance shall not apply to development which is exempt from property taxation. Nor shall it apply to permits for remodeling or reconstructing existing structures to the same number of individual dwelling units or equal commercial building area, or to permit for construction of retaining walls, patio covers, swimming pools, and other non-inhabitable residential structures. SECTION 8. Should any person in receipt of any permit or entitlement believe that they have a vested right to develop without compliance with this Ordinance, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only upon recommendation by the Planning Commission and after due notice and public hearing thereon by both bodies. SECTION 9. The City Council determines that it is necessary for the proper functioning of the City government, and therefore necessary for the protection and preservation of the public peace, health, safety and general welfare, that this Ordinance be adopted as an urgency ordinance and that the same take effect immediately upon its adoption. SECTION 10. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. This Ordinance shall remain in effect until and may, thereafter, be extended in the time and manner provided by law. -4- jec/ORD12300(041790-2) SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 12. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 1990. day of ATTEST: RON PARKS MAYOR F. D. ALESHIRE City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss. I, F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-m was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: F. D. ALESHIRE CITY CLERK Scott F. Field City Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AB# MTG DEPT TITLE: CITY HALL PURCHASE DEPT HD. .i ~ CITY MGR.-./ff/ - RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Manager to retain: 1) 2) Maggie Stewart, Rancon Real Estate, as purchasing broker; or direct staff to negotiate with WestMar Commercial Brokerage, in regards to their offer. Harry Clark, MFS, as financial consultant for the purchase and financing of City Hall. BACKGROUND At the May 8, 1990 City Council meeting, the Council rejected all proposals and directed staff to negotiate purchase of City Hall with Windsor Properties. It was suggested that the City retain a broker to negotiate the deal. We have received proposals from three brokers and recommend Rancon Real Estate. An alternative is to consider the proposal by WestMar Commercial Brokerage (see attachment 5). The brokeifs assignment is to negotiate the details of the purchase, Tenant Improvements, process the escrow, manage the Planned Unit Development and title considerations, and present the matter for Council approval. The City broker will be paid from the selling broker's commission. Staff also recommends City retain Harry Clark, MFS, as financial consultant to recommend alternatives for borrowing, solicit bids from underwriters and recommend bond counsel. FISCAL IMPACT No cost to the City for broker or WestMar's offer. MFS fee would not exceed $12,000. Funds are available in Consultant Services. ATTACHMENTS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) MFS Agreement to Provide Services for the City Hall Financing Letter of introduction for Maggie Stewart, Rancon Letter of introduction for Churchill Commercial Brokerage, Jim Bell Letter of introduction for Allen Numez, Coldwell Banker Commercial Letter from WestMar Commercial Brokerage of May 18, 1990 Muni Financial Services Inc. 31010 Avenida Buena Suerte Suite 200 Rancho California, CA 92390 (714) 699-3990 Fax: (714) 699-3460 7 Crow Canyon Court Suite 108 San Ramon, CA 94583 (415) 820-8400 May 9, 1990 Mr. Frank Aleshire city Manager City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RE: Agreement to Provide Services for the City Hall Financing Dear Mr. Aleshire: Pursuant to your request, Muni Financial Services, Inc. ("MFS") is pleased to submit this letter Agreement to the City of Temecula ("the Agency") to provide services for the City Hall financing. SCOPE OF SERVICES The following is the proposed scope of services for the City Hall financing. We will: 1. Provide feedback from bond counsel and the investment community on the affect of financing without clear legal title on subject property. 2. Assist the City in the selection of bond counsel and investment banking/underwriting firms. 3. Provide an analysis and comparison of a municipal lease versus the issuance of certificates of participation (COP's). 4. Provide an analysis of the impact to the City of using capitalized interest in the selected financing method. We will provide the City with various options ranging from no funded interest to two years of funded interest. 5. Analize and provide different structuring scenarios which may include varying the term of the issues, modifying the coupons and amortization, and variable versus fixed rate financings. We will [] Financial Consulting and Administration also assist the City in making the election of arbitrage methodology under the Omnibus Reconcilliation Act of 1989. 6. Evaluate the feasibility of the City qualifing for the five million dollar Small Issuer Exemption under the Tax Reform Act of 1986 arbitrage provision. 7. We will assist in the preparation of the Official Statement to help assure full disclosure and fair representation of the City's current status. This will be especially important due to the fact that this will be the City's first financing and the City has not approved any financial statement. 8. We will represent the City in negotiating the recommended financing instrument and provide appropriate comparable financings to the City for varification of market rates. 9. We will recommend investment vehicles in order to maximize, if applicable, any arbitrage earnings available to the City. 10. We will participate in the closing to review all documents for accuracy and appropriateness. CHARGES FOR SERVICES The fees for services will be based on our current hourlly rates set forth below not to exceed $12,000, and up to $1,000 reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. Managing Partners/Directors Senior Associates Associates Data Entry $105.00 $ 85.00 $ 65.oo $ 35.00 ABANDONMENT In the event that this project is abandoned prior to its completion, the Agency will pay MFS a fee equal to the reasonable value of its services. Reasonable value shall be determined by using the then current hourly rates for our services or the percent completion of the project, whichever is lowest. The project may be abandoned at any time by the Agency. MFS may cancel its obligation under this Agreement by providing thirty days notice in writing to the Agency. In the event of litigation or arbitration between the parties over the terms or performance of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. PAYMENT Payment for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be made within thirty (30) days of the submittal of an MFS invoice. MFS invoices for the creation, distribution, collection and follow-up of the tax installments shall be based upon the percentage completion of the project as described in Attachment A. Payment for services related to lot splits will be invoiced monthly according to the fee schedule. Such invoices shall be submitted to the Agency on a monthly basis. In the event of abandonment, the payment will be due within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice. BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES UNDERSTANDING OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND THAT THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING ATTACHMENTS, CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT. NO OTHER AGREEMENTS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND MFS EXIST WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE AND SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED HEREUNDER. THIS AGREEMENT SUPERSEDES ALL PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES INCLUDING ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN PROPOSALS. THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE MODIFIED OR AMENDED IN WRITING ONLY, AND ANY SUCH AMENDMENT MUST BE SIGNED BY DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AGENCY AND MFS. ACCEPTED: MUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.("MFS") BY:C Authorized re Title Date CITY OF TEMECULA By: Title Date 3 RANCON R It ..\ 1. F Y, I '~ I l! MEMO: TO: FROM: May 15, 1990 City of Temecula Maggie Stewart I have been asked by Mr. Hreha to write a short vitae - regarding my qualifications as a representative of the City of Temecula. Hy training in Commercial Real Estate was through Grubb and Ellis in Westside, Los Angeles. My professional career started right here in Temecuia where I have successfully negotiated the largest number of transactions not only in the Commercial Division, but all of Rancon for two consecutive years. This of course required knowledge of the market, the participants and an ability to organize everyone's time efficiently. A perfect example was finding the present office location for the city, which identified their immediate needs, and a short term inexpensive sublease: to give the city time to address their long term needs. As an independent agent, my goal is to satisfy the real needs of my client, that is focusing on their bottom line, not mine. i am proud of these accomplishments and feel that my background in city government and the non-profit arena has given me the tools to reach these outstanding goals. For four years I was the environmental officer and a member of the planning department for the City of Englewood, New Jersey. It is in that capacity where I interfaced with developers, city planners, commissioners and the general public on behalf of the city. I was instrumental in instituting riparian policy, waste control, recycling projects, and oversight of public land. In conjunction with these duties, I was the director of the Flat Rock Brook Center for Environmental Study, where I developed outreach educational programs in the school. Suffice it to say I am comfortable with City government and a council. I understand their budgeting, time constraints and am very sensitive to their public image. I am also very confident of my expertise in Real Estate, and feel that the city can benefit from my well rounded experience. I live here in the wine country, and both my husband and I are in business in the City of Temecula. I care about how the tax dollars are spent. 27720 Jef~rson Avenue Temecula. California 92390 (714) 676-8418 (714) 699-0387 Fax City of Temecula May 15, 1990 Page ~ Added to these benefits, is the assistance of a reputable company such as Rancon. We have a Research and a Legal Department on staff at our disposal. The City then has a team representing them, with vast experience and knowledge. I would be working on a commission basis, as the city's exclusive agent. It will be my responsibility with the city's support to negotiate a commission payment from the sellers. I have included some letters of recommendation that ~ill support my comments. I look forward to a working relationship with the city. William Sommer~ City Manager En§lewood, New lersey J~nuar¥ a4, 198.5 i know that you will be leaving on January 2c3 end I may not get a chance to see you or talk to Please accept m~ t~nks for what you have done for the City. To me you have always been cooperatiwe and knowledgable, enthusiastLc and pleasant, traLta not often brought together 4n one persons i wLsh you the heat fortune. If you should need any reference from me, please know that I wLll he pleased to gLve the best. Thanks a&aLn. It was vury nLce knowing y~u. P.O. Box 228, Englewood, New Jersey 07631 Telephone: 201-567-1800 235 South Dwight Place Englewood, New Jersey 07631 To Whom It May Concern: Maggie Ramonas worked with .me closely at Flat Rock Brook Center for Environ-. mental Study in Englewood, New Jersey as Director for almost four years. I, as President for the first three of those yea~ of Flat Rock Brook Nature Association, was both her boss, along with the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, and her volunteer assistant and facilitator (money for paid personnel 'being always a problem in this kind of place). Her job for us was one part of a two-part job which also included that of City Environmental Officer. ~qhe knew she was taking on quite a challenge in working in Englewood, and her temperament lent itself very well to meet successfully a series of challe~ges during her time here. She enjoys problem-solving and doing many thinks at once, and certainly had ample opportunity her~ to exhibit how well she .functions in situations calling for these attributes. Among the challenges she successfully met here are: 1. Completion and shake-down of a building including landerstanding complex solar-plus-conventional heating systems, solving of malfunction problems, with er~ier~rise and ingenuity in finding inexpensive or no-cost solutions, and perseverance in seeking satisfaction .from architects, builder and suppliers. Here and in other areas of activity she continually showed flexibility and perseverance in dealing with the problem of never having enough money. The training. of CETA-funded office and land-management personnel and the eventual arrpangement of having an office assistant only part-time made her working hours even more of a challenge which she dealt with on a very professional and unfailingly positive level. 2. Continuance and development of an educational .pro,ram which provides environmental education experiences to all ages, 7 days a week.. Cum~iculum develop- ment for our program for school groups aKed 3 to high school br~]ght us a 75% inc~ in numbers of school children visiting us wit'h their teachers in 1982. Maggie constantly trained new and upgraded t/mining of experienced volunteer trailguides and solarguides who work in our oro ~ram (at top number, we have had 20 of these working in one season here). She was also successful in motivating and initiating involve~nent of many other volunteers in all areas of our com~mity service, from our nature library to our Eagle Scout candidates' projects here. 3. Success in reinstire,ting an internship program in conjunction with 3 Bergen County colleges, ~der whc~h students received course credit for study with MagKie and working on proje6ts or student-teaching here. Her rapport with young people served her in good stead he~, as well as in her own occasional programs and walks for children and families as part of our weekend programs for the public. Her wa'~,,[.h and positive o~rtgoing personality really attract people. Her gregariousness is a strong asset. g.. Gregariousness and a good understanding of public relations made her an effect~ive ambassador for our organization in all segments of the con~m]nity, from the administrative petsore,el at all levels within the City government (vitally imFoptant for us since we voluntarily manage e.ity-owned land) to the local service clubs and businesses, and other local influential groups. 5. Con, acts with New Jersey and other area sources of information and help. .Maggie is a great exploiter of resourceo~" and a productive researcher of professional and scientific information sources. 6. Contacts and use of media -- local newspapers and New York Times, cable television, professional magazines, production of our own newsletter, overseeing of producti~.~n of ~u~ new brochure. RANCON) January 15, 1990 RANCON REAL ESTATE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE 2 7720 Jefferson Ave. / Suite 100 / Temecula, California 92390 / (714) 676-8418 Maggie Stewart 47610 Los Amantes Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Maggie: I wanted to send you my personal congratulations for the numerous'awards you received Tuesday morning. I understand you were the recipient of the Most Improved Agent, Most Transactions, and Top Office agent. Maggie, what an astounding accomplishment for someone who is a relative newcomer to this profession. These awards are a definite reflection of your committment to your career. I know a great deal of time and energy was exerted on your behalf to achieve the Most Transactions awards. I know that you have labored very hard to achieve this award two years in a row. In reviewing your 1989 gross commission production with 1988, you have attained an incredible increase of 405%. This is certainly an accomplishment to be proud of and deserving of the Most Improved Agent award. Maggie, you are thought of very highly by your sales manager as well as your associates. It is a pleasure to have you represent Rancon Real Estate. Your contribution to the team is truly appreciated. It seems as though the company trip has been the most talked about event since I arrived. I'm glad you will be attending, and I look forward to the opportunity of getting to know you better in Cancun. Best wishes for a successful, prosperous new year. ~.o~dially,? Robert H. S. K~r~patrick President RANCON RANCON MEMORANDUM Maggie Stewart Date: Subject.' CONGRATULATIONS From: January 29, 1990 Jim Senech~,~ Ron Dougla~ Just a note to say "congratulations" on your most successful 1989 in your affiliation with Rancon Real Estate Corporation. We know your accomplishments were the result of hard work, long hours, and above all, a dedicated and professional approach to your business activities. We are very grateful that you are a member of the Rancon team, and wish you even greater success during 1990. Again, "CONGRATULATIONS" ! /is May 15, 1990 Mr. Frank Aleshire City Manager City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, C~. 92390 Dear Mr. Aleshire, This letter is to introduce Brokerage to you and the City your consideration. myself and Council and Churchill Commercial offer a proposal for We propose to offer you exclusive representation on the cities lease or sales transactions in Real Estate. We will review all documents, negotiate lease or sales agreements, compare pricing, survey existing space and future space, as well as offer possible alternatives. We will provide you with information so you can compare a lease to a purchase. We can provide you with the latest information on tenant improvement cost and give you an estimate of its real value at the end of a lease and upon the resale of the property. We will review the CC & R to insure they are compatible with your intended use. Parking will have to be carefully analyzed to insure the city staff and all the visitors will have a place to park. Overall we will represent you on every detail of a purchase or lease agreement. Our experience as a commercial., ~nd. ustrJa!, offj~ h~m~=~=ge firm goes back many years. In 1974 I started in the business with a large Commercial Brokerage firm and specialized in the North County of San Diego. I experienced the major growth of that area and dealt with the various cities while representing buyer and seller as well as tenants. In 1984 I managed a staff of 35 sales agents in the North County office of the same firm. The sale representatives worked with clients throughout the San Diego area as well as the Southwest Riverside area. During this same time I started a property management firm that specialized only in commercial, industrial and office type properties. The management firm deals directly with tenants and owners. Management requires us to review leases very carefully to insure all aspects of a lease are covered. May 15, 1990 Page 2 We have learned over the years that a lease or agreement of sale is a lasting document that must be understood in the future as well as today. In addition every lease is reviewed annually to insure cost of living adjustments are accurate and that both landlord and tenant are aware of the base provisions. Part of our management requires us to review insurance policies and negotiate the sale of the property. in 1986 i started Churchill Commercial Brokerage in Temecula because there was a definite need for the commercial specialist. We have represented many companies in our city and the surrounding area. Since then we have been involved in almost every set of CC & R's in the community as well as written two different ones. We have worked with the county from the development of buildings to the build out for the tenant. We know how offers and leases must be written and how to negotiate them. We are familiar with parking requirements, P.U.D.'s, conditional use permits and the need to keep cost as low as possible. Our proposal would include myself and Jack Dzihan, a senior sales agent, in our firm. I believe that having two persons representing the city will provide it with faster information and turn around time. It also helps to insure important matters concerning the transaction are not missed. Our concern would be representing the city only and not the property owners who may have a suitable property meeting your requirements. A sales representation in our firm has shown some buildings to a representative of the City of Temecula. I believe it is not a conflict of interest with the city in that the space available at the time was not exactly suitable and that furthermore it has since been leased. The property in question consists of two adjacent buildings in a project south of old town. The buildings were sold and most of the space subsequently leased. The present owner will not consider a sale even though we have presented them with several opportunities. We are normally paid by the Seller or Lessor of the transactions through predetermined commission schedules. The city would have no financial obligation to myself or Churchill Commercial Brokerage through our representation. We would be entitled to one half of any commission paid by the Lessor or Seller. May 15, 1990 Page 3 In summary we feel that the city should be represented by a local specialized commercial firm. Through our property management firm and our commercial brokerage firm, you will benefit form years of lease and sale negotiations. Buy having two specialist representing the city only it will have the added advantage of thoroughness and dedication to insure a fair real estate transaction. Jim Bell President/Owner Churchill Commercial Brokerage HCP Property Management Coldwell Banker Commercial Real £state Services BROKERAGE AND MANAGEMENT May 15, 1990 Mr. Joseph P. Hreha Manager of Information Systems CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Joe: Thank you very much for considering me as a candidate to represent the City of Temecula in its efforts to acquire Windsor Business Park. I feel that I can best represent your interest because I am familiar with the property, Windsor Business Park, the Corporate Park and the CCR's in which it is located, as well as the owner's of each entity. My knowledge regarding P.U.D.'s (Planned Unit Development) transactions and parking regulations is comprehensive. This knowledge was obtained in previous transactions throughout the past five years as an industrial commercial real estate specialist in the Temecula, Murrieta, and greater Rancho California Community. In order for me to participate as the representative of the City of Temecula in this transaction the following criteria must be met. First of all, an exclusive representation agreement must be signed which states that Allen L. Nunez of Coldwell Banker shall be your exclusive representative in this transaction. Secondarily, fifty percent of the commission proceeds from the transaction shall be awarded to Coldwell Banker upon the successful acquisition of Windsor Business Park from Windsor Partners (owner), to the City of Temecula (purchaser). I look forward to seeing this transaction come to fruition with your interest best represented. As expected, I will call soon to confirm our objectives so that we may proceed immediately in answering any concerns regarding this transaction. Sincerely, COLDWELL BANKER COMMERCIAL REAL ESTA~SERVICES ANaaL1 5130 Avenida Encinas. Carlsbad, California 92008-4372 / P.O. Box 919. Carlsbad, CA 92008-0163 COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE May 18, 1990 Mr. Frank D. Aleshire City Manager City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca 92390 Dear Mr. Aleshire: We are concerned with the interviews being conducted by City Staff with respect to the hiring of a real estate broker to negotiate the final purchase contract for Windsor Park I. The three of us have worked long hours providing staff with information and documentation to facilitate an equitable and timely deal. We have acted in good faith recognizing a fiduciary responsibility to both the City of Temecula and Windsor Partners. It is neither fair nor prudent to have an outside agent oversee this important real estate acquisition at this stage of the negotiations. Given the fact this individual will be compensated on a commission-only basis, the incentive for this broker is to get the deal done, earn a commission, and not necessarily look out for the best interest of the City of Temecula. It is common real estate practice to hire an attorney to verify the legality of contract specifics. While this is an expense generally incurred by the Buyer, we are willing to pay the attorney's fees up to $10,000 should we consummate a deal. We look forward to providing your attorney with all pertinent documentation. Please have him/her call us at 676-7177 to get the process moving. Donald ~g Steve 41530 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH, SUITE 206 / TEMECULA, CA 92390 (714) 676-7177 FAX (714) 699-0048 L. OS ANG£LE~ oF!ricE ~24 ~0UTH G~ANC) AVENUE. IITM FLOC TELECOP~E~: (2~3) May 16, 1990 Mr. F.D. Aleshire City Manager City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Proposed Financing of a New City Hall Facility Dear Mr. Aleshire: You have advised us that the City Council (the "Council") has authorized you to develop a financing package for the purpose of acquiring two office buildings located within the Windsor Park I Complex in the City of Temecula, California, to serve as a new City Hall facility. We understand that Mr. Harry Clark will be recommended to serve as the City's financial advisor for this project. We also understand that Mr. Clark intends to recommend the issuance of a certificate of participation anticipation note in an amount not exceeding $5,000,000 in order to pay the necessary costs of the project and stay within the exemption from rebate under the U.S. Treasury regulations for arbitrage of tax exempt borrowed funds. We have attached to this letter a copy of a complete summary of our firm's bond department personnel and recent bond issue work. You will see that over the years, we have written opinions for millions of dollars of Certificates of Participation-Lease Purchase financings in the Midwest and in California. The most recent projects involging this type of financing occurred in Alhambra, Azusa and Camarillo, California. We would be pleased to act in the capacity as bond counsel for the City to prepare all necessary paDers and Mr. F.D. Aleshire May 16, 1990 Page 2 documents in order for the City to authorize and issue the certificates of participation anticipation notes and issue our opinion on the exemption of the interest thereon from federal and state income tax for a fee of $15,000 plus our out-of-pocket costs such as copy charges, long-distance telephone charges, extraordinary delivery charges and similar items. The above quoted fee will also cover our cooperation with the City's underwriter as such firm prepares the appropriate official statement for this project. Our senior partner, Norman E. Gaar, along with our associate attorney Maryann L. Goodkind will be primarily responsible for this project working through and in conjunction with the City Attorney, Scott F. Field. If we can furnish you any additional information we would be please to do so if you would call either me or Scott Field. Please let us know if you would like us to proceed and we will contact the City's financial advisor and start a cooperative effort to complete this project. Thanks very much for allowing us to respond to your request and we look forward to this task for the City. Very truly yours, ~f BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN OPN67890 cc: Scott F. Field SUMMARY OF BOND COUNSEL BACKGROUND OUR FILE NO. The law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen has a long established reputation of expertise in all matters relating to California municipal law. One of our senior partners, Norman E. Gaar, ranks among the nation's leading municipal finance attorneys. Listed in The Bond Buyer's Directory of Municipal Bond Dealers (the "Red Book"), since 1957, Mr. Gaar approved nearly four billion dollars of public financing throughout the Midwest, Southwest and California during 1986, 1987 and 1988 alone. He has represented investment bankers in tax exempt underwriting projects involving hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Gaar worked closely with our firm in a variety of financial transactions for three years prior to joining Burke, Williams & Sorensen in August of 1987. He is assisted in California by Neil Yeager, Kathryn Pruessner Peters, Maryann Link Goodkind, and Peter D. Tremblay. Edward M. Fox, the head of our firm's tax department, assists in matters involving federal and state income tax exemption. Burke, Williams & Sorensen offers a unique combination of client services: California public law expertise, nationally recognized bond counsel and underwriters services, market opinion, tax and financial guidelines, document preparation and production. The law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen (Burke, Williams, Sorensen & Gaar in Kansas) currently has offices in the cities of Los Angeles, Camarillo and Costa Mesa, California, and Overland Park, Kansas. The Los Angeles office, located in the One Wilshire Building, is the primary location for financial services to Southern California governmental agencies and underwriters. It is situated in the heart of the financial district in downtown Los Angeles and currently houses approximately fifty-five lawyers supported by state-of-the- art word processing capability, excellent legal assistants and secretarial staff. The following is a brief biography of the attorneys who provide bond counsel services: NORMAN E. G~AR- Educated at the University of Michigan, A.B. 1955, J.D. 1956, admitted to practice before the Supreme Courts of Kansas, Missouri and the U.S. Supreme Court. Former member of the faculty of the New York Practicing Law Institute with the assignment of instructing Bond Counsel throughout the United States. Member, National Association of Bond Lawyers; listed in Marquis, Who's Who in American Law and Who's Who in the World. Mr. Gaar has over thirty-three years of experience as bond counsel. From 1956 to 1979, as an associate and partner in a large Kansas City firm, Mr. Gaar wrote opinions on hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds for issuers in Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and Utah. From 1979 to 1987, Mr. Gaar was the senior partner of Gaar and Bell, personally involved