HomeMy WebLinkAbout121190 CC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
Invocation
Flag Salute
A nENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETINe
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER
DECEMBER 11, 1990.7:00 PM
Pastor Gary Nelson,
Calvary Chapel
Councilmember Moore
Next in Order:
OrffiRance: No, 90-26
Resol,tion: No, 90-118
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz, Parks
PRESENTATION$/
PROCLAMATiONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. 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 end address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
NO TlCr TO THE R. tELIC
All matters listed under COnsent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
21~eenda/I 211 I0 1 *12/07/i0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
2
City Treasurer's Reoort for the Months EndinQ Au<3ust 31.1990. Seotember 30, 1990
and October 31, 1990
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and File
3
Resolution ADoroving List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A.
4
Cancellation of the Reaular City Council Meetinq of December 25, 1990
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Approve the cancellation of the City Council meeting scheduled for
December 25, 1990.
5
Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 20848
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 20848.
5.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
2/agenda/l 21190 2 12/07/90
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6
Tentative Tract Mao No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a negative declaration and approve Tentative Tract Map No.
26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864.
7
Parcel Mao 25212/Change of Zone No. 5663
Continued from the meeting of November 27, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO, 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 252 12 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5. 02 ACRE PARCEL
INTO FOUR PARCELS AND TO CHANGE THEEXISTING ZONING FROM R-R-2.5
TO R-R- 1 LOCA TED A T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS AND LIEFER
ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-280-012
7.2
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
5663, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R-2. 5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 2. 5 ACRE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO R-R- 1 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 ACRE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE) ON 5. 02 ACRES OF PROPERTY L OCA TED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD.
CSD MEETING - (To be held at 8:00 PM) Please see separate agenda
2/ageride/121190 3 12/07/90
COUNCIL BUSINESS
8 Solid Waste Haulers
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Authorize the City Attorney to notify solid waste haulers that their
permits expire in no later than five years; and
8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ESTABLISHING FEES PURSUANT TO riVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.
657 REGULATING THE COLLECTION, TRANSFER AND REMOVAL OF SOLID
WAS TE
9
Intearated Waste Manaaement Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING INTEGRA TED WASTE
MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING REFUSE COLLECTiON AND DISPOSAL SER VICES
WITHIN THE CITY, AUTHORIZING THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICES BY
THE CITY OR PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE OR PERMIT, AND REPEALING
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA
10
Solid Waste Hauling and Recvclina - Reauest For Proposals
RECOMMENDATION:
10. 1 Consider the attached Request For Proposals for solid waste hauling and
recycling.
10.2 Continue the matter to the January 8, 1991 agenda so that staff may
solicit public comment on the Request For Proposals.
21ageride/121190 4 12/07/90
11
Sohere of Influence Study
Continued from the meeting of November 27, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Receive and file staff report
12
Rancho California Town Center Traffic Signalization
Continued from the meeting of November 27, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Receive and file staff report
13
Consideration of Establishing New Position and Classification
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Authorize the establishment of an Assistant City Manager/Director of
Administrative Services position.
13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECUI. A
PROVIDING FOR TIlE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES.
14
Uodate Reoort - Mello-Roos District CFD 88-12
Verbal Presentation by Tim Serlet
21ageride/121190 6 ! 2/07/90
CITY MANA OER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Special meeting: Adjourn to a meeting to be held the week of December 15-20
regarding City Hall Improvements, Systems Furniture and Computer Network Needs.
Next regular meeting: December 18, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
2/lOanell/121190 e 12/07/90
ITEM NO. 1
ITEM NO.
2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
December 11, 1990
City Treasurer's Reports for the Months Ended
August 31, September 30, and October 31, 1990
RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENT:
That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's
reports for the months ended August 31, September 30,
and October 31, 1990.
Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment
portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are
required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004
respectively. Accordingly, the City's investment policy
includes these Government Code Sections as an integral
part of City policy.
None
City Treasurer's Reports for the Months Ended August 31,
September 30, and October 31, 1990.
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
For the Month Ended August 31, 1990
Cash Activity:
Beginning Balance, August 1, 1990
$ 1,694,121
Cash Receipts
1,522,776
Cash Disbursements
(456,022)
Cash and Investments as of August 31, 1990
$ 2,760,874
Cash and Investments Portfolio as of August 31, 1990:
Description Institution
'Yield
Maturity
Balance
Money Market
Demand Deposits
Petty Cash
L.A.I.F.
Overland Bank
Overland Bank
N/A
State Treasurer
6.50%
4.75%
N/A
8.52%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$ 666,201
14,322
350
2,080,000
Cash and Investments as of August 31, 1990 $ 2,760,874
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
For the Month Ended September 30, 1990
Cash Activity:
Beginning Balance, September 1, 1990
$ 2,760,874
Cash Receipts
1,557,872
Cash Disbursements
(302,453)
Cash and Investments as of September 30, 1990
$ 4,016,293
Cash and Investments Portfolio as of September 30, 1990:
Description
Institution
Yield
Maturity
Balance
Money Market
Demand Deposits
Certificate of Deposit
Demand Deposits
Petty Cash
L.A.I.F.
Overland Bank
Overland Bank
Overland Bank
Security Pacific
N/A
State Treasurer
6.50%
4.75%
8.25%
N/A
7.58%
8.52%
N/A
N/A
2/26/91
N/A
N/A
N/A
781,553
25,135
100,000
29,256
350
3,080,000
Cash and Investments as of September 30, 1990 $ 4,016,293
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
For the Month Ended October 31, 1990
Cash Activity:
Beginning Balance, October 1, 1990
Cash Receipts
Cash Disbursements
Cash and Investments as of October 31, 1990
$ 4,016,293
1,187,983
(433,089)
$ 4,771,187
Cash and Investments Portfolio as of October 31, 1990:
Description
Institution
'Yield
Maturity
Balance
Money Market
Demand Deposits
Certificate of Deposit
Demand Deposits
Sweep Account
Petty Cash
L.A.I.F.
Overland Bank
Overland Bank
Overland Bank
Security Pacific
Pacific Horizons
N/A
State Treasurer
Cash and Investments as of October 31, 1990
6.50%
4.75%
8.25%
N/A
7.51%
7.58%
8.52%
N/A
N/A
2/26/91
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$ 232,773
24,760
100,000
38,389
494,915
350
3,880,000
$ 4,771,187
ITEM NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been
audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of
$67,922,17
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this l lth day of December, 1990.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/Resos 90-118 12/03/90
0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 C.
0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0
c, .:. ,.., ,~ ~ X . ~ ~ o o o o o o
,~,c,~ oo o~ oF o~ OF O~ OF C,~ C,~ OZ O~ O~
I r r F 0 ~ n m ~ m
Z Z 2 ~ F ~ ~ 0 ~ Z ~ 0
,=, o n r.~ t~ ~ t-~ m ~ ~ ~ c4 z ~ o o ~ o o ~ o o
OC, 0 O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 0 0 0
q q " C .... ~ .... ~ " ~ ,. ~ .... ~ ,. ~ .... H "
r~ B ~ ~ I O \ Z m C C
E -
~. ,-.-~.~.~ o o o o ,, c.,F' P .c,.o p ~..~o o o o .,..~ m m o o o o
· . o .
'4 tJ (.q ,m .", 'D 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I)~ O' 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
Ln Ln C, '~ .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 "= "" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C, C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C, C, 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,Z, 0,2, 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3'
I! n
n ) C,
-0
~.,2,
..
< <:
n o
· 0
'I
~.-.-I
.n ~
f~f'
0
m
fi
0 rl-rO
C )"
13 ,t
0
3
0 0 0 0 . 0
C' 0 C' 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1..3 C..I
[.q
UI
0 0
~,.)