in writing opinions and supervising over 3,000 bond issues involving $10 billion. Under Mr. Gaar's leadership, Gaar & Bell ranked in the top twenty-five bond counsel firms nationally. He has continued that leadership with the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen. EDWARD M. FOX - Mr. Fox is a tax specialist, having graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1957. Mr. Fox served as a law clerk to the Honorable Luther M. Swygert, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana and formerly was a trial attorney in the Regional Counsel's office of the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Fox has been practicing law and specializing in tax matters for thirty-one years since his admission to the Bar. ~TT. F. Y~GER - Mr. Yeager joined the firm upon his admission to the California Bar in 1974. His practice involves extensive real estate and personal property leasing, commercial and public financing, securities, as well as a general corporate and commercial practice. Mr. Yeage~ has a B.A. (1970) cum laude from Claremont Men's College, and a J.D. (1974) from the University of Southern California. KATMRYN PRUESSN~R P~TR~m - Admitted to the Kansas Bar in 1977; University of Kansas (J.D. 1977, Order of the Coif, Law Review); Wichita State University (B.M.E. magna cum laude 1973). Ms. Peters was a law clerk to the Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, from 1977 to 1979. From 1979 until she joined the firm in 1988, Ms. Peters was an Assistant City Attorney of Kansas City, Kansas, serving as general counsel to the City's Board of Public Utilities, and concentrating in the fields of municipal utility law and municipal law. She now concentrates in municipal bond financings. Ms. Peters serves on the Board of Directors of the City Attorneys Association of Kansas, and has presented several papers before the Association on the topics of municipal utility operations, utility franchise agreements, municipal civil rights litigation and bond law. Her publications include "Municipal Liability After Owen v. City of Independence and Maine v. Thiboutot," 13 The Urban Lawyer 407 (1981). MARYANN LINK GOODKTND - Admitted to the California Bar in 1987, Ms. Goodkind has a B.S. (1984) cum laude and a J.D. (1987) from the University of Southern California. She is a member of the National Association of Bond Lawyers. Ms. Goodkind has concentrated her practice in the area of municipal bond financings. She also has experience in the practice of general corporate, real estate and securities law. DAVID M. McCARTHY - Admitted to the New York Bar in 1987, Mr. McCarthy joined the firm in 1990 after working for a large New York firm from 1987 to 1990. He served for three years as a Police Officer in New York, and from 1981 to 1984 served as a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps with the Criminal Investigation Division. Mr. McCarthy has a B.A. in Political Science (1980) summa cum laude and a B.A. and M.P.S. in Criminal Justice (1982) magna cum laude from Long Island University, and a J.D. (1987) from Fordham University School of Law, and served as an intern-clerk to United States District Court Judge Peter Leisure of New York's Southern District and United States District Court Judge Joseph McLaughlin of New York's Eastern District. He is a member of the National Association of Bond Lawyers. Mr. McCarthy has concentrated his practice in the area of Public Finance. PETER D. T~RMBT~y - Admitted to the California Bar in 1989,'Mr. Tremblay has an A.B. (1984) from the University of California, Berkeley, and a J.D. (1989) from Loyola Law School. CALIFORNIA PROJECTS Certificates of Participation $!,950,000 Certificates cf Participation, Series 1987, of the Alhambra Capital improvemenus Corporation, dated July 1, 1987. ~ $6,580,000 Certificates of Participation, Series !988, of the Camarillo Capital Improvement Corporation, dated January 2, 1988 $1,740,000 Certificates of Participation, Series 1988, of the City of E1 Segundo, California, dated July i, ~988. $5,000,000 Certificates of Participation, Series A and Series B !988, of the City of Marina, California, dated August 15, i988. $8,875,000 Certificates of Participation, Series '989, of the City of Baldwin Park, California (Civic Projects), dated February i, 1989. $7,000,000 Certificates of Participation Anticipation Notes, Series !989, of the City of Scotts Valley, California, dated August ', 1989. $9,815,000 Certificates of Participation, Series 1989, of the City of Alhambra, California, dated September i, !989. $13,235,000 Certificates of Participation, of the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Lynwood and Vernon, California (iCLFA-i), dated September ~, 1989. S6,800,000 Certificates of Participation, of the City of Camarii!o, California (Pleasant Valley Hospital), dated October l, 1989. $2,450,000 Certificates of Participation (Phase iI), of the City of Scotts Valley, California, Series 1989A. $10,150,000 Certificates of Participation Anticipation Notes, of the City of Scotts Valley, California, Series 1990. Limited Ob!icaticn Bonds $9,930,000 Improvement Bonds, Series 1986 (Landscaping Lighting Assessment District No. I), cf the City of Alhambra, California. $1,625,000 Improvement Bonds, Delta Assessment District No. 86-2, of the City of Baldwin ParR, California, dated Augus~ 26, !986. , $1,325,000 1915 Act Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds of the City of Camari!1o, California, dated June i, i989. $473,674.32 1915 Act Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds of the County of Mariana Rancnos, California, dated May 2, 1989. $7,800,000 Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds of the City of Foisom, California, dated June !, 1989. Improvemen~ Bonds of the City of Glendora, Sewer Assessment Dissrict No. 35, Series 1989-1. Marks-Roos Pooled Financing - Joint Powers Agency $40,000,000 1988 Local Agency Revenue Bonds, of the Folsom Public Financing Authority, dated November 7, 1988. $35,000,000 !989 Local Agency Revenue Bonds, of the Wasco Public Financing Authority, Series A and B, dated August i, 1989. $6,350,000 Local Agency Revenue Bonds, of the Madera County Public Financing Authority, $1,325,000 !989 Series A Bonds and $5,000,000 1989 Series B Bonds, dated NovemDer i, !989. Baldwin Park Public Financing Authority, $14,205,000 - 1990 Series A and $6,475,000 - 1990 Series B, of the City of Baldwin ParE, California, dated January ii, 1990. $40,000,000 Folsom Public Financing Authority, 1990 Local Agency Revenue Bonds, Series A and Series B (Foisom iI), dated March 1, 1990. $34,000,000 Scotts Valley Public Financing Authority, 1990 Local Agency Revenue Bonds, dated March 28, 1990. Refundin~ Bonds $7,105,000 Parking Authority Refunding Certificates, Series 1985, of the City of A!hamDra, Ca!ifcrnia. $7,000,000 Refunding Ce~ ifica , Series 1985 (Alhambra Golf Course Clubhouse), of the City of Alhambra, California. $20,000,000 Tax Allocation and Refunding Bonds, Series 1986 (Redeve!oDment Agency), of the City of Alhambra, California. $7,875,000 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series 1987, Bell Redevelopment Project Area, cf Bell Community Redevelopment 19 Agency, dated August 27, 87. $1,530,000 1989 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Baldwin Park, California Redeveiopmenr Agency (Wes~ Ramona Boulevard Redevelopment Project), dated February ', ~989. $4,335,000 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, Series '989, of the Alhambra Redevelopment Agency, Alhambra, California, dated August ~, 1989. $15,270,000 Redevelopment Agency of the City of West Covina (Central Business District Redevelopment Project) Tax Al!oca~ion Refunding Bonds, ~986 Series A, dated April 2, 1990. $3,975,000 Redevelopment Agency o~ 2he City of West Covina (Eastland Redevelopment Project) Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, ~986 Series B, da~ed April 2, !990. Revenue Bonds $35,000,000 Lease Revenue Bonds (Pooled Projects), Series 1988, of the Independent Cities Lease .-inance Authority. $20,000,000 Special Tax Bonds, Series 1988, cf Community Facilities District No. 85-2 (California Oaks) Riverside Coun=y, California. $8,410,000 Local Agency Revenue Bonds, Series 1988, of the Sierra Madre Financing Authority, dared November I, 1988. $7,000,000 Housing Authority of the County of Monterey 1985 Floa=ing Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Circles IiI and Harding Par~ Projects), Remarketing Date December ~ 1988 $3,000,000 Housing Authority of the County of Monterey 1985 Floating Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Russe2! Road Apartments Project), Remarketing Date December I, 1988. \ $3,000,000 Housing Authority of the County of Monterey !985 Ploating Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Woodridge Project), Remar~e~ing Date December I, 1988. $5,000,000 City of Fresno !985 Floating Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Palm Gates Project), Remarketing Date December ~, 1988 Temporary Notes $7,000,000 Tax Al!ccation Notes, Bell Community Redevelopment Agency, Cheil industrial Redevelopment Project No. i, Series 1985, of the City of Bell, California. $3,250,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1986, of the City of Alhambra, Ca!ifornia. $6,000,000 Subordinated Tax Allocation Notes, Series 1987, Bell Redevelopment Project Area of Bell Community Redeveiopment Agency, dated November 19, 1987. $6,250,000 Bond Anticipation Notes, Series !988-1 (Mission de Camari!!o), of the City of Camarillo, California, dated June _, ~988. $3,000,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1988, of the City of AihamDra, California, dated July !, 1988. $3,000,000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series 1988, of the City cf Alhambra, California, dated July 6, i988. $3,500,000 Taxable Bond Anticipatien Notes, Series 1989, of the City of LaKe Elsinore, California, dated September 6, 1989. $3,400,000 Alhambra Redevelopment Agency, Industrial Redevelopment Project, As Amended, 1990 Tax Allocation Refunding Notes, dated April 3, i990. Via Messenqer BEDFORD PROPERTIES May 18, 1990 Ms. June Greek City Clerk City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Re: City Council Hearing, May 22 Plot Plan 11234 Dear Ms. Greek: We request a continuance of an item that you have set for Public Hearing on May 22. The item is our Plot Plan 11234, construction of a 68,000-square-foot office building at the corner of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road. We are working with your staff to pro- vide more traffic information. I request that this matter be continued until your hearing of June 12, 1990. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, MJJ:kp S':.'~rszii~d S~ai E:ta:e 2,0. Box ~'016 ~'_::_:. 2~3 -'z .'~ioomen~ nnd 7mqecula, C,:liforn:a ' .::'~:,_::a. ',~ :il/crma , :.n: :ernen: CLimeany .2?0-0775 L: ." ,:76-5~41 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: TITLE: PLOT PLAN NO. 11234 DEPT ATH~ MTG: AMENDED NO. 2 CITY DEPT: CITY MGR__~ RECOMMENDATION That the City Council open the public hearing. receive public testimony and continue the item off calendar until the st=;; and the developer have had a chance to review the potential traffic impacts of the project. Background Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Zoning: Plot Plan No. 11234, Amended No. 2 Bedford Properties Mary Jane Jagodzinski Construct a 67,553 square foot office building and a two story parking structure (total 231 spaces needed} on a five (S } acre site. Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. C-1/C-P General Commercial Environmental Action: Negative Declaration Analysis Status Summary This project was processed by the County of Riverside and initially approved at a Planning Director's hearing on February 26, 1990. Pursuant to the provisions of City Ordinance No. 13-89, the item was forwarded to the Temecula City Council for final action. On April 17, 1990, the Council pulled this project from the consent agenda and set the matter for public hearing. The proposal has been duly advertised and posted as required by City ordinances, and adjacent property owners have been notified of the hearing. Proposal Parameters The project proposes construction of a 67,553 square foot multi-story office building and parking structure on a 5.17 acre site. The architecture and land use intensity parallel the office building and parking structure currently under construction by Bedford Properties on the site. All the structures are situated around a lake system designed as an entry statement and focal point for Specific Plan No. 149. The project is immediately adjacent to Highway 15. Access is limited to Ynez Road, or from the north through Von's parking lot. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT i AB#: TITLE: IMTG: PLOT PI_AN NO. 11234 DEPT HD DEPT: AiviENDED NO. 2 CITY ATTY PAGE 2 CITY MGR Intensity of Development The multi-story building planned for the site, in conjunction with the building under construction, will constitute an intensity of development more common to urbanized commercial areas. From an aesthetic standpoint, the lakes and generous landscaping will mitigate concerns of visual impact. Additionally, the office buildings have deliberate designs which form an effective transition from the lower scale commercial development ( Von's Center) to this office development. Traffic Generation Staff has been waiting for the developer to provide the City with the approved traffic study which assessed the potential impacts of the proposed project. Staff was recently informed that no traffic study was prepared for the project. The County Road Department felt that they had ample traffic data on file for the area, to justify not requiring a specific study for this project. Staff feels the intensity of the proposed project could further impact an already impacted intersection. This impact coupled with the recent improvements proposed by Bedford Properties along Rancho California Road, concern staff. Staff feels that additional review time is appropriate and is warranted to fully assess the potential impacts of the proposal. Summary In conclusion, staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, receive public testimony, and continue item off calendar until the staff and the developer have had a chance to review the potential traffic impacts of the project. PP11234/STAFF Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Plot Plan No. 11234 Bedford Properties Northwest Corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads. Construction of a 68,000 square Foot Office Building and multi- level parking structure on a five acre site. Environmental Action: 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 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, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714) 694-1989. The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula Tuesday. May 22. 1990 7:00 PM ~-'PROJECT /LOCATION VICINITY MAP Z I .1111l i i mmmm~ i m.._,_,J FtA IV CHO 'i'f) RIVI(RSil)I( PROJECT LOCATION TO SAN VICINITY MAP DATE: 3-22-90 CASE TYPE & NO. Plot Plan No. 11234 Amended No. 2 FROM: CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT This item.should be: Set and noticed for public hearing Placed on agenda as a receive and file item Action taken at your discretion SUBMII'TAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 11234, Amended No. 2 SUBMII'FAL DATE: 3/22/90 RECOMMENDED MOTION: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for E.A. 33909 and APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN 11234, Amended No. 2, Planning Correction No. 1 based on the following: 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinance 348. 2. The proposal is compatible with area development 3. Environmental concerns can be mitigated at the development stage through the conditions of approval. PROJECT LOCATION North of Rancho California Road, and West of Ynez Road. BACKGROUND: GENERAL PLAN: Southwest Area Community Plan a, b. C, d. ZONING: a. SITE: M-SC b. ADJACENT: M-SC, C-1/C-P LAND USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT: a. SITE: Vacant LAND USE: "C" (Commercial) OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas Not Designated As Open Space COMMUNITY POLICIES: Specific Plan No. 149 ADJACENT: Commercial b. ADJACENT: Vacant, Commercial, Industrial MAJOR ISSUES: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Liquefaction, 100 Year Floodplain, Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat. Subsidence, JA:gs PINKS PLANNING DI~CTOR' S HEARING CASE SUMMARY DATE: 02-26-90 CASE NO. PLOT PLAN 11234, A~ended No. 2 E.A. No. 33909 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: A 67,553 square foot office building and parking structure on 5.17 acres north of Rancho California Rd., and west Ynez Rd. AREA: Rancho California SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: Within the City of Temecula GENERAL PLAN: Southwest Area Community Plan a. LAND USE: "C" (Commercial) b. OPEN SPACE/CONS.: Areas Not Designated As Open Space c. COMMUNITY POLICIES: Specific Plan No. 149 d. ADJACENT: Commercial ZONING: a. SITE: C-1/C-P b. ADJACENT: C-1/C-P LAND USE/AREA DEVELOPMENT: a. SITE: Vacant b. ADJACENT: Commercial / Retail MAJOR ISSUES: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Liquefaction, Subsidence, 100 Year Floodplain, Stepben's Kangaroo Rat Habitat. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for E.A. 33909 and A~P~OVAL of PLOT PLAN 11234, Amended No. 2, based on the following: The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinance 348. The proposal is compatible with area development. Environmental concerns can be mitigated at the development stage through the conditions of approval. Bedford Properties P.O. Box 755 Temecula, CA 92390 RZ%"~ZD~ COU~'Z ~LAHNTNG CONDZ~ZONS OF AE~RO'v"AL PLOT PLAN NO. 11234, Amen~d No. 2 Project Description: Office building and parking garage. Assessor's Parcel No.:921-270-032,33,35,36 District/Area: Rancho California The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 67,553 square f office building and a parking garage. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning PLOT PLAN NO. 11234, Amended No. 2. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riversi and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceedi. or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless t County of Riverside. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contempla by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning mf substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with th as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, Amen~ No. 2, or as amende. by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shin directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendati outlined in the County Road Department's transmittal dated 10-19-89 copy of which is attached. PLOT PLAN NO. 11234 Conditions of Approval Page 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated 10-05-89, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated 10-16-89, a copy which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriat section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 10-02-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in th Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section's transmittal dated 00-00-90, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in th Department of Building and Safety - Grading Section's transmittal dated 11-29-89, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in th Riverside County Geologist's transmittals dated 08-28-89 and 01-12- copies of which are attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in th Department of Transportation's transmittal dated 05-30-89, a copy c which is attached. Prior to the issuance of building permits, six (6) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submit to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, gen species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans sh meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installe and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit drive shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348, section 18.12 and include a =&in shut-off dev£~e. In addition, the plan will incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler heads with incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage. PLOT PLaN NO. 11234 Conditions of Approval P&ge 3 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. A minimum of 230 parking spaces shall be required in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 230 parking spac shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A, Amended No. 2. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving tc minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of five (5), handicapped parking spaces shall be provided shown on Exhibit A, Amended No. 2. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The si shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance t the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards ¢ license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimec at or by telephoning ." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the symbc of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtai clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Riverside County Flood Control Environmental Health Fire Department Building & Safety - Grading Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. If the applicant proposes to install signage, a separate plot plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to any sign installation, accompanied by fees set forth in Ordinance Nc 348. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. PLOT PLaN NO. 11234 Conditions of Approval Page 4 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit M-1 (Materials Board) and Exhibit M-2 (Color Elevations). These are as follows: Use Material Exterior Plaster Metalwork Glazing Glass Mullions Stone Roof Tile Color Amarillo white Lt. Metalic Redwood Blue-Green Reflective Lt. Medium Bronze Red Sandstone Custom Blue-Grey Burgandy (Materials added at Director's Hearing 2/26/90) Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screenin A total of one (1) trash enclosure which is adequate to enclose a total of one (1) bin shall be centrally located in the project, and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Th enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens the bin from external view. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserv wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Plannin Director. 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 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. "This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department o Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification shall be based upon, bu not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated." PLOT PLAN NO. 11234 Conditions of Approval Page 5 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of th~ fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by Count~ ordinance or resolution. A total of 16 bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient location~ to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Nine (9) of those racks shall be either; Class I, or Class II in an enclosed, lockable area. The remaining seven (7) racks shall be Class II. Prior to 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 1 installed underground. No humIn oo~pmncy will be allowed in the area designated as the attic. This space is to be used for equipment only, per Ord. 348 section 18.20(b). Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obta~ clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conforman< with Ordinance No. 348. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. JA:jsa 02-22-90 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR L~o¥ D. Smoot October 19, 1989 COUNTY ADMINISTRATI%T. CENT~I= ~ ADDRELSS: P.O. BOX 1090 R.rgTJ~ID£. CALLTOPekA 92502 (714) 787-6554 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: (Office Building) Plot Plan 11234 - Amend #2 Team 5 - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Road Department has not required a traffic study for this project as we have a traffic study on file which addresses traffic impacts in the immediate area. This study indicates a projected T.RVEL OF SERVICR "C" at the Rancho California Road/Ynez Road intersection. The Comprehensive General Plan circulation policies relative to Categor~ II Land Uses states: "A minimum of level of service "C" is necessary for any new Category II land use. As such, the proposed project is inconsistent with this General Plan policy. Therefore, the Road Department recommends the following conditions: With respect to the referenced item, ~he recommendations .- conditions of approval for the above Road Department has the following Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall complete the following conditions at no cost to any government agency: Sufficient right of way along Rancho California Road shall be conveyed for public use to provide for a 55 foot half width right of way or in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. me Sufficient right of way along ¥nez Road shall be conveyed for public use to provide for a 50 foot half width right of way or in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. COUNTY AOMINL%TRATrvX C!:NTER * 4080 LEMON STRLrT * ~Z, CALIFORNIA 92501 Plot Plan 11234 - Amend #2 October 19, 1989 Page 2 e The traffic signal mitigation for this project has been met by Parcel Map 17454. Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by ~his permit, and prior to doing any work within the State highway right of way, clearance and/or an encroachment permit must be obtained by ~he applicant from the District 08 Office of ~he State DeparUnent of Transportation in San Bernardino. Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, the applicant shall construct the following at no cost to any government agency~ e Rancho California Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 43 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by the Road Con~issioner within a 55 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 or in accordance with ~he General Plan right of way standard or as approved by ~he Road Co~,issioner. ® Ynez Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 38 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving) recons~ruction) or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by the Road Commissioner within a 50 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101 or in accordance with the General Plan right of way s~andard or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Asphalt emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37, 39 and 94 of ~he State Standard Specifications. ® S~andard 35 foot curb return, cross access ramps shall be constructed Ordinance 461 where applicable. gutter, spandrel and in accordance with e The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on Rancho California Road at the intersection wi~h Ynez Road as approved bytheRoadDepar~ment. 10. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Rancho California Road and Ynez Road in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). Plot Plan 11234 - Amend #2 October 19, 1989 Page 3 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by County. Major drainage is involved on this project and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Commissioner. Drainage control shall be as per Ordinance 460, Section 11.1. All work done within County right of way shall have an encroachment permit. The single driveway shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. The single entrance driveway shall be channelized with concrete curb and gutter to prevent "back-on" parking and interior drives from entering/exiting driveways for a minimum distance of 35 feet measured from face of curb. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with PM 17454. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 at all intersections of roads constructed or improved within the develo~xnent. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the development is within an existing assessment district. If not, the land owner shall file after receiving tentative approval, for an application wi~h LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in pursuant to Governmental Code Section 56000 et. seq. The applicant shall comply with the' Caltrans reco~end- ations as outlined in their letter dated May 30, 1989. Plot Plan 11234 - Amend #2 Octobtr 19, 1989 Page 4 20. Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make application for and pay for their reapportionment of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit. LJ.'Jw ~Techn~cal Eng. Unit Supervisor County of Riverside RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNINC DEPT. TO: DATE: yAM MARTINEZ, ~q~AIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV FROM: PLOT PLAN 11234, AMENDED NO. 2 RE: October 5, 1989 Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No. 2 dated September 22, 1989 . Our current comments will remain as seated in our memo da~ad June 7, 1989. SM:tac GEN. FOP.~ 4. (Rev. 8/87) County of Rivers-Ae TO: FROM: RE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: June 7, 1989 ATTN: M:~chae~'~B__acon , SAM MARTINEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV PLOT PLAN 11234 JUN 1 2 1,.98,9 Environmental Health Services has reviewed the above plot plan and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to any building plan submittals, will-serve letters from the water and sewering agencies will be required. SM:tac GEN. FOP. M 4, (P~v. 8/87) KENNETH L EDWARDS 1995 MARKEr $'rREET P.O. BOX 1033 'TELEPHONE (714) 787-201! FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE, CAI. JFORNIA 92502 Riverside County P1 anning Department County Admi ni strati ve Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. P1 anner Area: Re: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~les and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. u~'~The District's report dated ~ -///--~;~.