· b 0
(-.I (-q
000 0
OOO 0
000 0
IJ ~ r,-I ~
U!I,J"'J 0
O-UI'J 0
r.4OLq 0
I I 0
~0:]>
OOF'
01
O~
ZZ
O0
O0
O0
O0
UIUI
O0
:r
fi
~-,
,-~
o
ee
.0-0~0
I I I
tJ I,.! ~J
(,.l~(/|Z~
......
~.1 I/I r i I'
Z
O~r
000
000
~00
0~
0~
,0m(**4
000
000
000
~ ',,1¢.4
[1
3'
II
n
~-,
n
o 6 o
0 0 0
~0 l.J~'O O0
OZ
Z
OZ O0 00~
· 00000 ~ 0
~ 00000 Z 0
· OOM~
0 000000 0
0 ~m
.. ...~-o .... ...m ..
0
-4
O
rt
0
0
0~
I
0
O~
0);~
F
0
0
I
F
1]
(3
~-, ;-' Ig ~" ~.' IJ r~l (/I "' ,0 '0 0 0
C,I (..I I~ ~ It' -0 0 0 0 ~ .0 H
· 0 ,0 LQ H t,J tO O' O' 0 '4 ',1 4) ,0
0 0 ~" NIO® f'q ('q J~
0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 0
(.'1 (.4 O) t-,, 0 0 ,0 .0 s-- ~
0 0 h, N10~'.0~00 Lq (.q .!~ b
;3
II
n
it'
< <:
01~
n n
'1
rt
m
I!
I
I
r,
II
I Z
el
n r~
m 0
~0
-~0
II
1
~'~
rTrt
m
nO
~ -,h
ill n
m ~'
*' 1
rJl-o
r+~
m"
0
I~ t.,I
J~
0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~x ~ OH O~ 3 0000~ IIII1( ~0~
~ ~ ~ ~.3~
0000~ 00000~ O~ O0 0
0 0 0 0 O~ 0 H Z 0
o oo n ooooo
~ 0 ~ ~ m m m m
m ~ ~ o oH ~H f..~3 -r ooooz ooo ~ .~
n~ ~ ~ oo o
O< O0 0 0000 00000 0
r~
o ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ mm n r n mmmw n ~~ n ~ n ~ n z
o R ; ~ mm ~ ~ ~ ~H~ ~ mmmoo ~ r ~ cc ~ m
~ ~ ~4 ~ n 0 ~ ~ ~ n IIII n 0000~ n ~ n
o o < o ~ o ~ o --~ o ~NN-- o m o ~ o m
~ " Z " Z " 0 " 0 Z " ~ ,, I I ~ ~ " ~ ) ~ 0 0 "' ~ " "'" "
~ ~ ~ H( --~N mmm n rr n
m , FrF
Z ~ P ZZ~ HH
o o o o o o o o oo o o o oooo o ooooo o oo oo o o
~ o o o o o o o oo o o o oooo o ooooo o oo oo o o
o o O o 0 o 0 o oO o 0 0 0ooo o 0o0oo o oo oo o o
3'
II
fl
rt
(
n
0
"'I
II
o)
m
t~
II
n
o
I
o
m
n
o
r
rf
Z
$
n o
e n
ITEM NO.
4
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
City Clerk
December 11, 1990
Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of December 25, 1990
PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June Greek
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council officially cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of December
25, 1990.
DISCUSSION:
Chapter 2.04 of the City's Municipal Code requires regular City Council meetings to
be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Since the fourth Tuesday
of December falls on Christmas Day, it is requested that Council formally cancel that
meeting.
ITEM NO. 5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Engineering Department
December 11, 1990
Release of Monument Bond
for Tract No. 20848
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Albert Crisp
That the City Council AUTHOR IZE the release of monument
bond for Tract No. 20848, and DIRECT the City Clerk to
so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION:
On August 18, 1987, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with:
Radnor/Sunland/Green Meadows Partnership,
Sunland Housing Group
41877 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer
and water systems, and survey monumentation.
Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety
bonds issued by:
Federal Insurance Company
On March 7, 1990, in accordance with Riverside County
Ordinance 460, Section 15.1 { I ), the County Road
Commissioner reduced the security amounts for street
improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide
the required guarantee and warranty securities for the
one ( 1 ) year maintenance period.
No action was taken on the monument bond at that date as
several technical requirements had not been met.
STAFFRPT\TR20848 1
The necessary requirements have now been satisfied.
The inspection and verification process relating to the
subdivision monumentation was initiated by the County of
Riverside Transportation Department and completed by
City Staff. City Staff recommends the release of the
monumentation bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to
release this bond as follows:
Bond No. 8116 92 61 in the amount of
$19,300.00 to cover Survey Monumentation.
AKC:ks
Attachment:
Location Map
STAFFRPT\TR20848 2
JPROJECTi
SITE
~ 6.AUFPRX/A x~eo
~a~c~e
VICINITY -.MAP
NO SCALE
ITEM NO. 6
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
December 11, 1990
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549, Plot Plan No. 10864
PREPARED BY:
Oliver Mujica
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan
No. 10864;
ADOPT Resolution No. 90-__ approvin9
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549; based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Plot
Plan No. 10864, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Boyd and Iszler
REPRESENTATIVE:
Markham S Associates
PROPOSAL:
Tentative Tract No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864
proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site
into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an
overall density of 11.70 units per acre.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga
Road.
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
Plot Plan No. 10864 was originally approved at the
Riverside County Planning Director's hearing of
August 7, 1989. At that time, the project was
approved to construct a 335 unit apartment complex
on the subject property. Subsequent to this action,
the adjacent property owner, Robert Oder, located
to the south, filed the appeal based on the
contention that development would significantly
increase surface runoff and sufficient measures
were not taken to insure that their downstream
property would not be damaged.
On December 12, 1989, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors referred the appeal of Plot Plan No.
10864 to the City Council of the City of Temecula.
On January 23, 1990, the City Council considered
and continued this matter "off calendar"; and
referred Plot Plan No. 10864 back to Staff, in order
to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign
the project which would address the applicant's
concerns.
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Revised Plot
Plan No. 10864 were submitted to the City of
Temecula on September 11, 1990.
On November 19, 1990, the Planning Commission
considered the applicant's proposal; and, continued
this item, in order to allow the Planning Department
Staff the opportunity to revise the Environmental
Assessment, due to concerns in regards to grading,
drainage, and flooding.
On December 3, 1990, the Planning Commission
considered the applicant's proposal and reviewed
the revised Environmental Assessment prepared by
the Planning Staff, and, forwarded a
recommendation of approval to the City Council by
a vote of 3-2.
The major issue discussed by the Planning
Commission was in regards to the proposed drainage
improvements, particularly the potential impacts to
the southern properties and Empire Creek. It was
noted by Mr. Robert Oder and confirmed by the
Engineering Staff that the existing Condition of
Empire Creek was created and approved by the
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
OM: ks
Attachments: 1.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation
District. However, it was also noted by the
Engineering Department Staff that this project ( Plot
Plan No. 10864) has been reviewed by the Riverside
County Flood Control District, in which they have
recommended certain conditions, if approved, to
mitigate any potential impacts, which in turn are
acceptable to the City Engineering Staff. After
reviewing the proposal, the Planning Commission
determined that the mitigation measures, imposed
through the Conditions of Approval, adequately
address the Commission's concerns·
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan
No. 10864;
ADOPT Resolution No. 90-__ approving
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549; based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving Plot
Plan No. 10864, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
Exhibits
A. Tentative Tract Map
B. Site Plan
C. Preliminary Landscape Plan
D. Exterior Elevations
Resolution ( Tentative Tract Map No. 26549)
Conditions of Approval (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549)
Resolution (Plot Plan No. 10864)
Conditions of Approval (Plot Plan No. 10864)
Planning Commission Staff Report
( dated December 3, 1990 )
Planning Commission Minutes
( dated November 19, 1990 )
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 TO
CONSTRUCT A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 22.22 ACRES LOCATED ON
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011.
WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Plot Plan No. 10864 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on
December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Plot Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Plot Plan on December 11, 1990, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission
proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
the following findings:
Findinqs.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
{1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c) The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The City Council finds, in approvin9 projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 1086q proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of. the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
(2) The City Council, in approving the proposed Plot
Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 10864 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
f)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
h)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
j)
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No.
10864 to construct a 260 unit townhouse complex located on Rancho California Road
and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
Resolution.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1990.
RONALD J PARKS
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
11th day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 1086~.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 265q.9
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
(Traffic Si9nal Miti9ation)
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 17
Condition No. 18
Condition No. 54
Condition No. 32
N/A
N/A
Condition No. 46
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 1086~
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 25
Condition No. 31
Condition No. 89
Condition No. 100
Condition No. 16
Condition No. 45
Condition No. 66
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8
L/// ~
t~/
,f
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
10864
260 Townhouses
944-290-011
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a 260
unit townhouse development on a parcel containing approximately 22.22 acres·
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 10864. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void· By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on December 11, 1992.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 10864 marked Exhibits A, B, and C, or as amended by
these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
STA FFR PT\TM26549. A 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of 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 the
appropriate filing fee.
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 685 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 685 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit B. The parking area shall be
surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4
inches of Class II base.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit D.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit D {Color Elevations).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer~s
successors-in-interest, provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures· A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit
shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and
Safety as mitigation for public library development.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
25.
In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of
Temecula, 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 City of Temecula 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 the
perimeter of the property. 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.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six {6) feet at maturity along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road and Lot
"A'~ street.
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 preserved
wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated
or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
Any oak trees removed with four (~) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be
replaced on a ten (10) to one ( 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning 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.
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 (the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit A, a
land division shall be recorded, subject to the Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549, in accordance with Riverside County
Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program I per
attached example) which shall describe how compliance with required
mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the
mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity
cost.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay to the City all
applicable Quimby Act fees or shall provide land in lieu of fees.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall
at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the
improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer
of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests
required in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs
shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal
report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser
shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up
truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection container; thus,
prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said
agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
Buildinq S Safety Department
35.
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection.
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances
inspection.
Allow two (2)
prior to final
Riverside County Fire Department
36.
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.
37.
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.
38.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
{6"x4"x2 1/2x2 1/2), 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.
39.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation of 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: "1 certify that the design of
the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
41.
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 per
UBC.
43. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, $400.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
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.
48.
The property~s street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that
perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary
drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage
easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release
of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the issuance
of permits.
On-site 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.
50.
Off-site drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated
drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The
documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
the issuance of permits.
51.
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 approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
52.
A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be developed, and shall be
implemented immediately following grading to prevent deposition of debris onto
downstream properties or drainage facilities.
53.
An underground concrete storm drain should be constructed as shown in
concept on Exhibit "E" attached hereto, to convey the entire 100 year flow
from the southerly portion of the proposed project to Empire Creek. An
energy dissipator and/or rock slope protection shall be provided at Empire
Creek to prevent erosion of the channel banks and invert. All facilities shall
be constructed to District standards. The offsite portion of the required
drain should be constructed prior to any grading operations on the proposed
project.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6
En.qineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government AgencY, All questions
regardin9 the true meanin9 of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineerin9
Department,
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
55.
The developer shall submit four (~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~¥'x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
56.
The developer shall submit four (q) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
57.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d-
way.
58,
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
59.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
60.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
STAFFRPT\TM265q9. A 7
61.
62.
63.
65.
66.
67.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities
within the right-of-way.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineeris
Office, in addition to any other permits required.
An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site
and downstream properties.
The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and
be designed to implement improvements as required.
Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the
installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following
the construction of the slopes and related grading.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may
be required.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8
68.
69.
All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland
escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be
designed for the 100 year storm plus, 50% bulking, or as approved by the City
Engineer.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review.
70.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
71.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
72.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
73. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
74.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
75.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V.
Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V.
Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
76.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
77.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
78.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
79.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 9
80.
81.
82.
83.a.
83.b.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 2, 3, and 4.
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk.
Rancho California Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 100 (43'/55').
The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City of
Temecula for the purpose of construction of street improvements on Rancho
California Road by the Margarita Villages Benefit District.
In the event the improvements on the south side of Rancho California
Road are not already constructed by the Margarita Villages Benefit
District prior to occupancy, the developer shall construct these
required off-site improvements as approved by the City Engineer.
Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111
(56'/78').
Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one
12' lane within a 45' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66').
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
Dedicate a 28 foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access
for all private streets and drives.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 10
90.
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thered, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCBR's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney· The CCBR's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCBR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCBR's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCSR~s shall be prepared at the developer~s sole cost and expense.
The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
Ce
The CCBR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City·
The CCSR~s shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
fe
The CCBR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCBR's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCBR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 11
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
91.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road
which includes but is not limited to a 200' left turn lane for southbound Moraga
Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125I
left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for
northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe.
These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans.
92.
Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and
pull box locations alon9 the property fronting the south side of Rancho
California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans
and must be approved by the City Engineer.
93.
Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of
Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street
improvement plans with the second plan check submittal.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
95.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
96.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
97.
All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and
operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved
traffic signal plan.
98.
All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements
and the approved plan.
99.
"A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from
Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho
California Road to permit these movements.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 12
100. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for:
101.
50% of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications
at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward
signal mitigation fees.
100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street
improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California
Road to Via Las Colinas.
In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates
shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths:
1. Moraga Road entry:
125 feet
2. "A" Street entry:
75 feet
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 13
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 26549 TO SUBDIVIDE A 22.22 ACRE
PARCEL INTO A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
944-290-011.
WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Tentative Tract Map on
December 11, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council
approved said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
the following findings:
Findinqs.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
( a ) There is reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract Map No. 265~49 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
{c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division Is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physical ly suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3
(2) The Council in approving of the proposed Tentative
Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 26549 will be consistent
with the City's future General Plan, which
will be completed within a reasonable time in
accordance with State Law.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
f)
Tentative Tract No. 26549 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is
likely to create a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties.
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
h)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
i)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
j)
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment in that
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees are required and archaeological
resources are not likely to be found at the
site.
k)
The project will not be detrimental to human
health or safety in that drainage and flood
control measures must be approved by FEMA
prior to map recordation, and the potential
for liquefaction, differential subsidence, and
surface fissuring at the site are very low. A
soils report must be submitted to the Building
and Safety Department addressing soil
stability and geological conditions.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2__:. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 for the subdivision of a 22.22 acre parcel into 260
townhouses located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
944-290-011 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1990.
RONALD J PARKS
MAYOR
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
1 lth day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 26549
City Council Approval Date: December 11, 1990
Expiration Date: December 11, 1992
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below·
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
Planning Commission 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 Map 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.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers·
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer· Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer·
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer·
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 1
10. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
11.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-2 zone.
Craded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
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.
Prior to recordation of the final map, 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 City Attorney:
a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
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.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall (a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, (b) provide for
the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the
common area by either the property owners' association or the owners
of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the
following provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
The property owners~ association established herein shall manage
and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly
described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area~, or any
part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning
Director of the City of Temecula.
The property owners' association shall have the right to assess
the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost
of maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of
the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created,
shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice
of assessment or other document creatinq the assessment lien.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended
or property deannexed there from absent the prior written
consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial" if it affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners'
association Rules and Requlations, if any, this Declaration shall
control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded.