~ is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements I~av;hbeeenproject will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. Vi~~ry truly yours, · KASHUBA Civil Engineer DATE: 6P~l- [ (;~ (~81' I%~.NNETH L. EDWARDS CHI[F EN~iIN[[R 1995 MARKET I~.0. BOX 1033 TE~I..EFHONIt (714) 78T-2015 FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA ~2502 September 1 , 1989 SEP 1 1 1989 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California 92501 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNIIWG DEPARTMENT Attention: Regional Team No. 5 Jeff Adams Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Plot Plan 11234 Amended No. 1 This is a proposal to construct an office building and parking structure on 4.1 acres in the Temecula Valley area. The site is located on the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. Storm runoff from 120 acres is tributary to this site from the southeast. In the past, water flowed overland, in streets and between several ponds in this area via culverts under roadways. Now, Plot Plan 10579 and Plot Plan 10079 located to the south and west, respectively, are proposing the construction of a storm drain that, in conjunction with streets and existing culverts, will safely convey these flows past this project. The storm drain would outlet flows to an existing low area along the east side of the freeway. The County Board of Supervisors has adopted the Murrieta Creek/ Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for the purpose of collecting drainage fees. Those fees are used to construct needed flood control facilities within the particular area. The Area Drainage Plan fees apply to new land divisions and other types of new development. Virtually all new development causes increased storm runoff. These increases are particularly troublesome in those watersheds where an Area Drainage Plan has been adopted. In order to miti- gate the downstream impacts brought about by increased runoff, the District recommends that Conditional Use Cases, Plot Plans and Public Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation charge. Mitigation charges, where appropriate, will be similar to the current Area Drainage Plan fee rate. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Plot Plan 11234 Amended No. 1 - 2 - September 1, 1989 Following are the District's recommendations: A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The new development in this case includes a total of 4.1 acres. At the current fee rate of $932.00 per acre, the mitiga- tion charge equals $3,821.20. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Construction of new buildings on this site should not begin until construction has started on the storm drains proposed by Plot Plan 10579 and Plot Plan 10079. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be re- corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to the issuance of permits. The properry's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area and outlet points. Development of this property should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not diverted from one watershed to another· This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or offsite construction and grading. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Plot Plan 11234 Amended No. 1 - 3 - September 1, 1989 c: A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and ap- proval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Field Paoli Architects Ver)i truly yopr~s, tUOHN H. KASHUBA ISenior Civil Engineer AD:seb Planning & Engineering Ot~ce 46-209 Oam Str~, S~te 405 !ndio, CA 92201 (619) 342-8586 ~ID£ COUNTY liP, t: D£PARTHERT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWHAN HRE CHI~ 10-02-$9 Ptannin8 & F..~ineerin8 Office 4080 L~mon Street, Suite 11L Riveaide, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 TO: PLANNING DEPARTHENT ATTN: MICHAEL BACON PLOT PLAN 11234 AMENDED ~2 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department reconmends the following fire p~'otection 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 3000 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. e A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"xd"x2½x2½), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. 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." e Ins:all a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. January 24, 1990 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Jeff Adams County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Plot Plan 11234, Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: An additional plot plan or an approved exhibit for on-site signage will be required. Prior to issuance of grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits required by the Department of Building and Safety for the relocation or demolition of any existing structure(s). If approved elevations are required from the Planning Department the approved plans must be submitted to the Land Use Division concurrently with submittal of structural plans for review. Prior to issuance of building permits, proposed lighting must be in conformance with Mount Palomar Lighting Plan, Zone B, per Ordinance 655. Prior to acceptance of structural plans for Building and Safety review, one complete set of approved conditions from Planning Department must be attached. Performance Securities Bond for maintenance of landscaping may be required. Consult your Conditions of Approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits, written clearance is required from the following: ° Temecula Unified School District Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020 RE: PP 11234 Page 2 e Install a supervised water flow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per Uniform Building Code. 8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. 9. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 11. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $345.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of 25C per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. 14. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 15. Building must meet Riverside County Ordiance 546, section 801 on high rise "Life safety support systems." 16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in Building and Safety. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Laura Cabtel, Fire Safety Specialist ml Plannning Department PP 11234 January 24, 19g0 Page 2 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall conform with an approved floor plan indicating the maximum number of tenants allowed. Each space shall be labeled with a number or a letter. Where no specific uses for proposed structures are indicated, Building and Safety may require additional Planning Department approvals. Yours truly, Vaughn ~arkisian Land Use Technician /sn COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADING SECTION TO: PLANNING FROM: TONY HARMON DATE: 11/29/89 RE: P.P. 11234 The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a EradinE permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading Permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Provide verification that any existing grading was permitted and that approval to construct was obtained from the Building and Safety Department. Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass or ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Grading in excess Performance security Safety department. of 199 cubic yards will reguire to be posted with the Building and In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, 'prior to obtaining a grading Permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Buildin~ and Safety department- this ~ay require a written clearance from the Planning Department. A notarized letter of Permission, from the a~fected property owners, is required for any proposed offsite grading. NOTE: For the final gradin~ plan, please provide the applicable information from Buildin~ and Safety Department grading forms: 2~4-120, 284-21, 284-88, an~ 284-48. T~A-~ FOU. RiVER3 iDE counc ; PLAnnin( DEPARCi;IEn; August 28, 1989 Lockwood-$tngh & Associates 1944 Corner Avenue Los Angeles, California 90025 Attentt on: Mr. Awtar Stngh Mr. John V. Doyle Mr. Russell G. Hatter SUBJECT: Liquefaction Hazard Project Ref. 4025-g2 Plot Plan 11234 APN: 921-270-019,20,21,22 County Geologic Report No. 629 Rancho California Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Office Building 2 and Parking Structure 2, Rancho California Plaza, Ynez Road, Rancho California, CA," dated May 19, 1989. Your report determined that: The granular soils below the ground water table at the site ~ay be susceptible to seismic liquefaction to a depth of approximately 40 feet below the existing ground ~urface. Differential settlement at the surface resulting from liquefaction of the soils underlying the site is estimated to be two and one-half to three inches. This will affect improvements supported on-grade, such as the floating slab (if selected) for the proposed garage structure, walkway slabs-on-grade, landscape planter walls and other auxiliary landscape structures, lake and appurtenant lake structures and underground utilities. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 3(:: INDIO, CALIFORNIA 922(:: (619) 342-827 Lockwood-Stngh & Associates -2- August 28, 1989 Your mport racomended that: The proposed office butldtng and parking structure should be supported by driven ptles extending through the upper 40 feet of potentially 11queftable sotls and penetrating tnto dense sotls at a depth of at least 45 feet belo~ the extsttng ground surface. Beta t led pt 1 e fou nda tt on reco~nenda tt OhS concern1 ng esttm ted a 1 love bl e axtal load capacity of 12-tnch square pt, stressed concrete drtven ptles.. Indicator (test) ptles. reductions for pt1, groups. pullout capactty. pt1, settlenent. and pt1, Installation wam mde in your report. 3. The lower level floor slab of the proposed office building should be structurally supported by the recommended pile foundation. e The lower floor slab of the proposed parking structure ,my be either structurally supported by the recommended pile foundation or be designed as as floating slab. The design of the floating slab for the parking structure should be undertaken by the project structural engineer and take into consideration the anticipated traffic load and the estimmted differential settlenmnt resulting from possible liquefaction of the underlying site soils. The proposed parking structure (if a floating slab is selected), and areas for proposed exterior nonstructural slabs-on-grade or auxiliary structures not supported on piles should be provided with a four foot thick compacted fill blanket. For the proposed parking structure {if a floating slab is selected), the compacted fill blanket shall extend a minihum horizontal distance five feet beyond the footprint of the proposed structure. It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent mnner and satisfies the additional information requested under the California Environrental Quality Act review and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Final approval of the report is hereby given. It should be noted that County Geologic Report No. 190 was previously prepared for this property and surrounding Rancho California Plaza area. This report also determined that the site is subject to soil liquefaction. Since your ..... Lockwood-Singh & Associates - 3 - August 28, 1989 report is mre specific to the proposed Plot Plan, the reco~nendations n~de in your report for mitigation of liquefaction potential shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S~. Steerer - Plannitrig Director CEG-1205 SAK: rd c.c. Bedford Properties - Mary Jane Jagodzinski Herron + Rumnsoff Architects ~ Russ Rumnsoff Planning Team 5 - Jeff Adams c~ Buildino and Safety - Norm Lostborn {2) RiVERSiDE countu. · PL, nninG DEP, :IClaEnC January 12, 1990 Converse Consultants Inland Empire 630 East Brier Drive, Suite 100 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Attention: Mr. David B. Simon Mr. Howard A. Spellman SUBJ E CT: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Project No. 89-81-143-01 Plot Plan 11234 APN: 921-270-019 thru 022 County Geologic Report No. 629F Rancho California Area Gentl ,men: We have reviewed your report entitled "Location of the Wildomar Fault: A Literature Review, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Proposed Office Building 2, Rancho California Plaza, Rancho California, CA," dated September 18, 1989, your response to County review dated December 14, lgB9, and compaction trench backfill letter dated January 8, 1990. Your report determined that: 1. No active faults or extensions of active faults are known to pass through the subject property. During the anticipated life of the proposed structure, the subject site will be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking, related to seismic activity associated with nearby and distance faults. 3. According to the Lockwood-Sing Investigation (County Geologic Report 629L), the subject site has a high potential for liquefaction. Your report recommended that: 1. Development of the property for commercial use ts satisfactory from a surface fault rupture standpoint. During site development, portions of the exploratory trench that will underlie the proposed structures and to a distance of 10 feet outside of the structures and parking areas shall be excavated to the bottom of the trench and recompacted. Reco~mnended specifications for placement of cc~acted fill are presented in Appendix A of your January 8, 1990 response letter. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 30. INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9220 (619) 342-827' Page 2 Mr. David B. Simon Mr. Howard A. Spellman January 12, lggO It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner consistent with the present "state-of-the-art' and satisfies the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the associated Riverside County Ordinance No. $47. Final approval of this report is hereby given. The recommendations made in your report for mitigation of seismic/geologic hazards shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter - Plan~ng Director Steven'A. Kupferman '/ Engineering Geologist/ CEG-1205 / ' / SAK:gs c.c. Mary Jane Jagodzinski - Bedford Properties Russell Rumansoff - Herron & Rumansoff - Architects Norm Lostbom - Building & Safety (2) California Division of Mines and Geology - Earl Hart Planning Team 5 - Jeff Adams STATE OF cAur-C~NIA~SINES~, TRANSPORTATION AND I'10~SING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION D~STRICT B, P.O. ~OX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402 TDD ~14) 383-4609 May 30, 1989 GEORGE D~UICA4EJIAN, ~ Development Review 08-Riv-15-4.98/5.23 Your Reference: PP 11234 Rancho California Plaza Planning Department Attention Mr. Michael Bacon County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Mr. Bacon: ~LANNING ?~. ?:.,, .-. ._. Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan No. 11234 located easterly of 1-15, northerly of Rancho California Road, westerly of Ynez Road in Rancho California. Please refer to the attached Development Review Form which documents Caltrans' requirements for this project. Conformance with these conditions is required for issuance of an Encroachment Permit. If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J. Neville at (714) 383-4384. Very truly yours, District Permits Engineer Att. PALTRANS DEVELOPMENT REVIEV fORM (Your Reference) Date Plan checker (Co Rte PM) WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE: __ Gmstx~-t~m/Dsm~tion within present or proposed State right of w~y should be investigated for pote~riml b-~-rdous ~ (asbestos, petroch~mrml% etc.) and mitigated as per re~ts of regulatory agencies. ~ plzns are submitted, please conform to the requirem~mts of th~ attobed '~ndout". /his expedite the review pr~r_-~s and ~ required for Plan (]~. in th~ area. Any m~ures _me~y to mtiSate the c,m,l-tive i ,m?~t of traffic mud d~inage tuba l:~nriderl~ prior to or with develol:m~mt of the area that r~'~-~tates t~. It appesrs that tlm traffic and drainage gemerated by this proposal could have a significant effect the state hig~y system of the ares. Any ~ures necessary to mitigate the traffic and drainage impsets shall be included with the development. This portion of state hig~y is im~_luded in the Cm~ifornia M~-ter Plan of State High~y~ k'li~ble for Offic!~] Scenic }~g~y D~signation, and in the future your ageamy ~y wish to ~mve this royce offir~n~y d~_'_gnated as a state sc~mc hi-j~ay. ~ portion of state high~y has been offi~iml]y designated as a state sc~c high%sy, and davelot in this corridor should be cc~tible with the scenic hi~y concept. It is recognized that there is considerable public concern about noise levels adjacent to heavily traveled highways. Land develo~mnt, in order to be c~tible with this conrerum, ,my require spec noise attmmuation mm~ures. Developtrent of property should includ~ any ~ec__~ry noise attemmtion WE REQUEST THAT THE ITF~'iS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOI THIS PROJECT: Normal right of way dedication to provide__ half-width on the state highway, Normal street improvements to provide__ half-width on the state highway. Curb and gutter, State Standard along the state highway. Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs. __radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway. A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns. A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to limit physical access to the state highway. Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway. Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by existing public roa~ connections. Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by__ driveways. standard / Vehiodnr ~'0~"~ tO t.)l~ ~'K.~t~ hi~Jl~y sJ~ll be provided by a read-type connection. Vehio,lnr ~c~'~s connect. linus shall be paved at least within th~ state ,5i~J~uy right of ~oy. ~-~ points to tim s~zr~ highly s~ll be d~veloped in a nmnnar tha~ ~_11 provide si,jm di~tmnc~ for mph a~ the state hi,j~y. 4tndscaping alorg the state hig~r~ay s~.ll be low and forgiving in nature. A left-turn Lm~, incl, O~ug any necessary widenins, ~j~.~ be provided on the state Catfic~a~ sh-ll be oiv~l tO th~ provision, or future prov~, of sign-l~uien and lighting of tl~ int4~'~ctton of ~'~t tl~ state .~y. Pa~ lot shrill be developed in a manner that w~]l not cause any ve~Lic,,l~r l~3¥er~lt collierS, in~lt~ parl~m3 stall entrmuc~ and exit, within of t~ entrm-r.~ from the state Handicap parking _~,l ] no~ be developed in ~ busy drivm~y en~ran~ area. Care ~l I be taken w(mm developing this property to preserve and perpetuate r. tm ex~L~ drairmge pattern of the ~cate highly. Par~ulnr consideration should be given to cu~tive increosed storm runoff to insure that a i:tg~.~y drainage problen is not created. Any nec~ noise attenuati~ be provided ~ part of uue develop.~.nt of this property. b/ , ld ' Please refer to attad~ addit_io~al ccrm~.nts. WE REQUEST: .~ A copy of any ccr~tiorm of approval or revised approval. ~/4A copy of any doctm~s providing additiceml s~a~ hi~,~y right of ~y upon recordation of r. he nnp. WE REQUEST TiIE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEU DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS: Any proposals to furviner dew~lop this property. A copy of tJ,: traffic or enviro~nt~_l study. A check print of robe Parcel or Tract bhp. ~7 A che~ prLut of the Flans for any mprovmmnts %itkin the $tat~ hi-j~y right of ~7- ? A dmr. k print of trm Grading and Dr~ge Plarm for uqis property w(mm a~il~ble. Date: May 30, 1989 Riv-15-4.98/5.23 (Co-Rte-PM) PP 11234 Rancho Calif. Plaza (Your Reference) ~DDIT?ON~L COMMENTS: 1. Delineate state right-of-way boundaries on all sheets. The native soil in this area is very erosive and therefore erosion control such as hydro-seeding shall be applied; in addition, the "stepping of slopes" should be considered. Both the erosion control and highway landscaping must be performed according to Caltran's standards. 4. Plans must show existing and proposed grading (off/on site). Due to the magnitude of this proposal and the construction explosion (residential, commercial), the developer should contribute to the state highway improvements necessary to maintain the existing flow patterns. In addition, we recommend that this development participate in the "Rancho California Plaza Specific Plan No. 149" to mitigate its impact on state highway. Due to an increasing demand for development within this area, Caltrans requires each development to mitigate its share of drainage runoffs. · Hydraulic calculations must utilize drainage runoffs with respect to the total development (on/off site) on both sides of Empire Creek. The above co~ents represent a preliminary review (conceptual rev%ew) only. It is presumed that once the above comments have been addressed, application for a permit will be made in the usual. manner. At that time, a complete plan package should be submitted for review. If you have any questions regarding Caltrans permit procedure requirements, please call Mr. Bruce Gregg at (714) 383-4501. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT lAB#: I1. MTG: s- zz .e o DEPT :~L k~u<~ G TITLE: P&RCEL MAP NO. 24038 DEPT CITY ATTY, CITY MGR ~'~ RECOMMENDATION= Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Parcel Map No. 24038, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in this Staff Report. PROJECT INFORMATION: Date Application Filed: Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Uses: Application filed with the County of Riverside, September 11, 1989. Parcel Map No. 24038 Motel 6 Operating L.P. Massaro and Welsh Subdivision of 4.99 acre into three (3) commercial lots of .73 acres, 1.53 acres, and 3.28 acres. The site is located northeasterly of Mercedes Street, easterly of Moreno Road, and southwesterly of Interstate 15. C-P-S. North: C-1 South: R-3 East: 1-15 (FREEWAY) West: R-3 North: Commercial South: Vacant/Fire Station East: 1-15 (FREEWAY) West: Commercial/Park ANALYSIS: Project Description: Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 is an application to divide 4.99 acres into three commercial lots, 2.73 acres, 1.53 acres and 0.73 acres located northerly of Mercedes Street, easterly on Moreno Road, and southwesterly on Interstate 15. Parcel Map No. 24038 Page Two Land Use and Zoning: The site currently supports an existing, operating, Motel 6, and an existing vacant building. Surrounding land uses are primarily commercial/retail, residential and a fire station. Surrounding zoning includes Interstate 15 to the north and east, R-3 to the south, R-3 to the west. Conceptual Plot Plan Analysis: As currently submitted, the project has no approved Plot Plan for development. Two conceptual site configurations have been shown to staff. Both site designs contain the following concerns: A 900 foot long double loaded reciprocal access easement driveway. Substantial grading activity which will result in the removal of approximately 100 mature trees. Maximal site development resulting in minimal landscaping, and parking areas removed in excess of 300 feet from their intended use. Parcel Map Analysis: It appears likely that the parcel map was configured in such a way as to allow freeway frontage for a pole for each parcel. However staff feels that a better parcel configuration could be designed with more consideration given to parcel. As proposed, Parcel 3 is 31,862 square feet. It contains over 2,500 square feet of 2:1 slope area which is under developable. This leaves approximately 25,000 square feet of parcel area (proposed) for parking, landscaping and building pad area. Six feet retaining walls would have to be constructed to accommodate the uses as conceptually shown. Additionally, future development on the two new proposal parcels is likely to be highly constrained due to the following: a. The shape of Parcel No. 2. The inability to utilize the parcel in a more open and aesthetic manner with regard to existing topography and vegetation. Parcel Map No. 24038 Page Three ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is a Class 15 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. FINDINGS: The proposed Parcel Map will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The proposed subdivision together with its design is not likely to be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the General Plan when it is ultimately adopted. 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. The proposal may have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it represents a significant change to the present or planned use of the area. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development. So The site is not physically suitable for the proposed intensity of development. The design of the subdivision and related types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the development project and any related types of improvements will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision will likely be consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities in that future construction will have significant southern exposure which allows for passive heating opportunities. 10. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Parcel Map No. 24038 Page Four 11. That said findings are supported by the City of Temecula Staff, Analysis, Minutes, Maps, Exhibits and Environmental Documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council DENY the application for Parcel Map 24038, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in this Staff Report. Notice of Public Hearint, THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 Applicant: Motel 6 Location: Southeast comer of Moreno Road and Mercedes Street Proposal: 3-lot Commercial Subdivision of 4.99 acre site Environmental Action: 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 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, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714) 694-1989. The time, place and date of the hearing(s) are as follows: PLACE OF HEARING: DATE OF HEARING: TIME OF HEARING: Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula Tuesday. May 22. 1990 7:00 PM I' I I t Zoning Area: Temecula First Supervisorial District E.A. Number: 34277 PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Planning Commission: 02-07-9 Agenda item No.4-1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer/Rep.: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Recommendations: 12. 13. Letters: Sphere of Influence: Motel 6 Operating L.P. Massaro & Welsh Subdivision of 4.99 acres in three commercial lots with a minimum lot size of .73 acre The site is located northerl Mercedes St., easterly of Mc Rd., and southwesterly of Interstate #15. C-P-S C-l/C-P, R-3, Interstate #15 The site currently supports existing, operating, Motel 6 and an existing vacant build The area is a combination of commercial and residential u adjacent to Interstate #15. Southwest Area Community Pla Land Use: "C" (Commercial) Category II, Open Space/Cons: Areas not Designated as Open Space. Total Acreage: 4.99 Total Lots: 3 See letters dated: Road: 11-16-89 Health: 11-09-89 Flood: 11-14-89 Fire: 11-29-89 Bldg. & Safety- Land Use: 12-06-89 Grading: 11-16-89 Opposing/Supporting: None Within the City of Temecula. ~N&T.yRTR: Proiect D-scr(~)t(on Tentative Parcel Map No.24038 is an application to divide 4.99 ac= into three commercial lots, 2.73 acres, 1.53 acres and 0.73 acres the Temecula area. The site is located northerly of Mercedes St., easterly of Moreno Rd., and southwesterly of Interstate #15. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Staff Report Land use and Zon{ng The site currently supports an existing, operating, Motel 6, and an existing vacant building. Surrounding land uses are primarily commercial/retail, and residential. This site is also within the newly incorporated City of Temecula. Surrounding zoning includes Interstate %15 to the north and east, R-3 to the south, and C-1/C-P the west. )(v-rs(~e Co,,ntv Co~l;r-h-ns(ve .General plan: The site is located within the Southwest Area Community Plan and it~ land use designation is commercial. The project is a Category II use which requires a full range of public services including water distribution, sewage collection, an adequate circulation system and utilities including natural gas and/or electricity and telephone service. The project is consistent with the Southwest Area Communit Plan and is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plat £nv(ro~mental ~-sessmmDe: The initial study conducted for Environmental Assessment No. 34277 indicated impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. The site also located within a potential Liquefaction Zone. All environment~ concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval. FTNDTNGS: 1. The applicant proposes to divide .78 acres into two commercial lots, .45 acres and .33 acres in the Temecula area. 2. The site currently supports an existing, operating, Motel 6, and existing vacant building. Surrounding land uses are primarily commercial/retail, and residential. The site is zoned C-l/C-P, surrounding zoning is Interstate #15, R-3, and C-1/C-P. 3. The site is within the Southwest Area Community Plan, and is also within the newly incorporated City of Temecula. 4. Environmental concerns include impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. The site is also located within a zone of potential liquefaction. CONC?.UR TON~: 1. The project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan, and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinance No. 460. 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Staff Report 2. The project is compatible with area Development. 3. All environmental concerns have been mitigated. BRCOM~.NDATTONS: ~DOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 34277 based on the findings that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and ~PPROV~T. of TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.24038 based on the findings and conclusions ~ncorporated in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. JSA: 1/24/90 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 24038 The following conditions of approval are for PM 24038 Amd.#l. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employe, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County o~ Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 which action is brought within the time period provided fo~ in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The Count' fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved tentative parcel m~ will expire two years after the Board of Supervisors approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460 The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Ac' Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing hod' accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the county Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval o~ the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final m~ if within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provide( from the parcel map boundary to a County maintained road. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Conditions of Approval e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the County Department of Building and Saftey. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recomendations outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 11-16-89, a copy of which is attached. The Subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 11-09-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County District's letter dated 11-14-89, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside county Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 11-29-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated 12-06-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated 11-16-89, a copyof which is attached. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provision of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of'the fees required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County Ordinance or resolution. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Conditions of Approval 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Riverside County Flood Control Environmental Health Fire Department Building & Safety - Grading Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. 18. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the C-P-S zone. 19. All existing trees on the subject property with a trunk diameter greater than four (4) inches shall be preserved. Removal shall be at the discretion of the Planning Director. 20. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure soduim lamps that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal r lane passing through the luminare, and be in acc0rdance with dinance No. 655. (Amended per Planning Commission on 2/07/90) JSA: kcb revised 8-04-89 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR November 16, 1989 COUNTY AD~ISTRAI"P,'~ CId* HAiI.D4G P.O. BOX IOqO R~ CAJ..EORN ~ (714) 7S7.6554 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Ladies and Gentlemen.' PM 24038 - Amend #1 Schedule E - Team 5 - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Depar~nent reco~lnends ~hat the landdivider provide the following s~reet improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q' s, and that ~heir omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and ~he following conditions are essential par~s and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as ~hough occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i, e. concentration of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by cons~ructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/or k,/ securing a drainage euemenc. All drainage easements shall be shown on ~he final map and no~ed u follows s 'Drainage Euement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are a/lowed'. The protection shall be as approved by ~he Road De~nt. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsi~e drainage flowing onto or ~hrough ~he site. In the event the Road Cc~uuissionsr petmits ~he use of str~cs for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the s~eet capacity or ~he use of s~reets be prohibi~ed for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. COUNTY ADM]N*~"RATT~ ~ · 4080 U~ON ~" ~L~DF., CALffDP. NIA 92501 PM 24038 - AmenU #1 November 16, 1989 Page Z 10. 11. 12. Major drainage is involved on this project and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. Moreno Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 32 feet fro~ centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving~ recons~ruction~ or remurfacin~ of existing l~aving as de~ermined by the Road Commissioner within a 44 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordsace wi~h County Standard No. 102. 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 ~he Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road /mprove~ents does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by County. The developer/owner shall submit a de~ailed soils investi- gation repor~ addressing the construction requirements within ~he road right of way. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37, 39 and 94 of ~he State Standard Specifications. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho California Water District prior to ~he recordation of the final map. The max/mum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline radii shall be in conformance wi~h County Standard #114 of Ordin&~ce 461. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed ~hroughout the landdivision in accor~Aace wi~h County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalks). All driveways shall conform to ~he applicable Riverside County S~andards and shall be shown on the s~reet improvement plans. A minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be co~mtructed bet~ driveways. Prior to the recordation of the final map, ~he developer shall deposit wi~h ~e Riverside County Road D~t, a cash sum of $2,500.00 per gross acre as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer to defer the time of payment, a written agr==ment may be entered into with ~he County dererr/rig said payment to =he t~ of issuance of a building permit. PH 24038 -Amena November [6, 1989 Page 3 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Electrical and cornunica=ions trenches shall be 9rovided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Lot access shall be restricted on Moreno Road with the exception of the ~wo driveways as shown on PP 9838 and so noted on the final map. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with PP 9838. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file, after receiving tentative approval, for an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. All private and 9ublic entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with ~his project and shown on ~he street improvement plans. A s~riging plan is required for Moreno Road. The removal of the existing s~riging shall be ~he responsibility of applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs horne by the applicant. The applicant shall provide CC&R's to insure access to all parcels. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall com~ly with P~ad Department standards and require approval by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing maintenance ~Jlrough ~he establishment of a landscape maintenance district/maintenance agreement or s/milar mechanism as approved by t~e Road C~seioner. Landscape plans shall be sub~'Ltted on s~andard County Plan sheet format (24" x 36" ). Landscape plans shall be eub~itted wi~h ~he s=ree= im~aocea~n= plans and shall depict ~ such landscaping, irrigation and related facilities as are ~o be placed within ~he public road rights-of-way. PM ~038 - Amene #1 · NovemOer 16, 1989 Page 4 21. EB: Jw Should :his 9roJe¢: lie within any assessmen:/benefi: disr. ric:, :he applican: shall 9flor :o recordation make applica:ion for and pay for :heir reappor:ionmen: of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit. Very truly yours, Subdivision Engineer County of Riverside TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: November 9, 1989 RE: PARCEL MAP 24038, AMENDED NO. 1 Environmental Heal:h Services has reviewed Amended No. 1 dated November 3, 1989. Our current comments will remain as sCa~ed in our letter da~ed September 25, 1989. SM:tac RIVERSIDE COUHTY PI,ANNING D~PARTMENT GEN. FORM 4. (Re,.'. d. GALt AGH ER, ll.~,liLPJ(. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE of HEALTH 3575 .T~ ST~ Ma~ CPOST OFF~c~X September 25, 1909 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside. CA 92502 G. HOLK, O.V.M., #.P.H. ~-~'~ ..... ' 11', u'" JAN 3 1990 COT#E, M.S. ATTN: Jeff Adams RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT BROADWAY 240 IIARGUERIT A 05 SOUTH BUENA VISTA ORONA. CA 11720 EMIT 90 NORTH STATE ST. NDIrO 6'I~09 OASSS STREET 0i$$ FRASER DR. 25S T Aa,K~UI TZ,41g~,M. LUM ALii SPRINGS. CA 12~8~ ,EliNil 37 NORTH 'O' ST~.EET 'ERJIIIS. CA 121}'0 LINDEN STREET ~IVEIISIDE. CA. IDeIDOUS SiS ISISSION BLVO. dVER,SIDE. CA O~SOI P~: PARCEL MAP 24038: See attached leoal description. (3 Lot) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative MaD No. 24038 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed accordinc to plans and specification as approved by 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 ZOO feet. alonq w~th the orlqinal drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal DiRe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; plDe and 3Dins spec~fications.~nd the size of the ma~n at the Dunction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part I. 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. ~eP~ to: Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two ATTN: Mike McCabe September 25. 1989 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "! certify that the design of the water system in Parcel Map 24038 is 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 parcel map. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel mad at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose".This certification shall be siqned by a responsible officlal of the water company. The .R!~R_must be submitted to the Coun~x Surv~yor's Office to review at least two weeks R[ior to the request for the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement tom the Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the D~strict. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate. along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shal~ show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer iines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. P&qe Three ATTN: Mike McCabe September 25. 1989 The plans shall be siqned by a registered enaxneer and the sewer district with the following certification: "! certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map 24038 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Munxcip&l Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed parcel map." The ~lans must be submitted to the Coun~X Surveyor's Office to revxew at leazt two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final maR. It 'will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final maD. Sincerely, ti~,'~nmental Health SDe¢i&list IV Environmental Health Services SM:tac Attachment KENNrrH l F...DWARD5 199B MARKrr STRErr P.O. BOX 1033 · r~l IrpHONIr (714) 787-2015 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. Planner/~//k~ Y~/~ Re: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the /I//~ff/E.~ (/~.~//~/~~'Y~.y x~)/C~. Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The Dtstrict's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~aveThbtenproject will be constructed i n accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. JOHN H. ICASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer PLANNING & ENGINEERING 4~209 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405 INDIO. CA 92201 (619} 342-8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF 11-29-89 TO: A~: PLANNING DEPARTHENT JEFF ADAHS RtVER DE COUNTY PLANNING D PAI P~RCEL HAP 24038 - AHENDED #1 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land divt the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be prom in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protect standards: Upgrade fire hydrants on the corner of Mercedes Street and 6th Street, and fire hydrant in cul-de-sac on 6th Street to a super fire hydrant (6x4x2½x2~). All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to tY Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist ml Administrative Center * 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 December 6, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Jeff Adams County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Parcel Map 24038, Amended #1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach l' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. tnrestrUly yours, Senior Land Use Technician /sn Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADING SECTION 6P~amNING / J.A.3 HOWARD MILLS November 16, 1989 LDC Parcel Map 24038 AMD #1 '{989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this sit~ The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommen¢ approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, tY applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct the Building and Safety Department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner sha~ obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building ar Safety Department. Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or c% slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass c gound cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to k provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 28~ 47. Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security to be posted with the Building and Safety Department. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable informatic from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-8( and 284-46. Thank you. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT DATE: 5/22/90 DEPT: FINANCE TITLE: FY 1990-91 BUDGET REVISIONS DEPT HDTy~~ CITY AT CITY MGR~._~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the revisions to the Proposed FY 1990-91 Budget that were made pursuant to the budget workshop held on May 12. DISCUSSION: The following revisions were made to the Proposed FY 1990-91 Budget in accordance with Council's direction of May 12: Department Action Finance City Manager City Council Finance Various City Manager City Manager Nondepartmt Nondepartmt Nondepartmt Roads Add office assistant to administer business license program Add business license revenue ($25 per license) Add ICMA conference to travel Add benefits, auto allowance, computer system Add chief accountant to perform revenue audits Add travel for commissioners Add receptionist for front building/chambers Add duplicating tech (current duplicating tech to become maintenance/facilities) Add 2 payphones Increase dues Revise utilities estimate based on greater numbe of square feet Move street sweeping from engineering Community Serv Add volunteer coordinator Community Serv Zone A estimates are complete Fire Safety City Council Police Serv Increase contract to $853,957 Increase social services to $250,000 - Attachment 4 Include amount for traffic cops on the bridge The following items are being addressed as follows: Roads Willdan is researching the cost of operating a "Cannonball" road crew Community Serv For detail of CIP activity see Attachment 1 Fire Safety Fire Chief to respond with fire prevention program fees Police Serv Currently, there is no information available to justify a revision in the vehicle code fines revenue estimate according to the City's Police Chief Planning The County of Riverside is unable to provide th City Planning Director with the number of cases outstanding. When such information becomes available the revenue estimate for Planning wil be revised. Engineering See memo re: revenues - Attachment 2 Building We are seeking to obtain more information from the County Building Department regarding revenu Finance Planning Compare percentages of program appropriations t other contract cities - See Attachment 3 The study to establish the City's developer fees will consider the following: Fund the Apricot overpass from developer fees Fund studies for new streets from developer fe The following items are considered to be departmental objectives for the coming fiscal year: Community Serv User fee revenues are typically levied to finance specific recreation programs (net effect to City would be zero.) The City CSD consultant recommends that the issue be addressed at the time the Parks & Recreation Director is hired. Community Serv Obtain grants to fund a handicap transportation system Community Serv Form 501c3 corp partnerships Finance Perform cash flow analysis for FY 1990-91 Finance Perform revenue audits from the following sources: County State Board of Equalization Hotels City Manager Planning Negotiate refuse collection franchise agreements Consider local consultants when selection is made for General Plan update Planning Establish fast track fees CITY OF TEMECULA BUDGET SUMMARY Estimated Fund Balance July General Fund Gas Tax Fund Community Services Estimated Revenue Total Resources Appropriations Reserve for Contingency 1, 1990: CITY 288,576 488,648 12. 701.654 13,478,878 13, 173,423 ~ 305.455 TCSD ~ 822,000 2.312.683 3,134, 683 2,312,683 $ 822.000 CITY OF TEMECULA REVENUE SCHEDULE CITY General Fund: Property taxes Other taxes Sales & use Franchise fees Real property transfer tax Transient occupancy tax Business License Intergo vernmental revenues Motor vehicle in lieu Cigarette tax Charges for services Planning Building Engineering Fines & forfeitures Investment interest $ 1,000,000 4,000,000 276, 072 199,971 253,320 38, 000 1, 135,374 48,322 975, 000 1,453, 360 1, 696, 356 33,000 4~000 Gas Tax Fund: Intergovernmental Other Transportation Fund: Local Transportation Measure A Community Development Block Grant: Reimbursement from CSD: TOTAL CITY REVENUES: 423, 081 496, OOO 375,554 60,000 198,2~.~. 12,701,654 CITY OF TEMECULA REVENUE SCHEDULE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Assessments Community Service ~ 1, 564, 838 Zone A 671, 018 Zone B 76. 82 7 TOTAL CSD REVENUE: ~ 2.312.683 CITY OF TEMECULA Operating9 Budget Appropriations Schedule Department Summary Appropriations Number of Employees City Council City Manager City Clerk City A ttorne y Finance Personnel Information Systems Planning Building Engineering Roads Police Services Fire Services Animal Control Nondepartmental CDBG TO TAL CITY ~ 357,927 332,452 177, 125 300, 000 395,344 82,367 236,664 1,213,525 1, 130, 020 1,980,267 1, 637, 70O 3,340,475 853,957 80,000 935, 600 120,000 13, 173.423 5.84 5.66 5. O0 8.00 1.50 6.00 10.00 9.00 51.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Community Services Zone A Zone B TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES ~ 1,564,838 671,018 76.827 2,312.683 11.00 11.00 FR~M : ~qY. 15.1990 2:59 PM P 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ?emacale unity District DATE: May l§, 1990 FROM~ Bill HOlley, 8~eff Consultant ~b'~3:1990-91 TCSD Capit&l I~rove~ent Progru Ma~y 3ane, per council direoF/on on Saturday, May 19, at the budget workshop, the following Capital Improvement Program for the TC6D t8 submitted to be included ~s a portion of the 1990-91 Budget. Land: .... . ............................... CIP - Construction: ............................ 0 494, ¢49 ot Margurita end Rancho Vista. Improvement~ to focus on upgrading sport~ £1elds, picnic areas, playground equipment and appurtenances. CIP - Deelgn/~n~lneering~ ........... .... ....... Design and 8~glneerlng services in support of the above cons=ruction pro~ects @ 8.5%. 45,7~6 TOTAL: .......................................... 9 540,195 As e closing note on the above, =he cons~ruo=lon ~otion is intentionally fa#htoned in the breezes= Of ~erms An order to ~rovid~ the incoming administra~ion and ~e new P~rk find Reorea~ion Commission, both of which Shoul~ ~e in place within 45 days, the greatest d~g~ee of flexibility in implementation. ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TEMECULA TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mary Jane Henry, Interim Finance Director Tim D. Serlet, Willdan Associates April 23, 1990 Projected Revenues from Development Review/ Plan Check and Inspection Services Based Upon Cost As we discussed last Wednesday, the County has not been able to produce an accurate list of the ongoing/proposed projects in the City of Temecula or give us any indication of the fees that we might anticipate collecting. In order to arrive at some rational estimate of anticipated development revenue, I have prepared the following calculation based on man-hours and our current billing rates. Our hourly billing rates will increase August 1, 1990, and our proposed contract calls for us to bill 75% of the City Fee for our services. POSITION PEOPLE RATE ALLOCATED HRS REVENUES City Engineer 1 $100/hr 50% 2080 $104,000 Deputy City Eng 1 90/hr 80% 2080 149,760 Sr. Project Mgr 1 82/hr 80% 2080 136,448 Assoc Engineer 1 73/hr 80% 2080 242,944 Sr. Designer 3 68/hr 60% 2080 254,592 Tech. Aide 2 38/hr 60% 2080 94,848 Supv. P.W.Obs 1 72/hr 80% 2080 119,808 13 $1,275,456 ($1,275,456) X 1.33 = $1,696,356 This "ball park" figure is based upon development continuing at the same pace and our company performing full service City Engineering functions from July 1, 1990 through July 1, 1991. As the calculations illustrate, it will cost approximately 1.3 million to generate 1.7 million in revenue. PLANNING.002 TDSad Attachment 3 Program Areas as a Percentage of Total Appropriations Program Temecula FY 1991 Mission Viejo FY 1990 General Government Community Development Public Safety Community Services Dana Point FY 1990 18 16 29 38 30 38 28 26 * 33 * 16 28 ** 100 100 100 * This City does not make payments for fire services. ** This City does not have a Community Services District Attachment 4 Schedule of Social Services Name of OrGanization Temecula Town Association - Street Improvements Temecula Valley Substance Abuse Council Arts Council of the Temecula Valley Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation Temecula Town Association - 4th of July Parade Alternatives to Domestic Violence Designate Voorburg, Holland as Temecula's Sister City FY 1991 $ 35,120 7,500 50,000 75,000 600 5,717 unknown $ 173,937 Temecula Town &asocialion ,,5 May 11, 1990 City Council City of Temecula Re: Item for Budget Consideration Dear City Council: A block grant application has been submitted to the County of Riverside for financial assistance in construction of another 3,000 sq. ft. building adjoining the present building to provide more and much needed facilities to serve the commu- nity of Temecula Valley. It is planned to develop the remaining unused property into a community park. Curbs, gutters and sidewalk are already in place along that portion of the property where improvements have already been made, ie; the Community Center. A serious drainage problem exists along the unimproved area to the First Street right of way. The proposed community park development will require that improvements be made on the east side of pujol Street from the existing curb gutter and sidewalk to the First Street right of way. The improvements needed consist of 120 linear feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk along the south side of First Street and 760 linear feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk alohg the east side of pujol Street from First Street to the existing street improvements. Estimated costs for these improvements are as follows: 880 feet of 6 foot road improvement 880 feet of concrete curb 880 feet of 6 ft. wide sidewalk Engineering and Design 5,280 7,920 7,920 14,000 Total $35,120 P.O. Box 435 Temecula. CA 92390 (714) 676-4718 -more- Temecula Community Cent~ 28816 Pujol Stre( Temecula, CA 9239 Town Association To City Council 5/11/90 Pg.2 We are, by this lette¥, requesting that the City of Temecula allocate the amount of $35,120 for the above street improvements and that you give the matter your favorable consideration during your budget deliberations. It is our understanding that some of this money could come from the City's gasoline tax revenue. The Temecula Town ¢%ssociation, incorporated in 1970 by the State of California as a non-profit charitable organization, owns certain property on Pujol Street in the City of Temecu~a depicted on the enclosed County Parcel Maps. ¢% deed restriction on the subject property restricts use of the property for a public park only. ¢% portion of the property has already been developed into a paved parking lot which serves a 3,200 sq. ft. Community Center building. ¢% railroad caboose is also on the property and is available as a small meeting room for members and member organization use free of charge. Please recognize that while the property is in the ownership of the Temecula /own Association, a non-profit charitable organization, it can never be used for anything other than a public park and facilities to serve the community. Sincerely, Milliam ¢%. Har~er General Manager 8 '00 15:31 FROM RANPAC EFIGINEERING PAGE.005 "'""' "" . E.~ ,a¢ Gr I'~0 ~4c AN Temecula Valley Substance Abuse Council 27475 Ynez Road, Suite 311 Temecula, California 92390 ';990 May 10, t990 To: Members of the City Council, Temecula As you deliberate about your program and budget priorities, the Temecu!a Valley Substance Abuse Council wishes to request your support of our activities in the areas of awareness, intervention, education, and advocacy. We are planning our first major endeavor for October in conjunction with Red Ribbon Week and will be finalizing our budgets within the next month. Any suggestions you might have regarding our activities would be greatly appreciated as would any financial support. Since we have not been able to rough out our own budget yet, it is difficult to be accurate; however, I believe $$,000 -$7,500 would probably cover the much of the cost of producing printed material for our activities. Some of the those Red Ribbon Week plans include well-known speakers, workshops of community residents, and educational information distributed free or at cost. We will be happy to keep you apprised of our planning progress. Please contact us if you have questions or wish to participate in our planning. Thank you for your support in this very important area of endeavor. Sincerely, Barbara D. Tooker Council Vice-Chair and Liaison to Fundraising Committee 676-O734 ,"A~'LULIV~ L.'JIIItlIILL~I~ I I1~ March 7, 1990 Mr. Frank Aleshire City Manager City of Temecula P.O. 3O0O Temecula, CA. 92390 Dear Mr. Aleshire, As President of the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley, I would like to speak to the City Council on behalf of the Arts. If possible, I would like to be included on ~.he'March 27th agenda. Please let me know if this is feasible and what the proper procedures are. Sincerely~ - ,, / · Marry- Jo Helmeke President 30540 Avenida Buena Suerte · Temecula, CA 92390 · (714) 676-5225 ARTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley was created to foster, support, coordinate and promote cultural activities within the City of Temecula; and WHEREAS a healthy cultural "scene" and a healthy economy frequently go hand in hand; and WHEREAS the new City has a multitude of needs, and issues to address and has an organized group already in place concerned for the arts; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Temecula designate the Arts Council of the The Temecula Valley as the official partner in the arts working hand in hand with the City to promote the cultural life in Temecula and; THEREFORE BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Arts Council of the ?emecula Valley enter into a Grant Agreement with the City of Temecula July 1, 1990 for funds to provide certain services to foster, support, coordinate and promote cultural activities to the fullest extent consistent with the availability of funds. GRANT AGREEMENT (ARTS COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY) (Fiscal Year 1990-91) THIS GRANT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of April, 1990, by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley, a non-profit California Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the Grantee has requested funds from the Grantor in order to provide certain services including the fostering, support of, coordination and promotion of cultural activities within the City of Temecula to the fullest extent consistent with the availability of funds; and WHEREAS the Grantor has determined that the granting of such funds is for a public municipal purpose and will advance the general good of the community; NOW; THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. The Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee the sum of Fifty Thousand dollars ($50,OOO). 2. The duration of said grant shall be for the period from July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991; provided, however, that any part of said grant which may remain unobligated as of June 30, 1991 shall be returned to the Grantor. 3. The Grantee shall use and expend said grant in conformance with the budgets marked as Exhibits A, B and C and the Summary of Program Development marked as Attachment A, all of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; provided, however, adjustments within the total grant amount may be made between the items in the budgets with the prior written consent of the City Manager. Any such amended budget consented to and accepted by both parties shall be attached hereto and incorporated as a part of this agreement. 4. The Grantee shall maintain and keep records of all expenditures and obligations according to generally recognized accounting princiDles. Such accounting records must be kept current and on the same basis as the budget. The records of the Grantee shall be open to inspection and audit by the Grantor or its authorized representatives as is deemed necessary by the Grantor during normal office hours. 5. The Grantor shall disburse funds to the Grantee by July 15, 1990. The Grantee shall furnish monthly reports to the Grantor on or before the tenth day of each month. 6. The Grantee shall not co-mingle funds raised through fundraising activities with the funds from Grantor. The Grantor shall be provided with financial reports regarding fundraising by Grantee on a Quarterly basis. 7. The Grantee shall maintain a roster of all cultural groups and keep informed concerning all cultural activity within the City of Temecula. The Grantee shall endeavor to assure that such activities avoid duplication, scheduling conflicts, and maintain balanced cultural opportunities throughout the City. 8. The Grantee shall give diligent effort to raise funds to support its own activities and shall endeavor to limit its dependency upon the Grantor for financial support. 9. The Grantee shall maintain an appropriately and adequately staffed office from which it shall provide, promote, organize conduct and schedule programs and activities on a non- discriminatory basis, for citizens, organizations, clubs and associations for art and cultural purposes as will best contribute to the attainment of all of the objectives and benefits specified in the agreement. The Grantee shall operate the office during regularly schedule hours, which schedule of hours shall be available at the City Hall of Grantor. 10. Upon the determination by the Grantor's City Manager that the Grantor may furnish the hereinafter listed services to the Grantee without disruption of or interference of Grantor's conduct of its own business, the Grantor shall furnish to Grantee at cost plus ten percent charge for overhead expense, the services of Grantor's word processing center, duplicating, printing and mail service. 11. The Grantee shall submit an annual report to the Grantor by July 31, 1991, which report shall include the Grantee's activities for the past year, the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all directors and officers, and members and classes of membership. In addition, the Grantee shall provide in a manner approved by the Grantor's Finance Director, a detailed annual financial report compiled by the Grantee's audit firm for fiscal year 1990-91 on or before October 31, 1991 covering all property and money received, disbursed and on hand from loans, gifts, devises, or bequests to the Grantee and the financial receipts and disbursements by the Grantee in its operation. 