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
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 or County Service Area for
Rancho California Road in accordance with the Landscapin9 and
Lightin9 Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existin9
parkway maintenance district.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans
from the City Engineer 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.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which
shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, guaranteein9 the viability of all landscaping
which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or
assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping
maintenance until such time as maintenance 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.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3
12.
13.
ee
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. 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.
fe
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount
Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall
comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar
Observatory recommendations dated 1-12-88, a copy of which is on file
in the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety and the
Riverside County Planning Department."
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Rancho California Road, Moraga Road, and Lot "A" street·
Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the
project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be
provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate·
All 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.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-
graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted
to the angle of the natural terrain·
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
15.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form
shall reflect the natural rounded terrain·
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be
curved in a continuous, undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer~s successor's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
STAFFR PT\TM26549. A 6
16.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) rods as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property·
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
h. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten {10) feet·
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter
into an agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a
small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection
container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into
the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director
for approval.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 7
17.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
18.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA
143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has
provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with
Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordation of the final map.
Enqineerin~ Department
The followin9 are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
19.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
20.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
22.a.
Rancho California Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-d-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (43'/55').
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8
22.b.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City of
Temecula for the purpose of construction of street improvements on Rancho
California Road by the Margarita Villages Benefit District.
In the event the improvements on the south side of Rancho California
Road are not already constructed by the Margarita Villages Benefit
District prior to occupancy, the developer shall construct these
required off-site improvements as approved by the City Engineer.
Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 (56'/78').
Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one
12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 45'
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section
A (44'/66').
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Rancho California Road and so noted
on the final map as approved by the City Engineer.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 2, 3, and 4.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSRts shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCSR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCF, R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 9
30.
31.
32.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
Ce
The CCSR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
fe
The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate·
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping ( street and parks ).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems·
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 10
33.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
34. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
35.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
36.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
37.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
38.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
39.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
4O.
All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland
escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be
designed for the 100 year storm plus 5096 bulking, or as approved by the City
Engineer.
41.
An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site
and downstream properties.
The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and
be designed to implement improvements as required.
Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the
installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following
the construction of the slopes and related grading.
42.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 11
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s
Office, in addition to any other permits required.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough
grading plan.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
50. All units shall be provided with garage door openers.
51.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
52.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
53.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal ) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 12
54.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION
55.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road
which includes but is not limited to a 200~ left turn lane for southbound Moraga
Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125'
left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for
northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe.
These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans.
56.
Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and
pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho
California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans
and must be approved by the City Engineer.
57.
Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of
Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street
improvement plans with the second plan check submittal.
58.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
59.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
60.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 13
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and
operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved
traffic signal plan.
All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements
and the approved plan.
"A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from
Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho
California Road to permit these movements.
The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for:
5096 of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications
at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward
signal mitigation fees.
100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street
improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California
Road to Via Las Colinas.
In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates
shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths:
1. Moraga Road entry:
125 feet
2. "A" Street entry:
75 feet
STA FFR PT\TM26549. A 14
260-UNIT T0g]N!tO SE DEVELO PM~_.NT
BOYD AND I SZLER
22.21 ACRE SITE
TENECULA, CALIFORNIA
DESIGN COHPARISON INFORMATION
NEW DESIGN
ORIGINAL DESIGN
Land Use:
Number of Units:
Density:
Building Coverage:
(Including Rec. Build.)
Landscape Area:
Grading Design:
Recreation Facilities:
Open Recreation Area:
(Not including Rec. Build.)
Recreation Bui tdings:
Indoor Racquetbatl Courts:
Tennis Courts:
Parking Coverage:
Paved/Parking Area:
Parking Spaces Provided:
Garaged Parking Spaces:
Open Park inq Spaces'
Attached Houses
260 units
tl.71 Units/Acre
269,397 Sq. Ft.
(29.6%)
473,951 Sq Ft.
(52.1%)
Proposed Cut &
Balance On Site
76,500 Sq. Ft.
8,000 +/- Sq. Ft.
1
2
166, 184 Sq. Ft.
(18.3%)
685 Spaces
520 Spaces
165 Spaces
Apartments
335 units
15.08 Units/Acre
182, 190 Sq. Ft.
(20.0%)
434,890 Sq. Ft.
(47.8%)
250,000 +/- Cubic
Yards Of Export
37,200 Sq. Ft.
None
None
None
292,452 Sq. Ft.
(32.3%)
802 Spaces
1 Space
801 Spaces
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 3, 1990
Case No.:
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549
Plot Plan No. 10864
Prepared By: Oliver Mujica
Recommendation: 1. Recommend Adoption of Negative Declaration
2. Recommend Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Boyd and Iszler
REPRESENTATIVE:
Markham & Associates
PROPOSAL:
Construct 260 townhouses on a parcel containing
approximately 22.22 acres.
LOCATION:
South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga
Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Tentative Tract No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864
proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site
into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an
overall density of 11.70 units per acre. The
proposed development has been designed in
accordance with the standards for Planned
Residential Developments (Section 18.5) and the
R-3-3000 zone.
BACKGROUND:
On November 19, 1990, the Planning Commission
considered the applicant's proposal; and, continued
this item, in order to allow the Planning Department
Staff the opportunity to revise the Environmental
Assessment, due to those concerns identified below
in the Staff Analysis.
ANALYSIS:
In response to the comments expressed by the
Commission, the Planning Department Staff has
revised the Environmental Assessment as described
below:
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
Gradinq
The project site will be graded as part of a mass
grading effort which includes 180,000 cubic yards
of excavation and 180,000 cubic yards of fill.
Substantial grading and recontouring of a fairly
prominent natural ridgeline will occur. However,
the proposed grading was designed to adhere to the
gross natural topography of the site in its original
condition; and, the conceptual grading plan for the
project was reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer and the Conditions of Approval include
mitigation measures in regards to grading.
Drainaqe
As a result of the proposed grading for the project,
water will be channeled to drainage easements and
street. In addition, approximately 18 percent (4
acres) of the subject site, which contains 22.22
acres, which should drain to the south will be
diverted to the north. Appropriate drainage
control devices will have to be approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with City and
Riverside County Flood Control District Standards
and Conditions of Approval.
Floodinq
Empire Creek which is located to the south of the
subject property may be impacted by the
development of this project. However, in order to
mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by
surface runoff and the proposed drainage facilities,
the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District has indicated that the
potential impacts will not be significant and the
project will be required to pay an Area Drainage
Plan fee which has been included as a Condition of
Approval.
In addition, the City Engineering Department Staff
has discussed this matter with the owner (Robert
Oder) of the property to the south of the subject
property, in order to insure the prevention of
damages caused by surface runoff and to insure the
utilization of erosion control measures.
Correspondingly, Conditions of Approval have been
included as mitigation measures in regards to flood
prevention and erosion control.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 2
CONCLUSION:
After revising the Environmental Assessment, the
Planning Department Staff has determined that
although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described in the Conditions of
Approval which have been added to the project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward the following
recommendations to the City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan
No. 10864;
ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549; based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 90-~approving Plot
Plan No. 10864. based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
OM: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
e
10.
11.
Environmental Assessment
Resolution ( Tentative Tract Map No. 26549)
Conditions of Approval (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549)
Resolution (Plot Plan No. 10864)
Conditions of Approval (Plot Plan No. 10864)
Planning Commission Staff Report
( dated November 19, 1990 )
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
( dated November 19, '1990 )
Letter from Cox, Castle 8 Nicholson
( dated November 20, 1989 )
Letter from Riverside County Flood Control
(dated November 27, 1989)
Letter from Mira Loma Apartments (Oders)
( dated November 16, 1990 )
Large Scale Plan (Tentative Tract Map No. 26549)
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Boyd and Iszler
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
PO Box 5718
Canyon Lake, CA 92380
(714) 244-2823
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
November 21, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
,
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and
Plot Plan No. 10864
6. Location of Proposal:
South of Rancho California Road,
east of Moraqa Road
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Co
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\TM26549.A 1
Yes Maybe No
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
bo
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 2
Yes Maybe No
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life· Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants ( including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to exist. ing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3
Yes Maybe No
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources· Will the proposal
result in:
ae
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
ao
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 4
Yes Maybe No
15.
16.
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties. or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e®
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
eo
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
Yes Maybe No
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health ) ?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
ae
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6
Yes Maybe No
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Ce
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? ( A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
STAFF R PT\TM265~9. A 7
III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1.8.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1,e.
1.f.
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this project, which includes
180.000 cubic yards of excavation and 180,000 cubic yards of fill.
However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the project was reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation
measures in regards to grading. Therefore, the proposed project will
not create an unstable earth condition or change the geologic
substructure.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However.
this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the
Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to all
grading.
Yes. The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural
ridgeline of Temecula. However, the mass grading effort was designed
to adhere to the gross natural topography of the site in its original
condition. While substantial grading and recontouring of this site,
which includes 180,000 c.y. of excavation and 180,000 c.y. of fill, will
occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote
preservation of site topography. Therefore, this impact is not
considered significant.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted
and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion
impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use
of watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after
grading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices
will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in
accordance with Temecula~s standards and the Conditions of Approval.
It has also been noted that approximately 18 percent (4 acres) of the
subject site, which contains 22.22 acres, which should drain to the
south will be diverted to the north. Therefore, this impact is not
considered to be significant, due to the fact that appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented with the project.
Yes. Although the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream
bed, Empire Creek is located to the south of the project which may be
impacted by the development of this project. However, in order to
mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff and the
proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside County Flood Control and
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 8
1.g.
Air
2.a.
2.b,c.
Water
3.a,d.
3.b.
3.c.
Water Conservation District has indicated that Plot Plan No.
1086L~/Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9 will be required to pay a flood
mitigation charge, which has been included as a Condition of Approval.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The subject site is not located within a subsidence or
liquefaction zone and is not subject to liquefaction and subsidence by
the Riverside County General Plan. However, to mitigate any potential
hazards, a geological report will be prepared prior to any construction
of the property. The report will include mitigation measures.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
Maybe. The proposed project consisting of 260 residential units will
generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site. The increased vehicle
trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions and particulates in the
area. However, since the ambient air quality in the project vicinity is
currently very good due to the local wind patterns, this potential
impact is not considered significant. The proposed project will not by
itself deteriorate the local area's or regional air quality, but will add to
the cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the
area.
No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or
alter the area's climate.
No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern will be altered,
especially along the southern property line. However, water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets through drainage facilities
and control devices which will have to be approved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's Standards and
the Conditions of Approval. In addition, approximately 18 percent of
the subject site which should drain to the south will be diverted to the
north. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
Yes. Flood waters will continue to be directed to the streets and flood
channels. Empire Creek may be impacted by the development of this
project. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought
about by runoff and the proposed drainage facilities, the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the District) has
indicated that the project will be required to pay a flood mitigation
charge (Area Drainage Plan fee), which has been included as a
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 9
3,6.
3.f.
3.g.
Condition of Approval. In addition, the District has considered this
impact not to be significant. Therefore, this impact is not considered
to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been
implemented with the project. Drainage plans for the site will have to
meet the requirements of the Cityis Engineer.
Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity
in local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered
significant. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to
drainage easements and streets, which will have to be approved by the
City Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be
significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented
with the project.
No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground
water.
No. Although the proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site, the addition of irrigation for the
landscape areas will help to off-set any loss of water absorbed into the
ground. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
3.h.
3.i.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water
supply.
Maybe. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which
require proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since
appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the
project.
Veqetation
~.a,c.
Yes. The proposed project involves a mass grading of the subject site
which will eliminate all of the existing native plants; and the proposal
includes landscaping and erosion control which will be designed to City
standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant
since appropriate mitigation meast~res have been implemented with the
project.
No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified
on-site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
STAFF R PT\TM265~9. A 10
Wi Idlife
No.
Maybe·
A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this
project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no
individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found
there is no occupied habitat within the bounds of the tract
map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in
a taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the
species or on the species' habitat. In that surrounding
lands to the north, south, east and west have previously
been developed at urban levels of use or are presently
being developed at such levels of use, preservation of this
site as a reserve is inappropriate. In addition. the site is
now isolated from all other known colonies by impassable
residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is
virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as
proposed will not have a significant effect and no
mitigation other than payment of fees under the Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat Fee Ordinance is required.
Noise
6.a-b.
No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels
of noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it
is concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will
comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential
construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation
standards.
It is further recommended that the final engineering design of the
project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engineer to ensure
compliance with the County~s noise standards.
Liqht and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered
to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been
implemented with the project.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
5outhwest Area Community Plan.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 11
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 260
units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use
Designation which allows a maximum of 355 units (according to SWAP).
Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant.
Housinq
12.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
T ran sportat ion / C i rcu l atio n
13. a. Yes.
13.b-e. No.
13. f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures
have been implemented through the Conditions of
Approval.
Public Services
14. a-e. Yes.
l~.f. No.
The proposed project will have significant adverse effect
effect on public services. However, these impacts are not
considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation
measures have been implemented through the Conditions
of Approval.
Enerqy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 12
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
Yes. The proposed project will result in an impact upon existing
recreational opportunities. However, the proposed project provides
adequate recreational facilities for the subject residents and
appropriate Quimby fees will be paid. Therefore, this impact is not
considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have
been implemented with the project.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a.
Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. However, the project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees
for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition,
during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present.
21 .b.
Maybe. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. However,
no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed.
21 .c.
Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulatively considerable which may have environmental
effects. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation
measures are followed.
21 .d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 13
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
November 21, 1990
Date
Oliver Mujica
Senior Planner
For CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 14
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 26549 TO SUBDIVIDE A
22.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
944-290-011.
WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract
Map on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
(a) There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
(a)
There is reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to
wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 26549 will be consistent
with the City's future General Plan, which
will be completed within a reasonable time in
accordance with State Law.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 26549 is compatible with
surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is
likely to create a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application are herein
incorporated by reference.
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment in that
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees are required and archaeological
resources are not likely to be found at the
site.
The project will not be detrimental to human
health or safety in that drainage and flood
control measures must be approved by FEMA
prior to map recordation, and the potential
for liquefaction, differential subsidence, and
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
surface fissuring at the site are very low. A
soils report must be submitted to the Building
and Safety Department addressing soil
stability and geological conditions.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 for the subdivision of a 22.22 acre parcel into 260
townhouses located on Rancho California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
944-290-011 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 5
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 265L)9.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A
6
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 26549
Planning Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
December 3, 1990
December 3, 1992
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the
Planning Commission 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 Map 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.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundary to a County maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers.
All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City
Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities,
etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A I
10.
11.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-2 zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free
condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
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.
Prior to recordation of the final map, 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 City Attorney:
a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
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.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
review shall { a ) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, ( b ) provide for
the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the
owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the
common area by either the property ownersI association or the owners
of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the
following provisions verbatim:
"Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the
contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
The property owners' association established her,in shall manage
and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly
described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area', or any
part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning
Director of the City of Temecula.
The property ownersI association shall have the right to assess
the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost
of maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien
the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of
the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created,
shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice
of assessment or other document creatinq the assessment lien·
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended
or property deannexed there from absent the prior written
consent of the Planning Direct· A proposed amendment shall be
considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or
maintenance of the 'common area'.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners'
association Rules and Requlations, if any, this Declaration shall
control."