12. The Grantee assures and certifies that no person shall on the grounds of race, creed, color, religion, natural origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability, including the medical conditions of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any condition related thereto, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Grantee has received funds hereunder and will immediately take measures to effectuate this agreement. 13. The Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold the Grantor, its officers and employees harmless from any and all loss, damage, claim, liability, expense or cost caused by or in any %~ay resulting from any accident or occurrence causing injury to any person or property, arising out of or contributed to by the performance of the Grantee under this agreement. 14. The Grantee shall not be considered and is not a agent, employee or contractor of the Grantor. 15. In the event the Grantee is dissolved, either voluntarily or involuntarily, or otherwise ceases to carry ou~ the activities for which this grant was made, all supplies and equipment purchased with the grant funds shall be transferred to the Grantor and shall become the property of the Grantor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above ~ritten. GRANTOR: CITY OF TEMECULA, HUNICIPAL CORPORATION GRANTEE: ARTS COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA A VALLEY By: Attest: Mayor City Clerk By: Title: By: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney EXHIBIT A Program Development Expenditures Communitv Cultural Events $12,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 15,000 10,000 $50,000 Community Concerts on the Green Community Christmas Madrigal Dinner Cultural Lectures and Entertainment for Senior Center Musicians in the School Program Postage, Invitations, Flyers, and Advertising of Events Listed Above Artistic Endowment Program Director of the Arts Festival EXHIBIT A ProTram Development Narrative The monies granted to the Arts Council would be disbursed in the following manner: Community Cultural Events $20,000 - These monies would be used to schedule and pay for four Community Concerts on the Green during the warmer months (May through September). May: June: August: Sept: $2,000 $2,000 $5,000 Patriotic Music Concert Pops Concert Brass Ensemble Rancho Bernardo Chorale and Sing-a-long Each concert would cost approximately $3,000 and would be free to the public. A Community Christmas Madrigal Dinner would be held. Underwriting cost for the event would be $4,000. A nominal fee of $20 per person would be charged for the dinner portion of the evening. - Would be used to bring cultural lectures and entertainment to the Senior Center. - Would be spent in a "Musicians in the School" program. - Spent on postage, invitations, flyers and advertising of events listed above. $15,000 - Endowment monies to be granted to local artists for creative purposes only. Visual and performing artists must submit an application for monies and be accountable for monies spent. $10,000 - Director of the Arts Festival a 10 day event to be held each July. EXHIBIT A Program Development Expenditures Community Cultural Events $12,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 15,000 10,000 $50,000 Community Concerts on the Green Community Christmas Madrigal Dinner Cultural Lectures and Entertainment for Senior Center Musicians in the School Program Postage, Invitations, Flyers, and Advertising of Events Listed Above Artistic Endowment Program Director of the Arts Festival EXHIBIT B THE ARTS COUNCIL OF TEMECULA VALLEY Financial holdings Checking Savings Certificate of Deposit as of 3/22/90 $5,046.74 4,027.62 2,450.00 Stewart Morris, Treasurer PROPOSED BUDGET FOR ARTS COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY 1989 INCOME Cash Contributions from businesses service clubs and private sources Fundraisers: Donations: Total Estimated Income 2,000.00 4,000.00 1,000.00 7,000.00 EXPENSES Legal Expenses Postage - mailing Printing Fundraising Permits Advertising Stationary - supplies Telephone Insurance 700.00 100.00 300.00 300.00 200.00 200.00 Total Estimated Expenses 1,800.00 Estimated Balance 5,200.00 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR ARTS COL~CIL OF THE TE~CULA VALLEY 1990 Cash Balance on Januaz-.; 1, 1990 5,200.00 !NCO~ME Cash Contributions from businesses service clubs and private sources Grants Fundraisers: Available Cash !0,000.0~ 5,000.00 10,000.00 30,200.00 EXPEXSES Legal Exp.~enses Pcs~aga - mailing Printing Fundraising: exhibits, artist stipends, awards Permits Advertising Telephone Insurance Festival: security, tents stage, parking 500.00 1,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 500.00 5,000.00 500.00 2,000.00 14,000.00 Total Estimated Expenses 28,500.00 Estimated Year-End Balance 1,700.00 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR ARTS COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY 1991 Cash Balance on January !, 1991 1,700.00 INCOME_ Cash Contributions from businesses service clubs and private sources Grants Fundraisers Festival Available Cash 15,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00 5,000.00 43,700.00 EXPENSES Legal Expenses Postage - mailing Printinq Fundraising: exhibits, stipends, awards Permits Facilities Stationa~f - supplies Telephone Insurance Festival: security, stage, tenks, parking 500.00 1,500.0C 3,000.00 3,000.00 500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 700.00 2,000.00 17,000.00 Total Estimated Expenses 32,700.00 Estimated Year-End Balance 11,000.00 EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The purpose of the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley is to support and promot the visual and performing arts in the Temecula Valley through education, endow= the production of a community arts festival. Serial humDer '" ' ..................... CAUFORNIA FORM Aregum oaia Application . 3500 ~ve~ orqaniza,on filing an aoDtication for axemotion from California corDonUgh franchise ~ or income t~ mus; furnish the intonation anQ ~ata s;~=fi~ ~Q Day [~e "Re=uire= ~25.00 Ao;iicadon Fee." If the organiza,on fails to cornroy with ~hese re=u~remen;s. :~e aomica;ion will be deni~. Revenue ~d T~adon CoQe S~;ic;~ 26451.3 prowdes ;~at this Aooiication, to~emer with any suopomnq ~ocumems, snail De ocen ;o ouotic inso~;ion if the examorion is granted. Upon r~u~[ of ~h~ orgamza[~on. puoiic =isciosure of such ~ocuments may be withhaiti if such ~isCosure woum Acvemeiy affect the org~i~tion or nationai defoe. Sin,, CA Donald McLean & Co., .~!05 State C?A's Name O! O¢CJa~tl7'~ll0n as .~1own ~n your' ofga/llZatlOrls ~lCl~ ~ ~[1~ 0t ~t ~S COU~C~ 0F ~Ag Z~C~ ~[~7 30540 Avenida Buena Suer~e C~ Temecula N~ m ~r~ta~ve to be conmc:~ r~mng a~iuonm r~mr~mts or ;mo~an~ James A. Mevier, c/o R~f~tatlve S mmnnq aoor~ 27710 Jefferson Ave, ~amacu~ ALL applican~ must comglme items I throug~ 6 la 2a Fei~ emoloy~ ,oemtfication numoe~ 33-0364524 ' O~l~ tm~n~ ( ) ZIP ~e 92390 0~]~ tm~ne numo~ ( 7~4-599-~040 ZIP co~ 92390 Enter the California Revenue and Taxation Code Section under which axerob,on is ciaimed. See Instruction O ......... Primary actiwr! of organization: educa:ionai What is :he form of the organization? ~ IncorDorate~ [] Now bang incorporated ~ Unincorporate~ association ~ Trust (1) Date organized Ju'17 78. 1989 b If intoingrates, furnish the following information: - , ~ ~t6=o03 . - (1) Date incomorated July 28 1989 (2) California corporation number_ ~ - ~ - o (3) If incorporate~ in another state, identify the state .=_ 3a Has this organization or its preoeceasor previously appiie~ for exemption? [--~ Yes .~' No b If "yes." check [he a~prooriate oox(es) and enter either "Grante~" or "Denie~" one arno enter the date the exempt]on was "GranteD" or "Denied" .: after the box(es) cnecxeo. . ~ [] Califomia Date [] Federal Date [] Other State Date c Furnish copies of ~y determination letters received. 4a Has the organization filed federal income tax returns? [] Yes ~L,No - b If "yes." state type of returns and years filed. - -- L__ 5 Annual accounting period (must end on last day of the month). Deca~ber ~ '" 6a Is this a new organization? If "no," attach a statement indicating the name of the preDecessor(s). the p~o0 dunng which it was in Yes i No existence and the reasons for its termination ..................................................................... ~ ' . b Is this a memOersnip organization? tf "yes," attach a Statement which fuily explains the qualifications for memoors, the different . _ .. classes of membershiD, the humoar of members in each ciass and the voting rights and privileges accorded each ctass .... : .... , ~'~. _._~__I c Has the organization made, or are there plans to maXe, any distribution of its prooerty or suroius to officers or members? . _ .. J ,,~ : If "yes," attach a detailed statement ......................... : ................................................... d Wilt .any of the inca .rporators. share any facilities with the organiza,oh? If "yes," attach a detaiteo explanation '. ....... [ .......... · ~Will' any property be rented, purchased or transferred in any way from any of the incomorators? If "yes.," a~ach a detailed ._ .. . exolanation ..................................... ~ ................................................. -~ ...... .. · 7 ' · f Wdl any promoter. mcorporator. founder or member be emoloyed by the organization. If "yes." fummh comoleto dermis. mciumng ~- ~/~ j . -r duties, responsibilities, qualifications and compensation ........................... ~ ......... .......................... ~' -i~--.? Will any member of the board of directors be comoensated ~or services other than services pedormed a~ lioard member, e.g. officer,' " and/or emotoyee? If "yes," furnish the name(s) of the director(s), and the amount(s) of comoensafion for each. Also list the names of ~,~ the other directors, indicating their blood or roamage relationship, if any, to the comoensated director(s) . .. ::.: .~:.; .:;. ;. ;:';'...':. Be Sure to Include the S25.00 Application Fee. Do Not Send Cash. Allow 60 Days for Processing. ,-: I Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this application, includi.ng accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete. ~,. ....... ' ,.. ','~ ,,,,.: .....i' ..:,~i · Temecula, CA ' ..... .... ' · "" PLACE 3IG;:E-- '?/orsions' ~f this form prior tO 1987 are obsolete and'should not be use~. Please destroy.] - ": ' :" FTB 3500 (Rev. 12-88) " b 7 Attach the following aDpiicaPie items or zc2]~cat~on will not be brocesse~. _.~ a If incomoratee. a copy of :,~e endorsed arno:es of incomomt~on ano all suoseouem ~menaments; ,, now oemg inccinctured, uro~oseo a~icles SUD~ltteO tO t~e ~ ~,,re,s~ of Stste w~m aDDllcst~on: if not ~ncomomteo. a cooy of the constitution. A~lcies of asscola[ion. aecla~tlon of t~ other oocumen[s setung fo~n the a~ms and ~umoses wnic~ is s~gned Dy t~e ~rinc~Da~ officem or tms[~s. A copy of the ~viaws proposed ~y~aws or o~ner cooe of reguia[lons. Comoieze sta[ements of recei~[s ano exoenoitures. assets an~ i/aBilities for each Accounting period that the organization w~ in exis[ence anc wnicn exemouon ~s reoues[ed. 0rganizauons [nat nave no[ commenced operations or nsve oeen o0emting le~ th~ one year, s~ item "d" ~e: 4 A proposed ~u~get must be attacned snowing t~e sources of income ~d are~ of exDenditur~ for the first year of poeration of s newly ~ ~ organization or ~nose commencing operations. The Uudget is reou~red before the aDoiica~ion will be proce~e~ and shouid be D~ed upon th~ re~onaDle exDecta[ions. A statement c~criDing the specific ~u~oses for which the org~ization w~ fo~ed fdo not ~uote the articles of incpinotol/on or bylaws this pu~ose). A statement :escribmg in ~e~aii the 9rogrsms and activities which are pr~endy conduc;ed, or will be conduc:ed by the org~ization, and ho~ will accomplish the specific pu~oses of the organization. A statement oescribing in eelall each fund raising ac[ivity and each busings entemrise ;he organiza[ion has engaged in, or plans to engage (accomoanie~ 9y C0DieS 0f ~ll agramerits, if any), with other pa~ies for t~e conouc~ of eac~ fund m/sing activity or ~usiness ente~rise. A ststement which fully ~x~iains any discon~inue~ specific activities that the organiza[ion has engageo in or sponsors. Give da~es of comm~ and te~ina[ion and the reasons for discontinuance. ~ A copy of each lease, if shy, in which the organization is the lessee or I~or of prooe~ freat, personal, g~, oil or mine~l), or in which ~ is owneo unoer such lease, ~ogetner wit~ co,=es of all agreements with omer Dames for ~eveiopment of the prooe~y. ~ S~$~es of any literature which the organization s¢ts or distributes ~d samples of any organizational a~ve~ising. 2~ch item listed below reiers to a separate Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section. Select the appropriate section unde your organization is claiming exemption ano provide the requested information. R&TC Section 23701a - Labor, Agricultural or Hod/cultural Organization: SuPm~t an exo~ana[ion of shy seaices [o be Dedo~e~ mereDem. CooDec,lye organ~zauons aopyng for exemDuon under R&~ Section 23701a must supmir a cosy of ;he teeerat exemption ,e[;er snov exemguon under IRC Section 501(c)(5). a R&TC Section 23701b - Fraternal Beneficiaw Society, etc., or R&TC Section 237011, Fraternal Society: Stale wnet~er · organistion oDer[es. or 0~ans to oDe~te. unoer the lodge sys[em or for the exclusive 9enefit of the mem~em of an organ~zs[ion so 0DeB[Jn' 0peruting under the 1ooge system means ca~ng on actavii/es under a fo~ of orgamza~ion that comprises Ioc31 b~ncnes, which are !argeiy governing, ca/led lodges, c~sgte~ or the like ~nd cha~er~ by a par~t organiz~[~on. b tf the organization is a Subordinate or Local Lodge, etc., atta~ a cecil/cate signed Dy the secreta~ of the parent organization, uno~ seal of that organization. cem~mg that :he subordinate tooge is a duly constituted oooy oDem~ng under the jurisdiction of the oarera body. = If the organiza[~on is a Parent or Grand Lodge, attach a staremit snowing: (1) the number of SUbOrdinate ~o~ges in active o~eration; whether penopic meeungs are actually d For R&~ S~[~on 23701b organizations only, attach a s~a[ement describing the ~p~s of benefits (life, sic~, accident or other benefits) paid paid. to mereDem. 18 R&TC Section 23701c - Cemete~ Company or Corporation Chartered Solely for Burial Purposes: a Attach the following statements and/or oocumen[s: (1) Com01ete copy ol sales contact or o[ner ~ocument involved in acouisition of cemete~ property by the organizstion. (2) Complete copy of any comic: the orgsmzation has whic~ designates an agent ~o sell the ceme~e~ to~s. (3) Names of officem and directore of your orgsnization from the date of incomomuon [o the oresen[ ~s=e and show the period for which office. (4) Appraised value of ceme~e~ prope~y ss of the date acquired. The aDp~isai should be obtained from sourc~ other than the pa~ies in b, Does the orgamzadon nave or plan to ~ave s pemetual care fund? ~ Yes ~ No If "y~," furnish a copy of the feoeral exemption letter, a copy of the fund agramen[ and a statement explaining the nature of such fund s~urities. unsold land, etc.). Also attach a statement which fully exDtains the manner ~n which the fund is or will be aoministered, the pu~oses for wnic~ the fund is to be use~. and the name(s) of the p~on(s) administering the fund. c Does the organization operate a crematodum? ~ Yes ~ No 1~ R&TC Section 23701d - Religious, Charitable, Scientific, Litem~ or Educational Organization: Answer questions 11a throu~ Attach a statemen[ explaining all "yes" answem in 11a through 11d. '~ E a Hss the orgsnizadon receivec. or COdS it exuect to r~pive, 10 percent or more of its ~sets from any org~iza[ion or group of ~ffiliated organizations (affilia[eg through s~ocknolding, common ownemnip or othe~ise), any ~ndividuat, or memoers of a family group (brotner or sister whether wnoie or he!f aloo~, s0ouse. sncestor or lineal descendant)? ................................................. b Is the or~amzation now. hss it 3'.'e: been. or does it plan to be engag~ in ca~ing on propaganda, or otne~ise a~vocating or opposing penoin~ .or 2roposed le~is~s~c: ;this inc',uces dissemination of such/nicest/on to the gene~l pub/it while represenung the organ~zsuon)? ............................................................................................... c Has the organization ~amcisa[e=. :ian to oamcisste, or inte~ene in (including the puDiisnin; or dis;riDu~ing of stA[ements) any political campai~: on uenatf ol, or ~n opgosmon to. any candidate for public office?'. ............................................... ~ ~:es '- ~ --%rotation hold. or ::2x 'c '~cid. i0 Dercant or more of any cl~ of s~ock or '0 t?:r: ;r more of the total combined voting :Ow~, - ":~ 3~V CO¢~Or~;'-' ....................................... ': 12 13 15 16 ,7 18 If ctaiming exemotion as a cnu~ artac~ a s~atement inciucting :he foilowing: (1) Has a ~ermanent :~ac~ of woreroD oeen estao~isr, eo? At wnat ag~ress ? Who is :he ~eqal owner o: :n~s ~rocer?/? Oescnae the ~nys~cal cna~c:er~s::cc 7cur church :ud~inqs. [~c:ain :o 'anat extent :~ese ~udQJnqs ~re use~ tar =urooses ~:cer :n~ re~iq~ous (2) 3Des :he organiz~[lon nave a requ~ar congregauon or concuc: redqious ~erzicas on a regular ~asis? How many usually afterie t~e regular wOrnhiD Attach S~oles of 'acrshiD sepVlC9 oregrams ann newspaoer announcsmen:s of your activities. Where ~o how often are redq~ous serzzcas ne~? (3) 5urnten mfe~atmn regaining tee religious cacxgreuna ann forma~ re~iq~ous :r~imng of :he religious :e~cers. Fvmisn a caoy of ~ae refiqious camfica[e of :rcina[~on. (4) What amount of :he annual gross income ',vdl ~e rece~vea from incomc~mrs. minis:ere, officere, ~irec:ors or :~e~r f~ilies? (5) What amoun~ of :~e organizations arooose~ excenoitures will be usee for :he ce~onai tiring exoenses of the ineividuais ment~onea in item (4~ acove. (6)How many hours ~er',vee~ will the redgious or s~;ritual leaQer ~evote to crg~za:ionai ac:Mfies? Will this ~emon engage in emoioyment ac:ivifies of :he org~zation7 ;f so, indicate ;he numcer oi noum ~er ',v~ ~a ~escr::e the ~mo~oyment activity. (7)Us: oil the officers. ~ir~:o~. :~s:ees, ~[c., ~f the organizauon an~ ~c:tbe :near qualifications for such office. Are any of the officers or by ~1oo~ or mareage? ~f yes. exo~aln. (8)Will any founcer. mereDer or officer: (a) Ta~e a vow of poverty? (b) Transfer ;ereoriel assets :o :~s orgamza[ion such ~ a home. automobile, furnishings, ~usine~ or recreational assets. ~:c., which ,~iii :e ava~iaDie for :he personal use ot :he conotis ? (c) Assign or connie income [o ~ne org~za:]on which will be use~ in can or wnote to ~ay eonor(s) ~ salad, stipend or living allowance (such as meeical expenses. clothing, insurance. ~c.)? R&TC Section 23701e - ~usiness League, Chainmet of Commerce, etc: 5[ate Whether ~ne orgamzation has ~e~o~e~. or ;~ans ;~ic;~sr ~eP/~ces for memcem. ~careno~ogrs or ~:xers, such as furnishing crecit re~ons. ;cfieC:lon accoun:s. ~nsD~:~ng proQuc:s. ;oncuc:in~ 3urcnas;cgmerc~anciseorotners~mdarun~e~a~inGs. ~ 7es ~ ~.~o. if'"/es,'~[:acnace[adeostatemenL :nc:uoingincomereatizeQan~exoenses;ncu~. ,'egar~ing sccn ac:iw~ies. :f ~ngageo Jn aCrerasing, 3:tscn s~o~es of matenai. R&TC Section 23701f - Local Association of Emoloyees: Attach a s;a[emem giving names She a~dresses of emo~oyem wnose ~moioyees are for mem=ersn~o ~n :he ~cc~auon. If emo~oyees of more man one plant or offic~ of :he same ~oioyer are edgibie for memoemnio, give the acdress of ~acn p~ant or office. R&TC Section 23701g - Social and Recreational Organization: Answer :~ foilcwing questions an~ fum~sn ;he info~auon reQues:e~. jYes~ a Has the 9rg~iz~tion ~olici:ed. or ~oes it al~ :o solicit. public patronage of the facilities by a~venisement or othe~ise? If "/es," attach ~ s~o~e cop~es of such aovemsements or O:~er soiic=tations ...... ·.. - .............................................. I b Are nonmemoem. ot~er :~ edna flee guests ot memoera. petitteD, or will t~ey be De~itt~. to use t~e club facilities. or ~a~icioate ~n or ~tteno ~y functions or activities conducted :y t~e orgamzadon? If '"/~.' attach a statement describing the functions or activiues in wmc~ nonmemoers nave ~amcicate~, or will ~amc:~ate: or to which t~ey nave 9~ aomitt~, or wilt be acm~tt~. If nonmemcem nave ~amc~a[~ ~n, or nave 9~n acmitteQ to, any f~cuons or activities. state the amour r~e~ve~ from nonmemoem. ffoviQe a scneQule in :he statement ~e:ading :~e ~xoenses attributetie :o SUCh nonmemoers, t~e expenses attriDutaote to suca funcuons an~ the disoos~tJon maQe of ne: profits. if ~y, eeriveo from me functions ................................................................ c H~ :he organizat~on remea or levee. or Dian :o rent or lease. ~ny pan of the ctuo's proDeny to othem? ;f "yes,' attach a statement inoicaunq the re.on for such action, or prooose~ action, sna the amount r~etv~, or ;o oe recsiv~. Also attach COOi~ Of ;~e rental agrameres or [e~es ......................................................................................... d Has :he org~iza~ion. or will :he organization, derive shy income from nonmemc~s no~ exoiaineO above? ~f '~/es," exoiain in ~e~ail ... · Furnish a s~s[ement seo~a[ing the memoer ano ncnmemoer income for the ~t t~ years an~ a pro~s~ budget seDamting memoer ~0 nonmember ~ncome for the next p~oo of oo~ation. .- f State tozsi numo~ of ctua m~Ders. If there sre diff~t ct~ of ~o~io exoiain du~ and orivii~es of each cl~s. R&TC Section 23701h - ;tie Hot~ng Co~oration: Answ~ t~e foilowing questions sna furnish the info~ati~ r~u~t~. a Attach a statemere ~iving the ccmpiete n~es ~0 aodre~ of organizations for wnisn title to pmoe~ is held. the numoer of shar~ of s~ocx held And whether snar~ of stoc~ have ever 9~ heia by peruohs oth~ than s~n org~lzations. tf smcx w~ so held, inctu~ t~ yearn b State ',~e~er t~e ~nual income (l~s exoenses) is. or will be. tumeo ov~ to the org~izad~ for which title te property is hetd. ~Dtain disaosition ',wil ~ maoe of income which wi~ not ce [ume~ over ~o .... or;~iz~tion. ... ,...= .; . . . c Encose 3 cooy of an exemmion Je[ter (fe~emi or Cslifomla) for ~cn orgsnizst=on for whicQ pro~e~ will ~ heid. If proo~y will ~ heid for org~izadon[s) located ~n California, ~ CAlifornia ex~odon letter must ~e fumisn~. : ... R&TC Section 23701i - Volunta~ Employees' Beneficiar~ C~:~i:~tion: Fum~h s coo,., of :he feder3t dete~inafion !e~er snowing exemmion unoer IRC S~fion 501(c)(9) .... RATC S~tion 23701n - Suoolemental Unemployment Comoe~safion Trust: Attac~ ~ ,;c~y of ~e suDpi~[~l unemoio~en~ :ecefi[ pian ano sOpu~en~t agr~m~ts ~ a cooy of t~e feo~al dete~n~]en R&TC Section 23701~ G~ouo L~al Se~ices Plan: F,~m;sn ~ ,:co'/ ;f ;~e f~er~l ce[~m,n?an ,etter ~*' ' ex~otion unoer :RC 501(c~f20L 19 R&TC Section 23701t - Homeow ,' Association: Answer the foilowing dueslions and f' ~ ;he inforind;ion requested. Attac.~ a Su;plemenrc~ schedule if needeD. a Will any of the individual units/lots owned by the organization or its members be occupied for other than personal resid~;;',L purposes? If "yes," answer the following: · ..- (1) What percentage oi the units/tots wdl be used for nonresidential purposes? (2) If the organizatmn is c=aim~ng exemption as a condominium management assoclation, indicate square footage of all units and square footr, o3 dievoted to residential purposes. (3)What percentage of the organization's total gross income will be derived from dues, fees or asse~ments fror~ ~nre~ldentiai members? b Will this organization own. maintain or operate a mutual water company, weii. electrical generating facility or other utility? If "yes." descnbe in detai~ ','. (1) Are the memoes/shareholders the actual users of ',he utility, or simply investors7 .: ..... (2) Is this organization furnishing utilities :o residentiai homes, commercial businesses (including ag~;icultural entemrisesl or doth? Jf loth, indicate -' wnat percent of this organization's total income will 5e derived [rom saie of utilities for nonresidential usage. (,3) How are memoers/snarenmders assessed for utilities usage? Are they assessed e~ually, accoming to square footage/acreage, me,,ered, sic. -"c Fumisi~ a copy of the Declaration of Covenants. Conditions an{3 Restrictions. d Will any of the units/lots Pe rented by a person, or series of persons. for a period of less than ~0 days for more than half of the association's :~xa,~i: ,;" ' . "yes," what percentage? ~ · Provide the date the assoc~anon became active and details of these activities. f Provide the date the first unit was sold. 20 R&TC Section 2371u - Title Holding Crganization: Answer the following duestrans and furnish information r~uestea. a Attach a statement giving the complete names and addresses of organizations or trus!s for which title to proper~y is ~eing he!d. a~cl :he humDer of shares pt canitai stock heid ~y each entity. b State wnether the annual income [less exoenses) is, or wltl be, turned over to the orgamzat[ons for which title to propers! ~s neid. ~piain wnat disposition wdl be made of the income which ~viil not Oe turned over to the organizations. c Enciosea coOy of a federal determination letter for each orgamzation or trust for which property will be held. :' d For those organizations of trust for which property will be heid and do not have a federal Determination letter. provide detaded information :o show that each shareholder is: - (1) A govemmental plan described in IRC Section 414(d); or · -(2) The Unite~ States, any state or political supDivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentaiity. of the foregoing. e State the total humDer of stocxhotdes of beneficiaries. - . - '" : -' f Describe in detail each class of stoct( or Peneficial interest. 21 R&TC Section 23701u - Public Facility Financial Corporation: Include with this a~piication: ".'-a ' Sarapies Of all cer~dicates of par~icioat~on or other securities to be issue. ~"b -Copies of all leases, contracts,. trusts agreements or other agreements that have been, or will be, entered into ~y this co~oration.. 22._R&TC Section 23701v - Mobile home Park Acquisition Association: Answer the following questions and furnish the information requested. a Are aU memoera pt the organization owners of manuiactureo homes or mobile homes tenants of the moolie home park ? If not, explain the c~rcumstances under which other individuals can OecDme merePets of the organization. .- .. · b Describe the moode home ~an( in which owner/tenant memoera reside. . . ' .: ' ' c Are all lots within the pan( rented or leased to mobile home or manufactured home owners? If not. explain. " d Does the rent ~aid by each owner include rental for the lot occupied by the roDPile home or manufactured home? If"n~t,-explain. -~'e -Will the organization carry on activities other than purchasing or preparing to purchase, the mobile home park in which memoera reside? If so. (Jescribe in detail the Diner activities and indicate ,.he percentage of total operations represented by SUCh activities. - ' ...... 23 R&TC Section 23701w - War Veteran's Organization: Answer the following questions and furnish information recluested. ~To b~- completed hy a post or organization of past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States. b What is the"~umder of your memoes who ar~ present or former members of the Armed Forces of the Un ted States? . .-... .... c How many memoes are carters (include students in a cotlege, university or armed services academies (only) or spouses. widows (widowers) of cadets or past or present memoera of the Arm~ Forces of the United States? .~,c .... :,-.~.:-~-;- ,~; .- ;- .:- '~ ..'-' ~- :T - !; _:- '. ': ::~ d. Do you iqave a memPersnip catego~ other than the ones set out aoove? I.f:"yes,"_please explain in detail and enter the humnet of members in To be comoteted by an auxiliary unit or society of a post or organization of past or present members of the An'ned Foi'ces of the United Statss. · Are you affiliated with.and organized according to :the bylaws and regulations formulated by such an:exernot post or organization? :-;:ca g How mar{y ~re oast-~:~ore~ent m~mber~ 'of'~J~me~ For'ces'o~f the-uniied Siai~ t~e~s~l~;s,'thei~' ~0~ or'~e~ 'rel;~te;:l t~'t~,~m 'Wi'thi~, degrees of blood relationship (grandparents, sisters and grandchildren are the most distant relationships allowable)? h Are all '~f the members themselves members of a post or organization," past or 'present'me~no'e"r~ o{ t~ ~A~'Forces' of the United ,~[ates, or ' spouses of memoes of such a post or organization. or are related to memOes of such a post or organization within two de~rees of Proud ,'e!ation ship?.. Side 4 FTB 3500 (Rev. 12-88)- FOP~ 3500 ARTS COUNCIL OF ~.~HE TEI~CjLA VALLEY CONTENTS Form 3500: items 1 through 6 - See Form 3500 Item 7a - Articles of Incorporation - attached 7b - Bylaws - attached 7c - Statemeht of r~ceipts and expenditures, stc - not applicable - organization has operated less than one year 7d - Proposed budget for !989, 1990 & 1991 - attached 7e - Statement of purp..ose - attached 7f - Statement of programs and activities - attached 7g - Statement of fundraising activities - attached 7h - Statement of discontinued activities - not applicable - no discontinued activities 7i - Copies of leases - not applicable - no leases 7j - Samples of literature - examples attached: Statione~t Fund Raiser Invitation 8 through 10 - not applicable !la through 11d - See Form 3500 !!e - not applicable 12 through 23 - not applicable OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE CORPORATION DIVISION I, MA11CH FONG EL,:, Secretary' of State of the State of California. hereby certify' That the annexed transcript has been compared with the corporate record on file in this office, of which it purports to be a copy, and that same is full, true and correct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I execute this cereificate and nf~x the Great Seal of the State of California this AUG I ~989 $ecre~arq of State ARTI~ES OF INCORPORATION 1989 -OF- ARTS COUNCIL OF THE A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation The n~-me of this corporation is ARTS CDUNCIL OF T~E T~ECT/.L%-L V~T.T,w.y. II. ~h_s corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corDoration and is nom organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Co-~poration Law for charitable pu.-poses. The specific purpose of this cor?cration is to stLmu!ate the growth cf visual and performing arts; to broaden arts education in the community; to create a network among local artions for the purpose of sharing of resources; to conduct, prcmoue, encourage, coordinaua and establish a community cen~er for the arts. !ii. The name and address in the State of California of corporauion's initial agent for se~zice of process is: Magi Jo Helmeke 30540 Avenida Buena Suetie Temecu!a, ~. 