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is
recorded·
The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping
conditions:
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 or County Service Area for
Rancho California Road in accordance with the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing
parkway maintenance district.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans.
from the City Engineer 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.
The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which
shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision
performance bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping
which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance
responsibility by the district.
The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or
assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping
maintenance until such time as maintenance 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.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3
12.
13.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final
map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and
Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount
Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall
comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar
Observatory recommendations dated 1-12-88, a copy of which is on file
in the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety and the
Riverside County Planning Department."
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes.
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
ae
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Rancho California Road, Moraga Road, and Lot "A" street.
Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
fe
project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be
provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access·
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All 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.
Any oak trees removed with four (4) inches or larger trunk
diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as
approved by the Planning Director. Replacement tress 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:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-
graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted
to the angle of the natural terrain.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 5
15.
Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form
shall reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be
curved in a continuous, undulating fashion.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building
and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical
engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be
applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce
ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivisionis approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6
16.
17.
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping·
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding
property.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not
be less than ten (10) feet.
h. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
i. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety·
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter
into an agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a
small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection
container; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into
the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director
for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
STAFF R PT\TM265L~9. A 7
18.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA
143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has
provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with
Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the
City Council prior to the recordation of the final map.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
19.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act.
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
20.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
21. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
22.
Rancho California Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (43'/55').
23.
Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111 (56'/78').
Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one
12~ lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 45'
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section
A (~'/66~).
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
In the event road or off-site right-d-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66L~62.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Ranch· California Road and so noted
on the final map as approved by the City Engineer.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 2, 3, and ~.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CC~,R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCF, R~s shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCBR~s shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CCE, R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CCF, R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCSR~s shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCF, R~s shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCF, R's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner~s sole expense, any maintenance required
STAFF R PT\TM26549. A 9
30.
31.
32.
33.
3~.
35.
36.
37.
thereon by the CCBR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
The subdivider shall submit four prints'of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2t4" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 10
38.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engine. er.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
39.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review prior to the recordation of the final map.
All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland
escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be
designed for the 100 year storm plus 5096 bulking, or as approved by the City
Engineer.
An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site
and downstream properties.
The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and
be designed to implement improvements as required.
Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the
installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following
the construction of the slopes and related grading.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s
Office, in addition to any other permits required.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d-
way.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 11
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The
final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough
grading plan.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and
street lights on all interior public streets.
50. All units shall be provided with garage door openers.
51.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
52.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
53.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 12
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION
55.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road
which includes but is not limited to a 200~ left turn lane for southbound Moraga
Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125'
left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for
northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe.
These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans.
56.
Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and
pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho
California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans
and must be approved by the City Engineer.
57.
Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of
Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street
improvement plans with the second plan check submittal.
58.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
59.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
60.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
61.
All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and
operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved
traffic signal plan.
62.
All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements
and the approved plan.
63.
"A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from
Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho
California Road to permit these movements.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 13
64.
65.
The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for:
50% of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications
at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward
signal mitigation fees.
100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street
improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California
Road to Via Las Colinas.
In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates
shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths:
1. Moraga Road entry:
125 feet
2. "A" Street entry:
75 feet
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 14
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 TO CONSTRUCT A 260 UNIT
TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.22
ACRES LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-290-011.
WHEREAS, Boyd and Iszler filed Plot Plan No. 10864 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on December 3, 1990. at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
~a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 10864 proposed will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a) The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval
of the proposed Plot Plan. makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 10864 will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
f)
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
g)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
h)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
j)
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 10864 to construct a 260 unit townhouse complex located on Rancho
California Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1990.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 10864.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No:
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
10864
260 Townhouses
944-290-011
Plannin.q Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of a 260
unit townhouse development on a parcel containing approximately 22.22 acres.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims. action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 10864. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend.
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise.
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval· This approval shall
expire on December 3, 1992.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 10864 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown· Plans shall meet all requirements
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
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 685 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 685 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.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit B.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
No building permits shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer, or the developer's
successors-in-interest, provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit
shall be deposited with the City of Temecula Department of Building and
Safety as mitigation for public library development.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
25.
In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of
Temecula, 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 City of Temecula for any units within the subject
property until the developer, or the developerss 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 the
perimeter of the property. 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.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six (6) feet at maturity along Rancho California Road, Moraga Road and Lot
'sA" street.
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 preserved
wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated
or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
Any oak trees removed with four (~) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be
replaced on a ten (10) to one ( 1 ) basis as approved by the Planning 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.
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 (the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 3
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety' to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan. and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Prior to the sale or lease of any structure as shown on Revised Exhibit A. a
land division shall be recorded, subject to the Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549, in accordance with Riverside County
Ordinance No. 460 and any other pertinent ordinance.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer
or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program (per
attached example) which shall describe how compliance with required
mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the
mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity
cost.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay to the City all
applicable Quimby Act fees or shall provide land in lieu of fees.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall
at least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the
improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer
of all costs incurred by the City to acq,~ire the off-site property interests
required in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs
shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal
report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser
shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an
agreement for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up
truck equipped with a lift mechanism and collection container; thus,
prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said
agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 4
Buildinq S Safety Department
35.
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection.
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances
inspection.
AIlow two ( 2 )
prior to final
Riverside County Fire Department
36.
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.
37.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 C;PM
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.
38.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6"x4"x2 1/2x2 1/2), 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.
39.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation of 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: "1 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 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 per
UBC.
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 5
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
City of Temecula, $~00.00 per unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
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 property~s street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that
perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary
drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage
easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release
of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the issuance
of permits.
On-site 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.
50.
Off-site drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated
drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The
documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to
the issuance of permits.
51.
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 approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
52.
A comprehensive erosion control plan shall be developed, and shall be
implemented immediately following grading to prevent deposition of debris onto
downstream properties or drainage facilities.
53.
An underground concrete storm drain should be constructed as shown in
concept on Exhibit "E" attached hereto, to convey the entire 100 year flow
from the southerly portion of the proposed project to Empire Creek. An
energy dissipator and/or rock slope protection shall be provided at Empire
Creek to prevent erosion of the channel banks and invert. All facilities shall
be constructed to District standards. The offsite portion of the required
drain should be constructed prior to any grading operations on the proposed
project.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 6
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
55.
The developer shall submit four (~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
56.
The developer shall submit four (4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
57.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
58.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
59.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
60.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 7
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared
by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be
required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit.
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities
within the right-of-way.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall
be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s
Office, in addition to any other permits required.
An erosion control plan shall be required in order to protect the project site
and downstream properties.
The erosion control plan shall consider any proposed construction phasing and
be designed to implement improvements as required.
Slopes shall be protected by erosion control measures which shall include the
installation of landscaping and drainage facilities as soon as possible following
the construction of the slopes and related grading.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may
be required.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer·
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 8
68.
All drainage sump conditions shall be provided with a secondary overland
escape into an approved drainage easement, or a storm drain system may be
designed for the 100 year storm plus, 5096 bulking, or as approved by the City
Engineer.
69.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent
property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the
City for review.
70.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
71.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
72.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a.cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
73. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
75.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
76.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
77.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
78.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
79.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
80.
The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 2, 3, and 4.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 9
81.
All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door
openers if driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk.
82.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V.
Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V.
Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
83.
Rancho California Road shall be improved with q3 feet of asphalt concrete
pavement within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 100 (~3'/55').
Moraga Road shall be improved with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 111
( 56'/78' ).
85.
Street "A" shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one
12' lane within a ~5~ dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County
Standard No. 103, Section A (~'/66').
86.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the
event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as
provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the
developer~s cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66~62.5, which shall
be at no cost to the City.
87.
Dedicate a 28 foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access
for all private streets and drives.
88.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
89.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 10
90.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSR~s shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto. and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCSR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCSR's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCBR's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents.
The CCSR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner~s
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCSR's shall provide for the effective establishment. operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
f®
The CCSR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCSR's, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCSR~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be
subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not
promptly reimbursed.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
91.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for westbound Rancho California Road
which includes but is not limited to a 200' left turn lane for southbound Moraga
Road, for northbound Moraga Road which includes but is not limited to a 125~
left turn lane with transitions for westbound Rancho California Road and for
northbound "A" Street which includes but is not limited to a centerline stripe.
These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9. A 11
92.
Design of a traffic signal interconnect to show conduit with pull rope , and
pull box locations along the property fronting the south side of Rancho
California Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans
and must be approved by the City Engineer.
93.
Plans for the traffic signal modification shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the intersection of
Rancho California Road and Moraga Road and shall be included in the street
improvement plans with the second plan check submittal.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
95.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
96.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
97.
All traffic signal modifications shall be installed at their ultimate location and
operational per the City requirements, special provisions, and the approved
traffic signal plan.
98.
All traffic signal interconnects shall be installed per the City requirements
and the approved plan.
99.
"A" Street shall be designed to prohibit left turning movements to and from
Rancho California Road. No median break will be provided on Rancho
California Road to permit these movements.
100. The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for:
5096 of the cost for design and construction of the signal modifications
at Rancho California Road and Moraga Road, with credit given toward
signal mitigation fees.
100% of the cost for design and construction of 1/2 width street
improvements on the west side of Moraga Road from Rancho California
Road to Via Las Colinas.
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 12
101.
In the event that the project becomes a gated entrance community, the gates
shall be set back from the curb line to provide the following storage lengths:
1. Moraga Road entry:
125 feet
2. "A" Street entry:
75 feet
STAFFRPT\TM26549. A 13
Case No.:
Prepared By:
Recommendation: 1,
2.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 19, 1990
Tentative Tract hasp No. 265~9
Plot Plan No. 1086z~
Oilvet Mujica
Adopt Negative Declaration
Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Boyd and Iszler
Markham F, Associates
Construct 260 townhouses on a parcel containing
approximately 22.22 acres.
South of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga
Road.
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
North: R -3-3000
South: R'-3
East: R-2
West: R - 3
· I General Residential)
I General Residential )
(Multiple Family Dwellings)
( General Residential )
Not applicable
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
M~lti-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
No. of Units:
No. of Acres:
Proposed Density:
SWAP Density:
260
22.22
11.70 units per acre
8-16 units per acre
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 1
BACKGROUND:
Plot Plan No. 1086~ was originally approved at the
Riverside County Planning Director's hearing.of
August 7, 1989. The project was approved to
construct a 335 unit apartment complex on the
subject property.
On October 11, 1989, the RiveFside County Planning
Commission considered an aiDpeaL of the Planning
Director's approval. The adjacent property owner.
located to the south, filed the appeal based on the
contention that development would significant|y
increase surface runoff and sufficient measures
were not taken to insure that their downstream
property would not be clamaged. It was the belief of
the appellant that this impact was caused by the
proposed density of the project. After considering
the project, the Riverside County Planning
Coemmission upheld the Planning Director~s approval
of Plot Plan No. 108i~ and denied the appeal based
on the fact that the Riverside County Flood Control
and Conservation District determined there were
adequate provisions made for offsite drainage.
On December 12, 1989, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors referred the appeal of Plot Plan No.
108r~ to the City Council of the City of Temecula.
On January 23, 1990, the City Council considered
and continued this matter "off ca|endaru; and
referred Plot Plan No. 1086~ beck to Staff, in order
to allow the applicant the oppOrtunity to reclesign
the project.
Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Revised Plot
Plae~ No. 101141 were submitted to the City of
Temecula on September 11, 1990.
On September 27, 1990, this project was reviewed
by the Preliminary Development Review Committee
(Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the
project and address any possible concerns, as well
as suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
1. Traffic Imp~t.s
2. Circulation
3. Grading
Drainage
5. Landscaping
STAFFRPT\TM265i&9 2
PROJECT DESCR IPTION:
ANALYSIS:
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss the required supplemental
material in order to address the Pre-DRC's
conCerrlS.
On November 8, 1990, Tentative Tract Map No.
265q~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~ were reviewed by the
Formal Develepment Review ConN~ittee I DRC); and,
it was detemined that the project, as designed, can
be adequately conditloned to mitigate the DRC's
concerns. T he D R C has forwarded a
recommen~atlo~ of approval sub~ct to conditions.
Tentative Tract No. 265~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086z&
proposes to subdivide the subject 22.22 acre site
into a 260 unit townhouse development, with an
overall density of 11.70 units per acre. The
proposed development has been designed in
accorckence with the standards for Planned
Residantial Developments (Section 18.5) and the
R-3-3000 zone.
The proposed project, which is not planned to be
gated, consists of forty-nine IB9) buildings 132
two-story with tuck-under 9aracJes; and 17 two-
story only) and utilizes nine 19) different unit floor
plans, as follows:- -
Two BedroOms
Three Bedrooms
1,161 to 1,266 sq. ft.
1,387 to !, 585 sq. ft.
The project site plan incorporates two 12 ) tennis
courts; a recreation area of approximately 16,500
square feet that features a pool, spa, tot lot, and a
~, 0Oe square foot recreation building; and an open
space area of approximately SI&,000 squar~ feet.
Traffic I mpact.s
The Transportation Eng'meering S-~[ has reviewed
and accepted the findings and mitigation measures
as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared
for Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9 and Plot Plan No.
1086~; and has determined that the proposed project
will have a minimal impact to the existing road
system and given the proposed mitigation measures,
there will be no adverse unmitigable significant
traffic impacts resulting from the development of
this proposed project.
STAFF R PT\TM265~9 3
Access and Circulation
Access into the proposed development from Rancho
California Road is provided by the proposed
construction of an extension to Moraga Road, which
calls for a fifty-six ~ 56' ) foot street section. I n
addition, a secondan/acc~ is provided by the
proposed construction of Lot "A" street, which has
a forty-four I q~' ) foot street section.
The priman/acce~; point, off of Motage Road,
provides two (2) ingress and two (2) egress lanes;
and, a four (~') foot landscaped median, for a total
of sixty 160' ) feet. The secondary access point, off
of Lot 'A' Street, provides one t 1 ) ingress and one
( 1 ) egress lane, for a total of thirty-two ~ 32' ) feet.
An internal, twenty-eight (28') foot wide, private
driveway will provide access to the required
street parking areas. In order to lessen potential
internal vehicular congestion, the Traffic -
Engineering Staff has recommended a condition
which requires automatic garage door openers. in
addition, it should be noted that parking will be
prohibited along the private driveway and shall be
enforced through the CC~,R's.
A meandering sidewalk throughout the project site
provides pedestrial .circulation; and has been
designed to lessen the potential safety hazards by
separating the sidewalk from the driveway.
Both the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Staff,
as well as the Planning Department Sta;;, have
determined that the applicant's proposed access and
circulation are acceptable.
Parkincl
Six hundred, eighty-five I61S) parking spaces are
provided, which exceeds the required 680 peking
spaces under the Development Code (Section
18.12).
Each dwelling unit is provided with a two-car
garage 1520 total spaces), and 165 guest parking
spaces are also provided.
STAFFRPT\TM265a~9 ~
Refuse Collect, ion
With the exception of the recreation center, the
applicant's proposa~ does not provide trash
enclosures. The applicant has indicated that the
trash wild be collected from each individual unit;
and that all units will be provided with a trash
comp~,lor.