92390 IV. ~h_s corporation is organized and aperated exclusively far charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall consist of car~ting on propaganda, or othe=~ise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaigr. (including the publishing or distribution of statemenus) c~ behalf of any candidate for public office. V. The property cf this corporation is irrevocably dedicated charitable purqcses and no par= of the net income or assets of corporation shall ever inure to ~he benefit of any directo~ officer or member thereof or to the benefit of any private person~ Upon the dissoiu~icn or winding up of the corpora=ion, its assets r~maining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities of this corporation shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or ccr~ora~ion which is organized and exclusively for charitable purposes and which has established (%: tax exemp~ status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Code. DATED: '~C~S~ , 1989. INCORPORATOR JOYCE ~ ~"~EI~.!~NG / - / · /' I hereby dec!art_ that I am the person who executed the foregoinq Articles of Incorporation, which execution is my act and deed. JOYCE E ./~E~iNG ./ ~ ,_./" / BT-LAWS of the ARTS COUNCIL OF ~-~TI CLE~ I N~HE The name of this non-profit corporation as provided Attic!es of Incorp. oration, shall be the Ar~s Council Temecula Valley. ARTICLE II LCCATION The principal office of the Council shall be located in ~he town of Temecu!a, Riverside Counuy, California. ARTICLE IIi PURPOSE Section A: Promotion of the Ar-.s This body shall be a non-profit cultural and educational agency to supports, encourage, coordinata and promote high-quali~ activities and programs for the ar-~s in the Temecula Valley. It shall foster greater underszanding and appreciation by both the children and adults of the valley for the fine, applied and performing arts. Section'B: Non-Profit Status The corporation is not formed for profit or financial gain no part of the assets, income or profit of the corporation shall be distributed to, or will inure to, the benefit of its Board of T~astees or officers. ARTICLE IV MEMBERSHIP, ~EETING$ AND PROCEDURES Section A: M~mbership The corporation shall have no members. Any action which wo~%2.-% othe=~ise requirm approval by a majority of all members or ~u~ authority which would vest in the members under Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation law shall vest in the T_--astees. Section B: Meeting Procedures All meetings shall be conducted using Roberts Rules as a procedural guide. Section A: ARTICLE V GOVERNANCE - BOARD OF TRUSTEES Number of T,--ustees The management of the affairs of this Council shall be ve~'~.~ . in the Board of Trustees consisting of not less than five (5) 2n~ no= more than nineteen (19) members, to be elected a= the annual meeting. Section B: Responsibilities of T=astees The Board of Trustees shall have full responsibility for management of the business of the Council. It shall determine the policies governing the administration and operation of the Council. It shall have full r~spcnsibi!i=y for the financial affairs and for the ethical and professional standards of the Council. Section C: Election of T~astees All t=astees shall be elected at the Counci!'s annual meeting, to hold office until the expiration of his/her term; however, if any such trustees are not elected at any annual meeting they may be e!eczed by written ballot at any special Board meeting held for that purpose. The candidates receiving the highest number of votes up to the number of Trustees ~o be elected are elected. Trustees shall be eligible for re-e!ecuion pursuant to the terms set for=h in Section V.D., below. Each such Trustee, including a T=astee elected to fill a vacancy or elected at a special Board meeting or by written ballot, shall hold office until expiration of the te-~-~ for which elected and un=i! a successor has been elected and qualified. Section D: Term Each Trustee shall be elected for a term of three (3) years excep~ for two-thirds of the members of the Board of Trustees elected ~3~ the first, organizational election. One-third of those elected ~'u that tLme shall se~e a term of one (1) year; one-third of thews elected shall seize a term of two (2) years; and the final third shall seize the regular three (3) year ~erm. This procedure will assure that no more than one-third of the m~mbers of the Board of Trustees shall be elected in any given year. No T=astee shall be eligible for re-e!ecnicn a member until at least one (!) year shall have expired his/her last three year Section B: Vacancies on Board of T=astaes A vacancy or vacancies on the Board shall exist on occurrence of the following: (a) the death or resignation of T=~stee; (b) the declare=ion by resolution of the Board vacancy in position of T=astee who had been declared of unso~ mind by an order of a cou~ of competent Jurisdiction, conyjo's- of a felony or found by final order or Judgment of a court competent jurisdiction to have breached a duty under Article Chapter 2, of the California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation Law; (c) the vote of eighty percent (80%) of the T~--us=ees (excluding the T_--ustee proposed to be removed) to remove any T=astee; (d) the increase of the authorized number of T_-uszees; or (e) the fai!~e of the Trustees, at any meeting of the Board which T~astee(s) are to be elected, to elect the number of T~astees required to be elected at such meeting. Section F: Resignations Except as provided below, any T~astee may resign by giving written notice tD the President or Secretary of the Council. The resignation shall be effective upon giving notice, unless the resignation specifies a later time for the resignation to become effective. if a T~astee's resignation is effective at a later time, the Board may elect a successor to take office as of the date when the resignation becomes effective. Except on notice to the Attorney General of the State of California, no Trustee may resign if the corporation would be left wi~hou= a duly elected T~astee or T~astees. Section G: Quo~&m A majority of the current n,~mher of Trustees shall constitute a quorum. Vacancies on the board may be filled by a majority of T=astees then se~Ting on the board, whether or not less than a quorum, or by a sole remaining Trustee. Section H: Adjournment A majority of the Trustees present, whether or not a is present, may adjourn any meeting tc another time and place. if the meeting is adjourned for more than twenty-four (24) hours~ notice of the adjournment to another time or place shall be give~ prior to the t~me of the re-scheduled meeting to the T~astees who were not present a~ the time of adjou~-nment. . 3 Section I: Reduction of N,~mher of Trustees No r=-duction of the authorized number of Trustees shall h~ the effec*. of removing any T_--astee before tha~ T.--as=ee's term office expires. Section J: Meetings The annual meeting of the Board of Trustees shall be held on the third Thursday in each Janua~t. Additional meetings may .%~ called by the President or by any two T~astees with fifteen ~'~.7" days notice to all Board members. ~Section K: Action Without Meeting Any action required or permitted to be taken by the Board of Trustees may be taken without a meeting if all members of the Board of T~asuees, individually or collectively, consent in writing tc such action. Such writhen consent(s) shall be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of ~he Board of T~astees. Such action by written consent shall have the same force and effect as the unanimous vote of such Trustees. ARTICLE OFFICERS Section A: Executive Committee The officers of the Council shall serve as the Execu=iv~ Committee of the Board of T~as=ees and said Executive Co.' ..... ~ttee shall be empowered to act on behalf of the Board of T~astees during its periods of adjournment. Section B: Offices and Terms The Officers of the Council shall consist of a President, Vice-President, Secreta~! and Treasurer, each of whom shall be elected for a term of two (2) years. No officer shall be eligible for re-election to the same office held after serving two terms in office in that office un=i! a= least one (1) year shall have expired after his/her last term of office. Section C: Duties The duties of the officers of the Council shall be those usually per'~ain to their respective offices, or as are assigna¥. them by the Board of Trustees. Section D: Mee~ings The officers (Executive Committee) shall meet monthly 4 time and place established by general consensus. All meetings of the Executive Committee shall be open to any m~-~er(s) of the Board of T_--astees. ARTICLE VII STAFF The Board of T_--ustees shall have the power to hire such staff as it deems necessary for the operation of the Council. A~qTI ~CLE VIII CCMM!TTEES The Board of Trustees shall have the power to create mn~ committee deemed necessa~t either as a Standing Cow~ittee or ~ Special Committee and shall have the power to appoint a Chairman of any cubittee or delegate such appointive powers to any other appropriate member(s). The Presiden= shall be an ex-officio member of all committees. Standing Committees shall include the Executive Committee. ARTICLE IX FINANC~ MATTERS Section A: Deposit and DistrLbution of Funds No funds of the Council shall be deposited in any name excmpu that of the Council and no funds of the Council shall be invested withcu~ the authority of the Board of T=as~ees. No par~, of the income of the Council shall ever be distributed to its Trustees or Officers. Section B: Fiscal Year The fiscal year of the Council shall begin on the first day of Janua~! and end on the thir'.y-first day of December each year~ The books of the Council shall be balanced and audited as of December 31 of each year by a Certified Public Accountant. Section C: Signatories All bank accounts of the Council shall requir~ the signature of two Trustees or Officers. ARTICLE X EXLMPT STATUS ~t is anticipated that the A~--~s Council of Temecula Valla~ will qualify as a tax exempt organization under Section 501(C)(3j of the Internal Revenue Code (or a corresponding provision of future United States Internal Revenue Law) and tha= all membershipS' dues, gifts, donations, memorial and bequests shall qualify charitable deductions under the proper sections of the Inte~ai Revenue Code. ARTICLE AMENDMENTS The By-Laws of this Council may be amended or revised by '=h~ affirmative vote of a~ least two-thirds of the Trus=ees provided that a no=ice of any meeting called for the purpose of said amendment shall be given to each m~mher of the Board of Trustees a= leas= fifteen (15) days prior =o the meeting. ARTICLE XII DISSOLUTION In the event of the dissolution of the Council, all shall be transferred to a local, non-profit entity dedicated to 27, 1990 In reply refer ARTS COUKCIL OF THE TZMECULA VALLZY MARY JO HELMZKZ 30540 BUEKA SUERTZ TIMXCULA CA 92390 Purpose : Code Sac%ion : Form of 0r~anization : Accounting Period Ending: Organization Mumbet : CHARITIBLE 23701d Corporation December 31 ~465903 AC1OT You are exempt from state franchise or income fax under the section of %he Revenue and Taxation Code indicated above. This decision is basad on information you submitted and assumes that your present operations continue unchanged or conform to those proposed in your application. Any change in optmarion, character, or purpose of the organization must be reported immediately to this office so that we may determine the effect on your exempt status. Any change of name or address must also be reported. In the event of a change in relevant statutory, administrative, judicial case law, a change in federal interpretation o~ federal law in cases where our opinion is based upon such an interpretation, or a change in the material facts or circumstances relating to your application upon which this opinion is based, this opinion may no longer be applicable. It is your responsibility to be aware of these changes should they occur. This paragraph constitute written advice, other than a chie~ counsel ruling, within the meaning of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 21012(a3(23. You may be required to ~ile Form 199 (Exempt Organization Annual Information Retumn) on or be~ore the 15th day of the 5th month (4 1/2 months) after the close of your accounting period. Please see annual instructions with forms for requirements. You are not required to ~ile state franchise or income tax re%urns unless you have income subject to the unrelated business income tax March 27, 1990 ARTS COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY Corporate Number 1~65903 AC10T Page 2 under Section 23731 o~ %he Code. In this event, you are required ~i!e Form 109 (Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return) by 15%h day o~ the 5th month (~ 1/2 months) a~%er the close of your annual accounting period. Please note that an exemption from ~ede=al income or other %axes and other state ~axes requizas separate applications. A copy o~ this letter has been sent to the Registry of Charitable T=usts. A SCOTT EXEMPT O~GANIZATION GENERAL AUDIT Telephone (916) 359-~171 EO : cc: DONALD MCLEAN E CO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD P.O. BOX SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-0851 Mazch 27, 1990 DONALD MCLEAN ~ CO. JAMES A. MEYLE~ 27710 JEYFERSON AVE TEMECULA CA 92390 9105 Co=poza~a Mumbet lU65903 AC10T ?lease see %he enclose~ copy o~ %he le%%ez mailed %0, ARTS COUKCIL OF THE TEMZCULA VALLEY A SCOTT EXEMPT 0AGANIZATION GENERAL AUDIT Telephone (916) 369-4171 ARTS COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY 20540 Avenida Buena Suerte Temecula, CA 92390 ROSTER Harge Barnum P. O. Box 1788 Temecula, CA 92390 676-6758 Joanne Markham c/o Harkham & Associages 41750 Winchester Rd. Suige "N" Temecula, CA 92390 676-6672 Ron Bray P. 0. Box 1134 Temecula, CA 676-3670 676-6005 (W) 92390 Jim and Dorothy Hey!er P.O. Box 1294 Temecula, CA 92390 676-6933 (W) 676-6069 (H) Jeanne Burns P. O. Box 1268 Temecu!a, CA 92390 676-4477 Stu Horris Bateman, Eichler Hill & Richards Inc. 27523 - C Ynez Rd 699-0025 Eve Craig 43633 Buckeye Rd. Temecu!a, CA 92390 699-9872 Judy Rosen c/o Rosen & Associates 48177 Enterprise Cr. North Temecula, CA 92390 676-2339 Joyce Fleming c/o Rosen & Associates 48177 Enterprise Cr. North. Temecula, CA 92390 676-2339 (W) 677-8376 (H) Judith Fleming 21030 Via Las Laureles Hurrieta, CA 92362 677-2155 Karen T. Flynn 27527 Commerce Ctr. Dr. Suite 209 Temecula, CA 92390 699-1565 Leonard and FrTn Gilbert 28101 Sycamore Mesa Dr. Temecula, CA 92390 676-2744 Mary Jo Helmeke c/o Overland Bank 277!9 JefJe:z~n Ave. Temec'~ ~3. 676_~ .... Barbara Steffey 36500 Glenoaks Rd. Temecu!a, CA 92390 676-4494 Haura Stephenson Sailfish Pt. #22 Hurrieta, CA 92362 677-5810 Cynthia Wallace c/o Rancon 27720 Jefferson Ave. Temecula, CA 92390 676-6664 Kevin and Jean Walsh 41994 Hawthorne Murrieta. CA 92362 677-7734 (W) 677 6797 (H) I ~0 O0 O~ 0 N N N ~ N 0 OHO 0 ('~NN N N · ~H N ~ 0 m~ hJF~- ~0 01-1- mO I't 0 c ¢ ¢ Officers and Boar~ PRESIDENT Allan R. McDonala PresiOent/CEO Over/and Bank FIRST VICE PRESIDENT Bill Bopf President Wine Country Real Estate SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Doug Davies Area Manager Southern Calif. Edison SECRETARY Jim Bell Owner/Ol~erator Churcl~ill Comm. Brokerage TREASURER Bill Harker Manager Temecula Town Association Directors Beverley R. Ashbrook Director of Visitor Relations Callaway Vineyarc/ & Winery Frank Freeman Owner Freeman's Office Proc/ucts Marc S. Grisham V.P. - Develol~ment Services J.F. Dawdson Associates, Inc. Kathie Gray Real Estate Agent Judy Rosen & Associates Tom Langley Owner LA Masters of Fine Jewelry Deane Manning General Manager Temecula Creek Inn Larry Markham Owner Markham & Associates Nancy Maurice Owner Maurice Printers Ron Perry Presic/ent / C EO Butterfield Electronics Radio Shack Kevin Walsh 3wner Walsh Real Estate & Development May 10, 1990 The Honorable Mayor Ron Parks and Members of the City Council City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Funding Request For The Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation Dear Mayor Parks and Councilmembers: The Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation is proposed to be a public/private partnership, committed to the economic growth of the valley. The Chamber of Commerce fully supports the proposed Corporation, and requests that the Temecula City Council allocate funds, in the amount of $75,000, for formation and initial budget. The City's contribution would be matched by the local business community. The attached "Rationale for an Economic Development Corporation in Temecula, California", prepared by the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand, outlines the goals, objectives and costs of the Corporation. We feel the Corporations proposed goals and objectives are consistent to those the Council has expressed. As the major contributor, the City Council would be guaranteed a designated seat on the Corporation's Board of Directors. In that capacity, the Council could take an active part in directing the Corporation, ensuring that its activities serve the needs of the Community. General Manager Perry Peters 40945 County Center Drive, Suite C, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-5090 Economic Development Corporation Page 2 The Chamber's Economic Development Committee has been working deligently to raise the private capital necessary to match requested public sector funds. We urge your favorable consideration of this request. Sincerely, President, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce ARM/kind THE RATIONALE FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN TEMECULA~ CALIFORNIA May 4, 1990 Coopers- &Lybrand I I ! I I 1 t TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 The Big Picture: Why an Economic Development Organization is Needed . 1 2.0 Elements of Organizational Effectiveness ................. 4 2.1 Typical Leadership of an Economic Development Organization . . . 4 2.2 Typical Economic Development Functions .............. 4 3.0 Funding ................................. 7 3.1 Budget Size ............................. 7 3.2 Funding Sources ........................... 7 3 3 Staff Size · 8 4.0 Expected Goals and Objectives ...................... 10 4.1 Goals ................................ 10 4.2 Overall Economic Development Corporation Objectives ........ 10 5.0 Colorado Springs Case Study ....................... 11 6.0 Conclusions ................................ I2 il PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE .... ~ 1.0 The Big Picture: Why an Economic Development Organization is Needed I !1 ! It is important to understand the concept of economic development and the prerequisites of a successful economic development strategy. Short-term results are possible, but the mid- and long-term strategies and tactics must be allowed to take their natural course. There are no "silver bullets" in economic development--just hard work, planning, and a cohesive community action plan. There are m~ny reasons for a comrm_m!ty to implement an economic development program: ! ! II I !1 1 I t I Ii · To pro-actively direct Temecula Valley's economic future, · To provide the appropriate mix of jobs that will give opportunity Temecula Vailey's population, to · To enhance the tax base of Temecula Valley, · To diversify the economy against cycles and seasonality, · To increase the income of Temecula Valiey's population, · To create a higher quality of life, · To implement a vision of public/private leadership, To assist Temecula Valiey's desired rate and kind of growth, · To be a vehicle for private sector advocacy, · To be a forum for developing Temecula Valley's leadership, · To SuPport community development objectives, To monitor the local economy by providing early warning about shocks and opportunities, and · To be a source of networking and information to the private sector. No matter what the specific mix of objectives for economic development, it is only a part of a larger puzzle--community development. There are important differences between "community development". and "economic development." Community development is the process of melding social, political, and economic objectives into a strategy for making the community a better place to live and work. This is generally the operating environment of the public sector, non-profit, and volunteer groups. Economic development is the creation of wealth--the assembly of people, money and materials to produce a good or provide a service for which there is a m.~rket in which somebody can make a profit. There is no mention in this definition about community objectives--the creation of jobs 1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE I ! ! ! ! ! or the expansion of a tax base. No wealth creator is anxious to create jobs or pay taxes or buy goods or pay for services. Profit-making--not job creation--is paramount to wealth creators. Community development spinoffs such as job creation occur because they are a necessary ingredient in generating profitable goods and services. Although it is distinct, economic development supports community development. Economic development also creates "urban" growth, and, in this, it is equal partners with real estate development (led by the private sector) and urban development (rr~uaged by the public sector). Thus, economic development is a bridge--a necessary ingredient of community development, created in partnership between the private and the public sectors. Illustrating this, Figure 1-1 shows the components of community growth. · A community's economic development strategy addresses the fundamental causes of its growth. Growth is caused by external forces, but internal actions are needed to seize the opportunities. The nfix and quality of locational attributes--"internal forces" in the chart--determine the nature of a communlty's economic base, and this, in turn, causes growth of jobs and population. These three parts--monitoring external opportunities, upgrading community improvements, and developing the economic base-- are the sphere of influence for an economic development strategy. · Economic development also sets in motion a chain reaction of urban development events. Growth in people and jobs creates real estate opportunities, which, along with public sector control of infrastructure improvements, determines city shape. The ability of the public sector to provide infrastructure and public services, like education, results in fiscal impacts and quality of life as perceived by the community. The kind of industrial development and city shape that occurs directly results in environmental Impacts from growth. · There are also social impacts that result from economic development, which creates wealth, income, and occupational opportunity. A sustainable economic development strategy will share these among all population groups--the "stakeholders" like business, developers, citizen's groups, rnluorities, city governments, county government, educators, and others who are part of the Temecuia Valley. ! ! ! PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE ! ~-EE 2.0 Elements of Ork~mlzatlonal Effectiveness Five key elements are necessary in order to establish an effective economic development org~ni~tion: Capable Leadership: Qualified leadership is important to any economic development organization's success. Responsible, capable individuals who are knowledgeable of the community and action-oriented should be involved in all phases of the program, Clearly Defined Purpose: No organization can succeed without a clear tmderstandlng of its purpose and functions. It is important to define the exact role your organization will play in economic development. Adequate Funding. Funds must be provided to accomplish your organization's objectives. The level of competition in economic development today requires strong financial suppoit. Professional Staff: The need for professionalism in economic development has never been ~reater. Economic development professionals are now found in all but the smallest communities. Sound Organizational Structure: An economic development organization must be structured to meet local needs and to mobilize critically-needed manpower and fiscal resources. 2.1 Typical Leadership of an Economic Development Organization Economic development organization leadership structures are tailored to the needs of their communities. The public sector is an important leadership element and should be included as a voting member of an economic development organization. Potential members of the Board must be a balancing act between size and representation of appropriate community interests. Typical private sector Board members include bankers, industrialists, real estate interests, educators, media representatives, elected officials, and top public sector administrators. . 2.2 T~plc~l Economic Development Functions Typical economic development functions appear in Table 2-1. Each community's focus will have a combination of attraction, retention, and sm~11 business assistance. Temecuia~s organization should confine its activities to regional marketing to firms with over 25 employees and to retention of firms with 25 or more employees. PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE TABLE 2-1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS Function Data Collection Marketing/Advertising Prospect Response/ Follow-up Business Retention Incentive Negotiation Arranging Financing Small Business Development Site Development Typical Activities Assembling community data useful to business and industry (demographics, labor market conditions, transportation services, small business financing program~, etc.) - Preparing promotional brochures about community - Sencling direct m.~tl letters to prospects Determining advertising copy/placement Developing videotape on community - Responding to prospects who inquire about community Working to convince prospects to invest in community - Surveying business expansion plans - Calling on local companies to see if they need local assistance Sponsoring business appreciation events Working to obtain tax abatement, training assistance, and low interest financing Working with local banks to arrange loans for businesses Applying for state loan assistance to help local firms expand - Provicling financial assistance - Providing training , - Providing managerial advice - Referring clients to others providing these services - Identifying suitable sites for development - Working to ready sites for development (zoning, wster~ sewer~ roads, etc.) PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Function Infrastructure Development Tourism Business Lobbying TABLE 2-1 (continued) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNCTIONS Typical Activities - Working to ensure water treatment and sewage treatment facilities have excess capacity - Working to improve area roads Developing tourism attractions - Marketing/advertising tourism attractions - Representing business interests before governmental bodies - Reviewing laws, rules, and .regulations affecting business PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE 3.0 Fundin~ 3.1 Budget Size A rule of thumb is $1.50 to $2.00 per resident depending on community size. A recent survey by the American Economic Development Council (AEDC) demonstrates annual budget levels by community size (see Table 3-1). TABLE 3-1 ANNUAL BUDGET LEVELS Comm~.nit~ Size. Less than 75,000 population 75,000 to 300,000 population Over 300,000 population Average Budget Per 1,000 Total Residents 167,000 $3,000 371,000 2,000 1,096,000 1,500 3.2 Funding Sources A balanced funcling source from large and small "investors" from the public and private sector is important to assure representation and insulate against inevitable cyclical revenue fluctuations by investor groups. The national trend is for shared funding between the public and the private sectors. Another AEDC survey (Tables 3-2 and 3-3) depicts sources of funding. TABLE 3-2 SOURCES OF FUNDING AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL FUNDING Percent of Source Total Funding Private Sector Local Government State/Federal Government Operations (land sales, revolving funds, etc.) 48~ 44~ 6~ 2~ 100~ 7 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE TABLE 3-3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING BY COMMUNITY SIZE Comm~ty Size Less than 75,000 population 75,000 to 300,000 population Over 300,000 population Local Government Funding As Percent of Total Funding 56t 58~ 39~ 3.3 Staff Size The number of paid staff varies by community size (see Table 3-4). TABLE 3-4 NUMBER OF PAID STAFF Community Size Less than 75,000 population 75,000 to 300,000 population Over 300,000 population Average Number of Staff 3.2 5.2 14.5 The competition is well-funded and is growing, as shown in Table 3-5. TABLE 3-5 REGIONAL COMPETITORS Economic Development Group (EDC) Keep Riverside Ahead Oceanside EDC San Diego EDC Ontario EDC City of Oxnard San Bemad/no EDC Source: Ventura MarketLug Group. Estimated Funding $ 500,000+ 150,000+ 1,000,000+ 400,000+ 250,000 300,000+ ! 8 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE These and other EDCs, such as Hemet, Perris, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, all have, or are planning, a public and/or private economic development effort. For Temecula Valley to be competitive and to get Its fair share of the quality firms seeking to relocate, Temec,_~!~ Valley should compete with its own organization, adequate funding, and staff. 9 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE 4.0 Expected Goals and Objectives 4.1 Goals In addition to the business advocacy, issue identification, and social objectives listed in Section 1, economic development organizations typically set goals. Temecula Valley should consider adopting the following goals: 1. Fostering personal well being by sustaining both a healthy rate of economic growth and a superior quality of economic development. Using economic growth to sustain and Improve essential public services by broadening City, County, and public school tax bases. Seeking targeted business attraction and supporting product development at existing area facfiitles to become more of a research and development and administrative center. Upgrading the overall skill mix within the Temecula Valley labor market and the occupational opportunity for area young persons. 5. Preserving and enhancing the area's quality of life. 4.2 Overall Economic Development Corporation ObJectlyes While these area goals represent worthwhile and ambitious aspirations, overall economic development objectives translate these goals into tangible measures of success. · To sustain better employment growth than Riverside County as a whole. · To add 3,500 total new jobs through direct economic development efforts to the Temecula Valley area economic over the next five years. · Within the overall Job-generating objective, to target economic development efforts to add new executive, professional, and technical jobs in primary, export-based economic sectors. · To target economic development efforts to raise the average household income in Temecula Valley. · To establish regular contact with major area export-based companies to assess their retention and expansion needs. 10 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE 5.0 Colorado Sprin~ Case Study Colorado Springs, Colorado Is often cited as having the premier economic development program in the West. From 1975 to 1985, the Colorado Springs Economic Development Council (EDC) was Involved in 111 firms locating in Colorado Springs, creating 17,336 primary Jobs, which created at least 17,336 secondary spinoff jobs--a very conservative spinoff estimate (see Table 5-1). TABLE 5-1 COLORADO SPRINGS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL JOBS CREATED AND RETAINED 1975 - 1985 Year Number of Jobs Year Number of Jobs 1986 350 1980 933 1985 500 1979 1,752 1984 277 1978 1,241 1983 2,487 1977 6,205 1982 365 1976 1,325 1981 822 1975 1,413 Source: Colorado Spring Economic Development Council. According to Colorado Springs' reports, today's EDC-created jobs account for 23- percent of all non-military employment in E1 Paso County; 50 percent of all construction jobs; 19 percent of all F.I.R.E. jobs; and 14 percent of all retail jobs. For tax revenue in 1986, the EDC reports that 14 percent of the City's Operating Budget was supported by primary jobs resulting from EDC efforts. Sales and use tax realized $5,443,504 in revenue, while property taxes realized $4,975,432, and miscellaneous revenues were $3,581,064. The EDC-attracted firms reportedly had the following additlonal impacts: · 33 percent of all non-military payroll in 1985 in El Paso County; · 50 percent of net population increase from 1975 to 1985; · 70 percent of all new retail stores - 1975-1985; and · 42 percent of all m.~nufacturlng firms. 11 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE 6.0 Conclusions Colorado Springs is one of over 10,000 economic development efforts throughout the United States. There are m~ny other successful, local efforts in Temecula Valley's area. Temecula Valley will face stiff competition from a wide range of locations. These areas have or are developing ag~Tessive marketing c~mpaigns and will use the full complement of development toois and incentives to attract and retain facilities. Because Temecula Valley's leaders wish to attract quality jobs in technology industries, R&D, and administration, Temecula Valley finds itself in competition with m~uy areas. These competitors are generally well-organized and have significant resources to apply to economic development. For Temecula Valley to get its fair share, Temecula Valley's Proposed economic development effort should be well funded, professionally staffed, and guided by a strong Board of Directors representative of both the public and private sectors' leadership. 12 PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO: CITY OF TEMECULA FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: J~/oe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems Frank Aleshire, City Manager ~ April 20, 1990 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Please prepare attached as an agenda item for the next City Council meeting. Please check with the sheriff's department to see if they did apply for the proper permits. FA:sjf CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: HTG: s/1/~o DEPT: MTS TITLE: REQUEST FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING FROM THE TEMECULA TOWN ASSOCIATION FOR THE 4TH OF JULY PARADE DEPT HD CITY ATTY CITY MGR RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council defer the Temecula Town Association's request until the FY91 budget deliberations. BACKGROUND: FISCAL IMPACT: The Temecula Town Association is sponsoring the First Annual Temecula 4th of July Parade. They have received approval from the County of Riverside to sponsor the event as verified by our Chief of Police. The Temecula Town Association is requesting that the City Council consider assisting with the event by funding for the law enforcement officers required by the County. The cost for the law enforcement service is $600, which will provide four CHP officers for four hours. The request is for monies from FY91's budget, which has not been approved. ATTACHMENT: Temecula Town Association's letter of April 17, 1990. Temecula Town Association April 17, 1990 City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, Ca 92390 On July 4th of this year the Temecula Town Association will be sponsoring the 1st Annual Temecula 4th of July Parade. In addition, there will be a Festival at the Community Center which will include the Lion's Club Annual Frog Jump.. The parade is intended to become an annual event that will be community orientated and add a sense of community to the persons who live within the city. As you are aware the Temecula Town Association is a non-profit charitable community based group who's purpose it is to better the city and promote a sense of community pride and spirit. The net profit from this event will be donated to the Riverside Special Olympic's and who serve the handicapped in our community. The Temecula Town Association is requesting that the City Council consider assisting with the event by funding the costs for the law enforcement officers required to make the event as safe as possible. The cost for law enforcement service is budgeted at $600.00. This will provide four C.H.P. officers for four hours each and including the expected mileage costs. I would appreciate the support of the Council and the City. this will ultimately assist in making the 1st Annual Temecula 4th of July Parade a safe and fun event for the Citizens of Temecula. If further questions or issues arise, please contact me. Sincerely, Special Event Coordinator P.O. Box 435 Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-4718 Temecula Community. Cent~ 28816 Pujol Stre Temecula, CA 923c~ Alternatives to Domesrive Violence P.O. Box 910, Riverside, California 92502 (714) 684-1720 "Horizon House" 1990 Honorable Ron Parks, City of Temecula, Temecula City Hall P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Mayor Parks: Alternatives to Domestic Violence (ADV) is the only agency in Riverside County that provides comprehensive services to battered women and their children. We are requesting a $5,717 grant to help support the services our Agency provides for battered women and their children who reside in your community. Specifically, those services are a toll free 24 Hour Crisis Line, Outreach Counseling and Advocacy, Emergency Shelter, and Community Education and Training. The projected cost to operate and sustain these services is $661,838. (The amount requested represents a per capita fair share portion [2%] of the amount still needing to be raised [$285,846] to meet the budget.) Alternatives to Domestic Violence (ADV) is an essential referral source for your law enforcement officers. State law requires officers to report all responses to domestic violence calls, and to refer victims to local services. ADV is the Agency in Riverside County to which victims are referred. Our toll free 24 Hour Crisis Line provides an immediate response to a victim's request for services. Counselors assist victims to assess the violence in their lives, to explore alternatives, and to help them assess the services they will need to be free from violence. United Way Agency Mayor Parks -2- March 20, 1990 Your financial support of these vital services is necessary to continue to provide our services to victims who reside in your community. We urge your approval of our request for funding. Sincerely, Mary ~,~_n Stalder Executive Director MAS/scg cc: Frank Aleshire, City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA Memorandum TO: FROM: Frank Aleshire, City Manager Sharon Francis, Executive Secretary DATE: May 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Designate Voorburr. Holland as Temecula's Sister City Vice Mayor Lindemans has requested an item be placed on Council's Agenda to direct staff to investigate the feasibility of adopting Voorburg, Holland as sister- city to Temecula. He also asked an analysis be done of the budget, to incorporate funds to go to the sister city. Voorburg Mayor Vas Baseenhoorn will be visiting Vice Mayor Lindemans in a few weeks and he would like to propose this to Mr. Baseenhoorn. SJF:ccc CALL TO ~RDER~ ROLL C~LL: AGENDA TEHECUL~ COXldUNITY 8ERVZCEB DIBTRICT TEMECUL~ C0~tUHZTY CENTER P.~Y 22, 1990 - 8:00 PM PRESENTATIONS/ PR~L~!~TZONB P~L~C COVERTS 1. Minutes RECO~DATION: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks, Birdsall Approve the minutes of March 27, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of April 10, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of April 21, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of April 24, 1990 as mailed. Memorial Softball Tournament - August. 1990 Continued from the meeting of May 8, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: 2.2 Waive fees for use of the Sports Park on August 3, 4, and 5, 1990. Grant Deeds - Tracts 20735-7 throuah 20735-9 and 20881 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Accept dedication of easements for maintenance of Tracts 20735-7 through 20735-9 and 20881. CSD.Budqet Consideration 4.1 Take Public Input 4.2 Continue consideration to a workshop meeting to be held on May 29, 1990· 5. Engineer's Report on Fees and Charges Eor District Services 5.1 Receive and review the Engineer's Report prepared by Willdan and Associates relating to fees and charges in the Temecula Community Service District for services during Fiscal 1990-91. 5.2 Set a public hearing date of June 26, 1990 to take public testimony and input regarding the proposed fees and charges in the Temecula Community Service District for District services during Fiscal 1990- 91. 5.3 Direct staff to notice the above public hearing in accordance with Government Code provisions regarding publication of notices. ~.ANAGER8 REPORT DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: June 12, 1990, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol street, Temecula, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD MARCH 27, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:40 PM at the Temecula Community CenTer, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula by President Pat Birdsall. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were offered. CSD BUSINESS 1. Minutes of CSA 143 Advisory Committee It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to receive and file the minutes of the CSA-143 Advisory Committee as mailed. The motion was unanimously carried. Tract 20882-1-2-3 Costain Homes city Manager Frank Aleshire presented a staff report recommending adoption of a resolution accepting offers of the dedications for the public slope and landscape maintenance easements. Director Muhoz questioned the benefit to the CSD to accept these dedications. City Manager Aleshire responded that these easements and slopes are not part of a homeowners association and therefore require dedication to the CSD to assure proper maintenance. csd\121289 -1- 04/12/90 CSD Minutes APril 10, 1990 It was moved by Director Muhoz, seconded by Director Lindemans to approve staff recommendation as follows: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: CSD 90-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATIONS FOR PUBLIC SLOPE AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Response to Board of Directors Request for Information from County Service Area 143 Regarding Park Use, Field and Program Scheduling. City Manager Aleshire introduced the staff report by Bill Holley, Staff Consultant. Mr. Holley stated that a very positive meeting had been held with the CSA Advisory Board on Friday, March 23, 1990. He advised the City Council on the status of the telephone at the sports park, stating that the cost (approximately $4,000) could be authorized for payment by the CSD Board, since CSA-143 is not able to pursue this matter. Director Parks questioned if the Board could authorize the staff to go to bid on this installation. City Attorney Scott Field said the Board can make that decision. It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Parks to authorize the expenditure of funds, not to exceed, $4,000 to install the required telephone. The motion was unanimously carried. CSA-143 representative, Jeannine Overson stated that there is a telephone at the snack and office building but this does not serve the lower playing fields. csd\121289 -2- 04/12/90 CSD Minu~es ADril 10, 1990 City Attorney Field advised the Board that this situation does not qualify as an emergency matter. Mr. Holley suggested that the Council and the CSA-143 Advisory Committee schedule a joint meeting in the near future to go over the specifics contained in his report regarding scheduling and other matters. It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemans to schedule a joint meeting with the CSA-143 Advisory Committee on April 21, 1990 at 11:00 AM. Staff was directed to make arrangements for an appropriate location. 4. Refuse Removal RFP City Manager F. D. Aleshire gave a staff report recommending that the Board not award a contract for refuse collection at this time. He explained that the Board will likely be required to call for bids for the entire City in the future. He also stated that staff has not had an opportunity to look into the refuse collection matter thoroughly. Jeannine Overson, of CSA-143 staff, responded to a question from Councilmember Lindemans and stated that the anticipated billing for 1989-90 is $71.01 for each parcel. If this is not expended for refuse collection the funds would be refunded to the parcels in the form of a reduction in the next years assessment. Director Parks asked how many square miles to be serviced by this refuse collection are within the City of Temecula. Ms. Overson said there are approximately ten (10) square miles or 3,600 parcels. Director Muhoz asked what the disadvantages are in having two or more haulers in the City. City Manager Aleshire said there is an advantage in that the monies would be collected through the tax levy on the parcels. The disadvantage is that there would be a checkerboard pattern of trash collection within the city and possibly two different rates. He also advised that new state regulations require Cities to manage trash hauling. The WRAG studies need to be completed and the City should have this information before making any decisions. It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Muhoz to request CSA-143 not to pursue award of a contract for refuse collection at this time. The motion was unanimously carried csd\121289 -3- 04/12/90 CSD Minutes ADril !0, 1990 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Muhoz, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 9:30 PM to a meeting to be held on April 10, 1990 at 8:00 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Patricia Birdsall, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, Depusy City Clerk csd\121289 -4- 04/12/90 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD APRIL 10, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:15 P.M. at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula by President Pat Birdsall. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, Douglas Holland, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eve Craig, Chairman of the Arts Festival, spoke regarding the 1990 Arts Festival scheduled for Friday, July 20-29th. Ms. Craig requested the Council's help in obtaining use of the Sports Park three times during the ten-day period. The first usage would be for the Fiddling Contest which would entail approximately 4,000 people. The second would be for Children's Art in the Park, coordinated with the school. This would involve 300 to 500 children. The third proposed usage of the Park would be the Pops Concert, involving approximately 1,000 people. Ms. Cray explained that the numbers provided are only estimates as the City has never before held events such as this. The Directors asked staff and Mr. Bill Holley to assist Ms. Craig with the rules and regulations in obtaining the Sports Park for these event. CSD BUSINESS It is recommended to continue the report to a workshop scheduled for Saturday, April 21, 1990 for action. At that meeting the CSA Advisory Board will review the report previously filed with CSD. This meeting will deal with the Temecula Community Service Districts, Zone A and Zone B. The Zones are as follows: Zone A 1. Street lighting 2. Refuse collection 3kcsdk041090 -1- 04/13/90 CSD Minutes April 10, 1990 3. Parks and Recreation 4. Soil conservation and drainage control 5. Limited police protection Zone B 1. Two different sub-zones, or Tax Rate Areas 2. Funded through a mix of property tax and assessments 3. Service authority for street lighting Director Lindemans stated he spoke with Glen Richardson, President of the Little League, who suggested the teams of Little League could be accommodated if the City had lights at the Sport Park and the High School. Mayor Parks suggested looking into the cost of poles and lights and the environmental impact of residents in the area. Mr. Aleshire suggested having a representative from the School Board at the April 21st Workshop, to discuss joint efforts for lighting of the fields. Mayor Parks asked if there is a way to set up another district so people not presently included in the CSA nine zones could be assessed their fair share of services. President Birdsall explained that all of the nine districts were structured differently. Mr. Aleshire commented that discussion of the funding equibility will take place at the joint meeting on April 21, but it is not possible to institute changes before July 1. He discussed phase one - to keep things going with the CSA so services continue, and phase two - to make necessary changes one year from now. Mayor Parks requested an outline of scheduled events before the April 21st meeting, so a decision on CSA 143 could be made. MANAGERS REPORT No managers report given. 3\csd\041090 -2- 04/13/90 CSD Minutes ADri! !0, 1990 DIRECTORS REPORT President Birdsall reported that a telephone had been installed at The Sports Park for a cost of $1,500. ADJOURNMENT President Birdsall declared the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. to a Workshop Meeting on Saturday, April 21, 1990 at 11:00 a.m., City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. PATRICIA BIRDSALL, PRESIDENT ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 3\cs4\041090 -3- 04/13/90 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CSA-143 ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD APRIL 21, 1990 A joint meeting of the Temecula Community Services District and the CSA-143 Advisory Committee was called to order at 11:05 AM at the Temecula City Hall 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula California by President Pat Birdsall. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, city Attorney Elizabeth Hanna, Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek, and Acting Director of Parks and Recreation Bill Holley. President Birdsall requested that the CSA Advisory Board and Staff introduce themselves. Attending were; Committee Members Bill Bopf, John Sterling, Doug Kuhlberg and Staff Members Rebecca Stern, Robert Kast and Mel Bohlken. City Manager F. D. Aleshire also introduced the Superintendent of the Temecula Unified School District Pat Novotney and Clerk of the School Board Joan Sparkman. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments offered at this time. CSD BUSINESS 1. CSA ReDort Acting Director of Parks and Recreation Bill Holley presented a staff report outlining a brief history of the topics to be discussed during the meeting. He showed an overview of the various parts of the City that are included in CSA-143. Bill Bopf stated that one of the major concerns to be addressed is that a large area of the City is not currently included in CSA-143, therefore that portion pays no fees for the parks facilities. Rebecca Stein advised that three or four developers have requested annexation to the CSD and there are several parks involved. csd\042190 -1- 04/12/90 CSD Minutes ADril 21. 1990 Committee Member Hugh stites arrived at 11:19 AM. Mel Bohlken responded to a question from President Birdsall, stating that the County would not be opposed to continuing services to the city past June 30, 1990. He also advised that CSA-143 currently has seven full-time and three temporary staff members. He explained that different areas within the CSA have varying levels of servicing, such as the maintenance depends upon the facilities within the area. Director Lindemans stated he feels the Board need to look carefully at lighting of playing fields as an alternative to adding additional ones. He asked that the meeting be devoted to addressing immediate needs. Hugh Stites stated that he would like to see the relationship with CSA-143 remain in tact for scheduling of the fields, etc. Bill Bopf stated that the Committee recommended that the City retain the services of a permanent Parks and Recreation Director as soon as possible. He also said he is not sure that the city has title to the Sports Park yet and suggested this needs to be determined immediately. He advised in response of a question from Director Moore that a portion of the Sports Park land is held in trust and is not included in the title documents. It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to request the County to include the portion of land currently held in trust be included in the deed. The motion was unanimously carried. John Sterling stated that he agrees with almost all of the items included in the report prepared by Bill Holley, but he disagrees with the elimination of the limited police protection. He stated that this police presence needs to be maintained for the protection of the parks. City Manager Aleshire stated in response to a question from President Birdsall that all of the matters recommended in Mr. Holley's report will need to be decided in terms of what to undertake as a City and what to contract. John Sterling said that he is in favor of the City having its own Parks and Recreation Department. In the event the City decides to retain the present relationship with CSA-143, he feels the City must at least hire their own Parks and Recreation Director. c sd\042190 -2- 04/12/90 CSD Minutes ADril 21, 1990 Director Lindemans suggested that the City Council select five members of the CSA Advisory Board to serve as the City's Parks and Recreation Commission for the first year. Hugh stites pointed out that the Advisory Committee is an advisory group only and they do not have any decision-making authority. He suggested that the Committee could continue to serve as advisors to the City's Parks and Recreation Commission and to City staff. President Birdsall requested the CSA-143 Advisory Committee give the City's Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations regarding developments they are aware of from their experience. Bill Holley stated that the Master Plan for Parks is vital for the City to develop. The plan must be comprehensive including a fee structure, Quimby and assessment programs. He said this would allow the city to make up some of the short fall from the lack of Quimby funds from the County. He also recommended that a contract for services from CSA-143 be drawn up and executed. Mr. George Campos, 41593 Winchester Road, representing the Softball Advisory Committee outlined his suggestion for solving some of the scheduling problems of the playing fields. He would like to have the softball program administered by CSA-143 so that the Adult programs and Youth programs can use the new facilities coming into the County Service Area soon that will be outside the city limits. RECESS President Birdsall declared a recess at 12:05 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 12:20 with all members present. Director Moore stated that Sam Hicks Park is still owned by the Sam Hicks Park Foundation. She said the title search is being completed at this time and the park would soon be ready for dedication to the City. 2. Consultant's ReDoft Bill Holley stated that he would like to have the Board consider the issued in the order they appear on the agenda. c sd\042190 -3- 04/12/90 CSD Minutes ADri! 21, 1990 Issue ! - Street Liqhting Zone A It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemans to continue the street lighting program as now in place in Zone A. The motion was unanimously carried. Issue 2 - Refuse Collection in Zone A It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to delete refuse collection from Zone A. City Attorney Hanna advised that the District needs to credit the already collected fees against the following years assessments since no mechanism is in place to refund these fees. The motion was unanimously carried. Issue 3 - Soil Conservation and Drainaqe Control in Zone A It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Lindemans to continue the soil conservation and drainage control programs as now in place. City Attorney Hanna said the assessment would use the same rule of benefit. These are charges that the residents within the zone have chosen to pay. The motion was unanimously carried. Issue 4 - Continue the Parks and Recreation Policy of Operation Mr. Holley commended the administration of the CSA-143 and said it is well managed, with a dedicated volunteer Advisory Committee. He pointed out some areas structural limitations and gave his recommendations as follows: 1. Adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance that places a higher priority on "public" parks than the County Ordinance does. 2. Adopt as an Interim Park and Recreation Master Plan for the City of Temecula, a modified version of CSA 143 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 3. Begin recruitment for staff necessary to operate a City of Temecula Parks and Recreation Department. ¢ sd\042190 -4- 04/12/90 CSD Minutes ADril 21, 1990 Contract with County Service Area 143 for continuation of services for a "transition period" of approximately 12 to 16 weeks. Address the problem of the "inherent inequity" created through Zone A funding of the Park and Recreation services within the city. Mr. Holley recommended that the CSD Board create a citywide district and outlined two options available to achieve this goal. To continue Zones "A" and "B" as street lighting zones with Zone "A" also continuing soil conservation and drainage control maintenance operation. To establish a Zone "P" as a citywide/districtwide mechanism to fund the park and recreation operations of the City. He also discussed the timetable necessary to accomplish forming this district. City Manager Aleshire stressed that the process to expand the district to include all of the City will be time critical and a decision to do this would need to be made at this meeting. He also stated that he favors using the vehicle of the Community Services District formation since this has already been approved by the electorate during the incorporation election. Betsy Hanna advised the Council that the capital outlay matter could require a higher level of noticing should it be implemented. The schedule will be the same as it is for the Lighting and Landscaping Act. It was moved by Director Muhoz, seconded by Director Parks to authorize staff to proceed with the implementation of a CSD to be carefully defined and to be noticed at a level, to be defined, which exceeds the minimum requirements of the law. In response to a question from President Birdsall, Betsy Hanna stated that the assessment is on all properties in the city not just on residential property. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Director Mufioz, seconded by Director Lindemans to direct staff to proceed with items one through three on page 15 of the staff report as follows: Adopt a Park Dedication Ordinance that places a higher priority of "public" parks than the County Ordinance. csd\042190 -5- 04/12/90 CSD Minu=es ADril 21, 1990 Adopt as an Interim Park and Recreation Master Plan for the City of Temecula, a modified version of the CSA 143 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Begin recruitment for staff necessary to operate a City Parks and Recreation or Community Development Department. The recommended "core" staff would include: am Department Director Park Projects Program Coordinator Facilities Maintenance Coordinator General Maintenance Employees (2) Recreation Program Coordinator Departmental Secretary Contract Service Account to engage necessary part-time employees or outside resources. The motion was unanimously carried It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Muhoz to approve item four, a contract with County Service Area 143 for continuation of services for a transition period of six months to provide the maintenance and recreation activities for the City, ending December 30, 1990. City Manger Aleshire stated the County would draw up the contract delineating the services to be provided. He also suggested that the city might want to take over these functions sooner than six months and suggested the contract be subject to a 30 day cancellation notice. Director Parks and Director Muhoz agreed to incorporate this suggestion into the motion and second. The motion was unanimously carried. Issue No. 5 - Limited Police Protection for District Property Mr. Holley recommended that the Board not continue the limited police protection for Zone "A" as now in place. City Manager Aleshire recommended that the Police Chief be asked to give an opinion on this matter. It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Muhoz to continue this matter to the next meeting and instruct staff to return with a report from the Chief of Police. The motion was unanimously carried. ~ sd\042190 -6- 04/12/90 CSD Minutes ADril 21, 1990 MANAGERS REPORT None given DIRECTORS REPORT None given ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Muhoz to adjourn at 1:32 PM to a meeting to be held April 24, 1990 at 8:00 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28861 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. c sd\042190 -7- 04/12/90 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD APRIL 24, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:16 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. President Pat Birdsall presiding. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Muhoz Parks, Birdsall ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager Frank Aleshire, City Attorney Scott F. Field and Recording Secretary Susan W. Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CSD BUSINESS 1. Follow-uD Report of Workshop meeting on April 21, 1990 City Manager Aleshire reported that great progress was made at the Saturday workshop in making decisions and gaining a sense of direction. Mr. Aleshire stated staff is already moving to implement decisions which were made on Saturday, April 21, 1990. Mr. Aleshire reiterated the three primary decisions which were made: Expansion of the current CSA City-wide. Everyone living within the City boundaries will be fairly assessed a portion of the cost of the Parks and Recreation program. Contract with the County to continue to provide support and staffing through the CSA-143 until December 30, 1990, an additional six months. A contract with the County is forthcoming from staff. 3. Adopt a budget for the CSD program. city Manger Aleshire introduced Mr. Bill Holley, Parks and Recreation Consultant who will be responsible for implementing all three decisions. Mr. Holley gave an update on the progress of these items as follows: 4\CSD042490 1 05/14/90 CSD Minutes ADril 24, 1990 The Quimby Act Ordinance has been drafted and sent for review to the City Engineer, City Planning Department and City Attorney. The Riverside County Building Association has been contacted and sent a copy of the Quimby Ordinance as well. This ordinance will be presented for review on May 8, 1990. The interim master plan for CSA-143 is recommended for adoption by the City of Temecula. Mr. Holley stressed that this is an interim master plan. He informed Directors it is required by state law to have a master plan in place, to qualify for Quimby Funds under a city Quimby Ordinance. With regard to a Joint Use Agreement, on June 23, 1990, staff met with Ron Fortson, Temecula Unified School District and Superintendent Pat Novotney, and reviewed the Draft Joint Use Agreement. The concept was agreed upon with minor changes requested. Both parties feel it will be ready to bring to the governing bodies of both organizations in the near future. On Thursday, June 26, 1990, Ron Fortsen, Bill Holley and Ron Page, President of Recreation Systems Incorporated, will meet with the Temecula School District and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) to perform a walk through of various sites, to determine what lighting programs are possible and costs involved. The next item reviewed was the Temecula Community Services District (CSD). Mr Holley met with Rob Brown, a professional assessment engineer with Willdan, and after reviewing direction by the Board of Directors with the necessary time deadlines, Mr. Brown indicated his firm could calculate the cost of the desired level of service, and set forth a proper assessment schedule. Mr. Brown is preparing a proposal for the city Council's review. Mr. Holley further reported that the data base used in this process would be of great benefit to the City in future years in calculating budgets during the period of time the City is developing its own historical data base. The transitional service contract between the TCSD and CSA-143, is in the process of being written. The City Manager's Office is working with a consultant, to recruit the necessary staff. personnel 4\CSD042490 2 05 / 14/90 CSD Minutes ADril 24, 1990 Mr. Holley also announced that Mr. Paul Romero, Director of the Riverside County Parks and Recreation Department, will be making a presentation on May 15, 1990 to the City Council explaining the upcoming regional park proposal. Mr. Romero will be available for questions and comments. Director Lindemans requested research be done on the County Regional Park Fee. Director Lindemans requested these funds be directed toward the City, not the County. Director Muhoz asked for clarification on the contract with CSA-143. Mr. Holley confirmed that the contract will be extended for up to six months, with a 30-day right of cancellation. Director Muhoz questioned whether the swimming pool agreement with the Temecula Unified School District, would no longer be pursued, as stated in the April 19, 1990 CSA-143 Meeting. President Birdsall explained that the agreement was not completed prior to the Easter Vacation, however, this pool will be available during the summer vacation through the joint use agreement. Director Mufioz asked if the phone that was stolen from the Sports Parks will be replaced. Mr. Holley reported that the phone has been replaced, with a vandal resistant telephone fixture, placed in a concrete pad. Mayor Parks asked what is the status of hiring permanent Parks and Recreation staff. City Manager Aleshire stated that he will be meeting with a personnel recruiting consultant this week to get that process started. Mr. Aleshire reported that a Director will be recruited who will subsequently hire his staff. President Birdsall announced that the tot lot at Sam Hicks Park has been completed. President Birdsall asked staff to follow through on the bleacher donation. President Birdsall also commented on the conference which both Director Lindemans and she attended. She reported on the scope of Parks and Recreation responsibilities. Areas covered under Parks and Recreation are: parks, recreation, disaster preparedness, arts, library and partnerships with private organizations in the community. 4\CSD042490 3 05/14/90 CSD MinuEes ADril 24, 1990 It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Muhoz to adjourn aE 8:35 PM to the next regular meeting on May 8, 1990, at the Temecula Town Center, 28816 Dujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. Patricia H. Birdsall, PRESIDENT ATTEST: F. D. Aleshire, CITY CLERK 4\CSD042490 4 05/14/90 Riverside County Service Area JEANINE R. OVERSOh~, DIRECTOR £~377 ~ancnc Z.~i~forn~a :Road. ~,~,te ~0E - ~emecula CA ~23 T"41 699-02 ¢ , ~-~ , ~ ~": ~ .. / TABLE Of COURSE t ~ -,-,,",-,,,.,,. LEGAL DESCR~P~ON ~AS~H~NT TRACT NO. EXHIBIT "A-3" -, Page i of ! LANOSCAPE MAIH'TTr~NCE EASF.)4F.N'r. TRACT NO. Z0551 ,,.~<, EA,~EMt'TVT Ati'EA .Page ! ~f Z073~.~ 9 ~ $ I! i l,~Cl. I LANO$CAPE HAINTE EASEHENT TRACT NOS. ZO?31 EXHIBIT "A-i" lecoraed at request of ana return Department of Building Services teal Property Management Division 3133 7th Street Riverslde~ California ~2507 FREE RECORDING This instrument is for the benefit of the County of Riverside and is entitled to be recorded without fee. (Govt. Code 6103~ Parcel: Project: EASEMENT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is kerebv acknowledged. RIDGEVIEW R3kNCHO CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. a non-profit mutual benefit corporation ("GRkNTOR") herebv grants and convevs ~o the Cl%-f OF TLMECULA COMMUNI~f SERVICE DISTRICT ("GRANTEE"), together with the right to further grant or transfer the same to others, a perpetual easement and right-of-way for maintaining, operating, altering, repairing, and replacing equipment and landscaping over and within the boundaries of that certain real property located in the County of Riverside, State of California. more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibits "A-i." "A-2" and "A-3" attached hereto, which are incorporated herein by said reference [the "Easement Area"). If GP~tNTEE, or its governmental entity, successors, or assigns, determines it is unable. incapable. or unwilling to maintain said Easement Area. maintenance shall, after notice, become the responsibility of GRANTOR. xith all covenants and agreements of this easement extending to and becoming o~ligations of all heirs, executors. administrators. successors and assigns ot the GRA~NTOR. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ~ ,' ~_ On _ /7_?_ RIDGEVIEW kANCHO CALIFOR~NIA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. a non- profit mutual benefit corporation Its (OFFiCiaL $F.~.( "G TOR" ) KAIqiN PAVLO~KY Ncta~ Puc.c~al f~m~a O~NGE C~uNTY before me. the undersigned. a Notary Public in and for said State, personall7 appeared . .- ..... and , personally kno~m to me <or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence; to be the persons who executed the within instr'~ent as the , and ~ ~ ,of the corporation :hat executed the within instrument and acKnowie~ged to me ~hat such iorDora21o2 ~-xecuEe~ -he within [:istr~e~E resolution o~ its boara o~ directors. YiT~iES$ my nana an~ official seal, Signature CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real ~ropertv conveved by t? within deed to the City of Temecula Community Service Pistrict. a ooiitica corporation and/or governmental agency, is hereDv accepted by order of tk Board of Directors on the date below and the ~:ran~ee consents to th recordation thereof by its duly authorizea officer. Date ~AR ~ O 1990 By<. -'~,,~ ~ . Depu~' -2- LEGAL CESC~iP':CN :F EASEMENT AREA TRACT BO. 217~-~ Those :ortlon$ of Lots 6 throug~ 32 ano of Lots A through D of Trzct NO. 2, as shown on a mao thereof filed nn Book :3, Pages £: through 1' of M; the Office of the County Recoroer of Riverslee Count~-, Californ~','~escr~ follows: PARCEL ! BEGINNING at the most westerly corner of said Lot 6; thence along the northwesterly line of sate lot North 63'13'3~' East 62.00 thence South 24°0S'00' East 97.91 feet to the southeasterly line of said t thence South 41°1S'00" East 140.6~ feet to the southeasterly line of said thence South 36'30'00" East 78.33 feet to the beginning of a tangent concave northerly an4 having a radius of 2~.00 feet; thence along said curve easterly 36.gl feet through a central an~ 84'3S'00'; thence tangent from said curve North 68°~0'00' East ~8.&8 feet t northeasterly line of said Lot 8; thence North S4'45'00' East 104.86 feet to the northeasterly line of said thence North 48'10'00' East 7&.84 thence North 41'!0'00' East 84.17 thence North 35'30'00' EaSt 80.39 thence North 30~00'00' East 68.70 thence North 25'10'00' East 6&.Og thence North ~l'~O'00' East 65.47 thence North 21°00'00' East 6~.S3 thence North SZ'30'00' East 11.50 thence North 20'30'00' East thence NOrth SIc00'00' East 15.00 thence North 21'~0'00' East thence North 5~'30'00' EaSt I4.00 feet to the northeasterly line of said feet to the northeasterly line of said feet to the northeasterly line of said feet to the northeasterly line of said feet to the northerly line of said Lot feet to the northerly line of said Lot feet to the northerly line of said Lot feet; feet to the northerly line of said Lot feet; feet to the northerly line of said Lot feet; thence North 2Z'l~'00' East 38.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent concave southwesterly and having a radius of 25.00 feet; thence along said curve northwesterly 37.05 feet through a 84'55'00'; central ang thence tangent from said curve North 62'40'00' West 5S.94 feet; EXHIBIT "A" 'T:;TTU"?..TE-;; -? LZSAL .T_ZL~_. iZTT-:; 7'? Z'.ZZ>~E...- '"Z.', TT.'..Z'T ;;'._ -i[- thence 5euth 47'10'00' ~est 42.14 fee,. t: a Downs ~n t,~e northwesterly i!ne cr saiO Lot 19; thence North 61°46'00" West 4.00 feet; thence along a line parallel or concentric with said northwesterly i~ne of Lct i9 through the following two courses: North 28°14'00" EaSt 20.00 feet to t~( beginning of a tangent curve concave northwesterly one having a radius of 866.CC feet; thence along said curve northeasterly 19.57 feet t~rough a central angle or thence leaving said parallel or concentric line North 68°07'E7· East 25.03 feet to a line parallel with an~ 5.00 feet northerly from the northerly line of salt lot 19; thence along said parallel line South 70040'26' East 75.37 feet; thence South 250~0'26· East 41.01 feet to a line parallel or concentrn¢ w~th an~ 6.00 feet easterly end southeasterly from the easterly one southeasterly line, of said Lots 8 through thence along said ~arallel or concentric line through the following two courses South lg'1g'34' ~est 314.81 feet to the beginning Of a tangent curve concoy northwesterly and having a radius of 8~2.00 feet; thence along said curve southwesterly 651.¢3 feet through a centra~ angle of ¢5°57'57'; thence leaving said parallel or concentric line North 71012'38' ~est 39.92 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concentric with and 6.00 feet SOUthwesterly from a cur~e in the southwesterly lines of said Lots 6 through concentric curve being concave southwesterly and ~aving a radius of 124g.00 feet, a radial line of said curve fro~ said point bears South 62°17'I2' ~est; thence along s&td curve northwesterly 338.33 feet through a central angle of 15°31'12'; thence tangent from said curve Nort~ 43014'00" ~est 36.82 feet to a line ~ear3ng South 46°45'00' ~est from the POINT OF BEGinNING; thence North 46°46'00' East 6.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 1.73 Acres, more or less. PARCEL 2 BEGINNING at the most westerly corner of said Lot 20; t~ence South 44°00'00' East 13.00 feet; thence South 72'10'00' East 54.60 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 30.00 feet; thence along said curve easterly 4&.60 feet through a central angle of 8g*00'00*; thence tangent fr~m said curve North 18'50'00' East 3g. S8 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 20; thence North 1g'25'00' EaSt 63.00 feet; thence North 18'00'00' ~est 7.~! feet to the northerly line of said Lot 21; EXHIBIT Pa~ thence North 14°20'00· EASt 64.00 feet; thence North 22°00'00' West 7.22 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 22; thence North 9°10'00" East 66.00 feet; thence North 20'00'00' West 4.63 feet thence North 4°10'00" East 67.C0 feet; thence North 24'00'00' West 4.76 feet thence North 2000'00' ~est 67.01 feet thence North ~°00'00' West 65.90 feet thence North ~°10'00' ~eSt 63.04 feet thence North 4°30'00' ~est 62.07 feet thence North 5~00'00' West 63.05 feet thence North 6005'00" West 62.02 feet to the northerl7 line of said Lot 23; to the norther)y line of said Lot 2¢; to the northerly line of said Lot 25; to the northerly line of said Lot 26; to the northerly line of said Lot 27; to the northerly line of said Lot 28; to the northerly line of said Lot 29; to the northerly line of said Lot 30; thence North 6~45'00' West 63.00 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 31; thence North 2'30'00' West 104.89 feet to the northerly line of said LOt 32; thence along said northerly line North 62'38'00' East 25.29 feet to the northeast corner of said lot; thence South 87'00'00' E&st 6.00 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concentric with a curve in the easterly line of said Lot 32, said concentrnc curve being concave easterly and having a radius of ~.00 feet, a radial line of Sald curYe f~ said point bears South 87°00'00· East; thence oarallel or concentric with the easterly lines of said Lots 20 through 32 through the following courses: along said curve southerly central angle of thence tangent from said curve South 5'09'00" East 359.02 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave ~esterly and having a radius of 812.00 feet; thence along said curve southerly 346.88 feet through a central an~le of 24'28'34"; thence tangent froe said curve South 19'1g'34' Vest 73.13 feet; thence leaving said parllle1 or concentric line Sout~ 64'19':~' Vest 41.01 feet to a line parallel with &ha 5.00 feet southerly from the south llne of said Lot thence along said parallel line North 70°40'26" Vest 67.87 feet; thence North 24'55'17' Vest 27.22 feet; thence South 69'10'0g' East 4.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 0.49 Acres, ~ore or less. EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION EASEMENT AREA TRACT NO. 20735-8 PARCEL 1 That portion of Lot 5 of Tract No. 20735-3 as shown cn a map thereof filed in Book 180, Pages 32 through $~ of Maps in the Office of the County recorder of Riverside County, California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most southerly corner cf said Lot 5: thence along The westerly line of said !~t ~orth 2~37'28" East 230.00 feet; thence South 22030'00" East 55.50 feet: thence South 9045'00" East 93.96 feet; thence South 5°35'00" East 58.13 feet to the southeasterly line of said lot; thence along said southeasterly line South 63°13'34" West 62.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 0.17 Acres, more or less EXHIBIT "A" Page 4 of 8 EASEMENT ?,REA Those oorsions of Lots 1, 53, 54 ancl 55 ana of Lots A. C anc~ : of Tract 20735-9 as shown on a ma~ t~ereof file~ In Boo~ _~0, Pa~es ~- through ~L Maps in the Office of t~e County Recorder of~vers~Ue ~ounty, Calif'' together wit~ Cot '8' of Tract No. 20735-7 a% sh~n on & mao tP, ereof ftleq Boo~L~:, Pages ~ throug~ }L Of MaDs tn said Office of the Riverside Cou~ RecordS, Oescr~bee as follows: PARCEL BEGINNING at the southeasterly corner of said Lot 1; thence along the southerly line of said lot South 62°]8'00' west 22.Cl feet; thence North 48'24'38' East 18.24 feet to a point on a non-tangent ¢u concentric with and 6.00 feet northwesterly from a curve in the easterly line said Lot I, said concentric curve being concave easterly and having a radius 900.00 ~eet, a radial line of said curve from said point be South 86'53'35' East; thence along said curve northerly 116.57 feet througA a central angle 7e25'15' tO a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave westerly having a radius of 13.00 feet, a radial line of said curve frc~n said point be North 7g'~B'20' West; thence along said curve northerly 9.66 feet througA a central angle thence tangent from said curve North 32°03'55' West 25.14 feet; thence North 14'43'00· EaSt ~.00 feet; thence South 75'17'00' East 4.75 feet; thence SouCA 32°03'5)' East 39.7~ feet to a point on a non-tange~t curve con~ tric with and 6.00 feet southeasterly from said curve in the southeasterly of Lot l, said concentric curve being concave southeasterly aria having of 888.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bea South 78'50'50' East; thence along said cur~e southerly !26.36 Feet through a central angle 8~09'10' to a line bearing SoutA 87'00'00" East from the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence NortA 87'00'00' WeSt 6.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING; 0.05 Acres, more or less. PARCEL 2 BEGINNING at the most easterly corner of said Lot 53; thence along the northeasterly line o~ said lot Nortn 53°55'00' ~est 38.00 fee thence South 24°00'00· West 117.81 feet to the southwesterly line of said lot: thence South lg'OS'00' West 56.41 feet to the beginning of a tangent cut concave northerly and having a radius of 30.00 feet; EXHIBIT "A" :iNTiN';ATi7:; 'F iiZAL iiEC?iiTi7:; F-7 .-l.13E}:E:;T '..?iA 77.'..1T i:-. thence along said curve westerly ~0.27 feet through a central angle thence tangent from said curve ~ort~ 84°00'00" West ~6.94 ~eet to southwesterly line of said Lot 54; thence continuing Nort~ 84000'00' ~est 72.56 feet; thence South 87°50'00' West 38.50 feet to t~e beginning of a tangent c concave northeasterly aria having a radius of 1S.00 feet; thence northwesterly along said curve 22.01 feet through a central angl~ 84'05'00'; thence tangent fro~ said curve North 8005'00' West 54.90 feet to an angle in the northerly line of said Lot 55; thence North 25'34'00' West 6.00 feet; thence South 23'00'48' West 25.14 feet to a point on a non-tangent ~ concentric with and 4.00 feet westerly from a curve in the southwesterly lir said lot, said concentric curve being concave southwesterly and having a rs of 326.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point : South 71°3S'3~~ West; t~ence along said curve southerly 52.~1 feet t~rougn a central angle 9o12'39'; thence non-tangent from said curve Sout~ 50°18'1~' East 24.98 feet to a point a non-tangent curve concentric with and $.00 feet southerly frown a curve in southerly line of Said Lot ~), said concentric curve being concave southerly having a radius of 328.00 feet, a ra~ial line of said curve frown said po bears Sout~ 1~24'3~' East; thence along said cur~e easterly 92.32 feet through a central angle 16°07'38'; thence tangent from sa~ curve South 75°17'00' East 81.44 feet; thence North 6[~29'5S' East 39.7Z feet to a point on a curve concentric with 6.00 feet southeasterly from a curve in the southeasterly line of said Lot said concentric curve being concave southeasterly and having a radius of 888 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 71'43'10' East; thence along said curve northeasterly 192.93 feet through a centrml angle 1~'26'SS' to ~ line bearing South 5g°16'16' East fro~ the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 59'~6'16" ~est 6.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 0.31 Acres, more or less. EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION EASEMENT AREA TRACT NO. 20881 That porticn of Lot 12 of Tract No. 20881 as shown cn a map thereof filed in Book 180, Pages 42 through 47 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, together with Lot "B" of Tract No. 20735-7 as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 180, Pages 26 through 31 of Maps in said Office of the Riverside County Recorder, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most southerly corner of said Lot 12, said corner being a point on a curve in the southeasterly line of said lot concave southeasterly and having a radius of 894.00 ~eet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 59-16'16" East; thence along said radial line South 59°16'16" Eas~ 6.00 fee5 to a poin= on a curve concenmric with last said cu~;e and having a radius of 888.00 feet; thence along said concentric curve northeasterly 121.21 feet through a central angle of 7 49'16"; thence non-~angent from said curve Nort~ 4°43'51" West 39.76 feet; thence South 41°59'51" West 19.00 feet: thence South 2°10'00" East 11.98 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave westerly and having a radius of 15.00 feet; thence along said curve southwesterly 10.51 feet through a central angle of 40o09'48" to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concentric with first mentioned curve and having a radius of 905.0~ feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 52-00'12" East: thence along sai~ curve southwesterly 68.43 feet through a central angle of 4--19'57": thence non-tangent from said curve South 68040'00" West 53.68 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 12; thence along said southwesterly line South 53°55'00" East 43.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 0.07 Acres, more or less EXHIBIT "A" Page 7 of 8 iFFSi?i 27AiNAGE EASEMENT ~£ST{~L~ 'iF T~ACT hO. £288~ -hat certain cartel of !and s~tuatea in the unincorDorate~ territory of the ]ounty of ~ivers~ae, State of California, ~e}ng that ~ortion of Lot S43 of Tract ~;o. ]283 as ShOWn on a mad thereof ~led in Book 63, Pages i through ]~ of Maps 'n ~e Office of ~he Cs~n~y ~ecor~er of sa~d Riverside ']sunty, .]escr~bed as ~stlaws: "SMMENC'"~ ,,,~ at intersection of ~° westerly !ine of Tract No. ZC'BB! with the :enterline of Calle Pina Colado (Lot "~"} as shown on a ma~ of sa~d tract filed in Book I80, ~ages 42 through 47 of ~aps ~n sa~O Office of the Riverside County :ecoroer; t~ence along said westerl? line South 0°07'21" ~est ~46.74 Feet; thence South 48°~6'30" test ]0.87 ~eet; thence Scutn ]5~2'~5" test ~E.12 Feet to a ~Olnt on a non-tangent curve c~ncave rort~erty and ~avlnQ a radius of 460.00 ~eet, a raaial line of said curve From ~aid ooint ~ears qort~ 40°05'I?" West; t~ence along said curve westerly 7S.90 feet through a central ang)e of 9°27'14"; thence non-tangent From said curve South 69°48'05" ~est ]4.67 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 155.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from sa~d ~oint bears ~orth 26°20'13" ~est; thence along said curve westerly 45.50 Feet through a central angle of 5~43'46" to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said curve weste-ly 223.79 feet through a central angle of 28°10'52"; thence non-tangent from said curve North 89059'44" ~est 75.92 feet; thence North 79°3]'51" West 100.12 feet; thence North 75°48'33" West B6.78 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of ~50.00 feet, a radial line cf said curve from said point bears ~;orth 7°34'25" East; thence along said curve northwesterly 274.89 feet throuon a central angle of 44*59'58" to a ooint of reverse curvature with a curve concave southwesterly and having a radius of 250.00 feet, a raoial line of said curve from said point bears South 52024'23" ~est; thence along sa~d curve northwesterly t18.53 feet through a central angle of 27~Q9'~7"; thence tangent From said curve North 64~35'34" ~est 5.80 feet to the southeasterly line of Del :ey Road (66.00 feet wide) as shown on Sa~d mad of Tract ~o. ]~83; thence along sa~d southeasterly line North 25°24'~6" East ?5.58 feet to the beglnn~ng of a tangent curve in said southeasterly line concave southeasterly and having a radlUS of 617.00 feet; thence along said curve and southaasterly line northeasterly 29.42 feet through a central angle of 2°43'55" to a point cn a non-tangent curve concave southwesterly and having a radius of 450.00 feet, a radio) line of said curve from said ~oint bears South 27~E9'!1" ~est; thence along said curve southeasterly 1~0.84 Feet through a central angle of 19°1~'22" to a point ¢n a non-tangent curve c~ncave nort~easter)y and having a raoius of 280.00 feet, a radial line of said curve From said ~oint ~ears North 53°47'50" East; thence along said curve southeaster)y Z~7.]S Feet thrOUgh a cental angle of E2°3g'39"; thence ~on-tangent ~rom said curve South 830]8'00" East 126.54 feet; thence South 8]°45'00" East 115.76 feet t~ the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 2~0.00 Feet; thence along said curve easterly 1C0.54 feet through a central angle of ~0°~4'25"; thence tandent from said curve IIorth 75°40'35" East 44.12 feet to a point bearing North 2~°36'27" ~est !~2.!~ feet from the TRUE ~0INT OF thence Sout~ Z0°~6'27" East 112.19 feet to the TRUE POINI OF BEGi)I~ING. ~ONTAI,qING: 2.13 Acres, ~ore or less. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, 2iohts, ~ights-of-Way and Easements of Pecoro. EXHIBIT "A" Page 6 ~f ~ ~ITY OF TEMECULA ?rogram ?urnmary Program: Community Services Funaing: Communi[y .Serwces Distric~ Assessmen[s Program A ctivides Community Services offers residents a variet,/of recreation ,services. This program is also responsible for parks design and maintenance. ~nd parkway and median maintenance street ligi~ting. FYgl - TOTAL 52,312,683 CITY OF TEMECULA Dez~arrmenr Summary Program: Community Services Department: Community Services Funoing: Community Services Dis tric t A ssessm en ts Description: This department provides for management and direction. coordination of the budget, goal setting, ongoing evaluation of programs, and staff support for City park and recreation operations. This department is also responsible for park development and the administration of contractual services for recreational programs and landscape maintenance of parks, parkways and medians. Personnel Costs Financiai Summary Est/mated 1989-90 Operating Costs ¢ 20,000 Capital Outlay Total Cost ¢ 20,000 Budget 1990-91 ¢ 418, 524 523, $19 622, 495 ¢ 1,564,$38 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 Regular/Full-time None City overhead costs are a/located to this department based on a - rate of 15% of expenditures. 11 ?iT"/ CF TEM. ECULA 2PEP-ATII;G BUDGET CEPART:~ENT SUMMARY - COMMUNITY SERVICES _--OR T:{E YEAR ENDING JUNE 23, 199! PERSONNEL SERVICES NumDer of Staff ACCOUNT# Satarles & wages 5100 3ene~ius 5106 Employer taxes 5104 ~OMMUNI.. SERVICES 190 ZONE A 191 ZONE B 192 !I.00 218,552 95,566 4,406 418,524 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Te!epnone Service Repair & Maintenance-Facilities Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Office Supplies Printing Legal Documents/Maps Dues & Memberships Publications Posuage& Packaging Renu - Equipmenu Utilities Small Tools/Equipment Signs Consulting Services Other Outside Services Travei/Conferences Meetings in Town/Mileage Auto Allowance Street Lighting Slope Maintenance Dralnage Maintenance Initial CSD Engineering City Admin. Charges 5208 5212 5214 5220 5222 5224 5226 5228 5230 5238 5240 5242 5244 5248 5250 5258 5260 5263 5268 5500 5510 5520 3,240 11,000 12,500 6,325 28,500 5,000 310 5O0 5O0 1,000 64,000 5,000 1,000 72,000 57,000 7,600 1,700 2,400 !,000 45,000 198,244 $ 269,294 $ 358,046 33,588 76,827 523,819 671,018 76,827 OPERATING BUDGET DEPART,MENT £U!Au~Y FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 23, 1991 CAPITAL OUTLAY Office Furnishings Office Equipment Computer Haruware/Peripheral Vehicles .- CIP - Design CIP - General Construcuicn ACCOUNT# 5600 5502 5604 5508 5802 5804 CO~{MUNITY SERVICES 190 iONE A 191 ZONE B 192 19,000 3,300 I0,000 50,000 45,746 494,449 622,495 $ !,564,838 $ 671,018 S 75,827 : ~2 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: #5 MTG: 5/22/90 DEPT: cc TITLE: DEPT HD Engineer's Report on Fees and CITY ATT¥ Charges for District Services CiTY MGR RECOMMENDAT I ON: Receive and review the Engineer's Report prepared by Willdan and Associates. Set a Public Hearing for June 26, 1990 to take public input regarding the proposed fees and charges in the Temecula Community Service District for FY-1990-91. Direct staff to properly notice the Public Hearing. BACKGROUND: We have been advised by Willdan and Associates that the Engineering Report will be forwarded to us late Friday afternoon, May 18, 1990 or Monday morning, May 21, 1990. We will arrange to have this report delivered to you as soon as it is received. JSG TEM ,CU CO UNI SERVICE DISTRICT AGENDA PORT TITLE: Receive and review TCLD MTG: May 22, 1990 Zngineer'm ~eport on f~s and ATTY DEPT: TCSD/P&R charges for District services. CM ~L~j RECOMMENDATIONs It is recommended that the ~oard of Directors of the Tamecola Community Service District: Receive and review the Engineer's Report prepared by Willdan & A=~ooiate~ relating to fees and charges in the Tamsouls Community Service District for District sefvioes during Fiscal 1990-1991; Set a ~ubllo he~ring date of June 26, 1990 to take public testimony and input resardin~ the proposed fees and c~ar~es in the Temecula Community 8~rvtoe District for District services durin~ Fiscal 1990-1991; Dlre~t staff to notice the above public hearin~ in ac~ordance wit~ Governmen~ Code provisions regardin~ publication of notice. BACKGROUND: This is the next step in the Board of Directors proposed plan to spread the cost of the park and recreation £unct~on Dis=riot-wide. You will recall, on May 8, the ~oard authorized Willdan to proceed with a 'spread analysis' to accompl£~h this. In receiving the ~ngineer's Report, the ~oard ~ay make comments, ask qu=~ticn~ or direct revisions. Approval i$ not ~ m~tt~r for con~ideration at this meeting. F~nal action may only be taken after the public hearing that is being recommend~ for June 24. I~ is further reckended that notic= of that uublic hearing be published in quar~er-pa~e ads in newspaper~ of general d~str~bu~lon to the area ~n accordance w~th a;;l~cable Code sections. AS Of the time t~ls page is being prepared, the 'numbers' for %he '~preed analysis' are s~ill beln~ ~enerated by willdan, and l~ l~ theraZors, not possible to commsn~ on t~em a~ ~1s point. FISCAL IMPACT: Nominal cost for the required noticing of the public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: There are no alternatives to recommendations 1 and 2. An alternative exts~ to recommendation number ~ regarding notic~ o~ public he~ring, That al~ernative is to accomplish notice through mailing rather than publication. That, however, consultants, mallin~ houses, DOStS~e, Drin~in~, supplies...and