In order to lessen the potential safety and noise
concerns, Staff has included the folk>wing condition
in the ref~mme~,~ded Conditions of Approval (see
Condition No. 16d - Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9;
and, Condition hle. 35 - Plot Plan No. 1086~):
"Prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit, the applicant shall enter into
an agreement with inland DislDo~al,
Inc., for the refuse service to include
the utilization of a small p'~k-up truck
equipped with a lift mechanism and
collection container; thus, prohibiting
the entering of large refuse trucks
into the project. Said agreement shall
be submitted to the Planning Director
for approval."
Gradinq and Landform Alteration
The proposed project will generally utilize the
existing contours of the site in order to minimize the
alteration of an exiting, fairly prominent, natural
ridgeline. The gredincj involves approximately
18~, 04)0 cubic yards of excavation and approximately
184),000 cubic yards of fill.
Hydrokxly
The Engineering Staff h~s reviewec~ and accepted
the drainage study prepared for Tentative Tract
Map No. 265~9 and Plot Plan No. 1086~; and has
determined that the proposed mitigation me-eqjres
(Conditions of Approval) will provide for no
adverse unmitigable significant hydrolagy impacts
resulting from the development of this proposed
project,
Drainacre
The proposed project is designed to drain towards
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 5
Rancho California Road and the southerly property
line. The applicant is proposing to construct a
storm drain from the southeast corner of the subject
property with an outlet to Empire Creek, in which
an approval must be obtained from the Riverside
County Flood Control District in order to drain into
the creek, as welt as an easement from Southern
California Edison to construct the proloosed storm
drain.
The app|icant has indicated that there may be a
difficulty in obtaining the necessary easemerits,
from the property owners, in order to drain onto
the adjoining southerhf properties. Therefore. the
appkicant is proposing to oversize the drainage
facilities alom3 the southerly property line in order
to prevent surface rut~-off.
Pedestrian Accessway
The Temecula Valley Unified School District has
noted an existing I unimproved) pedestrian
accessway, within the subject property, which is
currently utilized by the scbxx~ children of Vail
Elementary School located on Mira Loom Drive. The
School District has indicated that an akternative to'
this accessway must be provided in order to obtain
their support of the project.
The School District has indicated that the easement
along Empire Creek is owned by Southern California
Edison (SCE); and that SCE has agreed to dedicate
this property to the City for a bicycle/pedestrian
trail.
The applicant has agreed to ciecikate tan Ill)~) feet
alamg the westeriy property line from Moraga Road
to the Empire Creek easement.
At the time this Staff Report was finalized, the
City's Communkty Services Department had not yet
datemined whether or not the subject eaaement
would be acceptable to the City of Temecula, for use
as a bicycle/pedestrian trail. The concern is due to
the uncertainty of the total costs (including:
engineering design; improvemant~; and
maintenance). Therefore, a rece:._~.a_,clation by the
Community Services Department is not available at
this time. However, it is anticipated that this issue
STAFFRPT\TM266q9 6
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
would be resolved prior to the Planning Commission
meeting of November 19, 1990, in which Staff will
present an update.
Proiect DeskIn
The traditional architectural style features a multi-
level roof line, bay windows and chimneys.
The proposed buildings utilLze the following
matef, ial.
Roof - Concrete Tile Blend
Stucco Walk - Eggshal| "Smooth Texture"
Window/Door Frames - White Paint
Entry Doors - Colonial Blue
Wood Trim - Beige and Gray
After reviewing the app|icant~s renderings, Staff
has determined that the proposed project design is -
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Landsr. a~e
Landscaping is provided throughout the site, in
which the proposed ~8~ landscaping for the site
exceeds the required 10~ under the Development
Code. Trees within the area of the perimeter of the
park, recreation center, tennis courts, primary and
secondary entrance, and along the Rancho
California Road shall comprise of 12q" box ) Ficus
Florida, Meleleuca, Carrot Wood, and Ficus Ratusa.
Staif has determined that the proposed landscape
design is acceptable. In addition, a detailed
landscape plea wili be submitted for aplarova& by the
Planning Deloartment prior to the issuance of
buitdia9 poneits.
The proposed density of 11.70 units per acre is
consistent with the Southwest Area CommunLty Plan
designation of 8-16 units per acre, In eddieion,
Staff finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 7
FINDINGS:
Tentative Tract Map No. 265a~9
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 2651&9 will be consistent
with the City~s future General Plan, which
will be completed within a reasonable time in
accordance with State Law.
10.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in term of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely effect the public health or
welfare.
Tentative Tract No. 265~9 is compatible with
surrounding 'land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is
likely to create a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining propertieS..
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this applicatkm are her·in
incorporated by reference.
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment in that
Stephants Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees are required and archaeological
STAFFRPT\TM2654&9 8
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
An Initial Study was performeck for this project
which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the
environment, no significant impact would result to
the natural or built environment in the City because
the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration has been recommended for
adoption.
FINDINGS:
Tentative Tract Map No. 265~9
There is a reasonable probability that
Tentative Tract No. 265~9 will be consistent
with the CityJs future General Plan, which
will be completed within a reasonable tim in
accordance with State Law.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future and adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zonkn9 laws.
The site is suitab|e to acccx..,K, Jete the
proposed land use in terms of the circulation
patterns, access, and density.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not edversely affect the public health or
we)fire.
Tentative Tract No. 26511,9 is r-J~N~ibte with
surrounding lind uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, density, and cover-age is
likely to create a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned lind usa of the area.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 8
10.
11.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely effect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Initial
Study for this project.
That said findings are supported by minutes.
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application ere herein
incorporated by reference.
The project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment in that
Stephents Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
fees ere required and archaeological
resources are not likely to be found at the
site.
The project will not be detrimental to human
health or safety in that drainage and flood
control measures must be approved by FEMA
prior to map recordation, and the potential
for liquefaction, differential subsidence. and
surface fissuring at the site ere very low. A
soils report must be submitted to the Building
and Safety Departmeat addressin9 soil
stability and geokKjical con/itkms.
Plot Plan No. 108~
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 1086~ will be consistent with the
City's future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
' accordance with State law.
There is net a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning Daws·
The site is suitable to accee,,,KaJete the
propesed land use in tns of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
ST AFFRPT\ TM26ra~9 g
10.
11.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk.
height, intensity. and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property. because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or pinned land use of the are.
The pro)act has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to. and
useable by, vehicular traffic.
The pro)act as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the expanded
initial study performed for this project.
The design of the project emd the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project.
That said findings are supported by minutes.
maps. exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and her,in
incorporated by reference.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff rec~,-,,e,,ds that the
Planning Commission forward the following
recommendations to the City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract Map No. 265q.9 and Plot Plan
No. 1086~;
ADOPT Resolution No. 90- approving
Tentative Tract Map No. 26r~9; based on the
analysis and findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval; and
STAFF R PT\TM2&ra~9 10
OM: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
ADOPT Resolution No. 90- .. aiDproving Plot
Plan No. 1086~, based on the analysis and
findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
Resolution ( Tentative Tract Map No. 2651~9)
Conditions of Approval (Tef~tative Tract Map No. 265~49)
Resolutk~ [Plot Plan hie. 1086~)
Conditions of Approval I PIot Plan No. 1086zl)
Environmental Assessment
Exhibit: Site Plan
City Council Staff Report (dated January 23, 1990)
City Council Minutes Idated January 23, 1990)
Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Boyd and Iszler
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
PO Box 5718
Canyon Lake, CA 92380
(71q) 2q.q.-2823
e
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
October 30, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract Map No. 256~9 and
Plot Plan No. 1086~
6. Location of Proposal:
South of Rancho California Road,
east of Moracla Road
Environmental Impacts
( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached she. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in g~ologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
ee
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 1
fe
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslid·s,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
ae
be
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
Ce
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
ae
be
Substantial changes in Currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rats, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
fe
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
qullity, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes
Maybe N._9o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STA F F R PT\TM265~9 2
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantia) reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tida| waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new spec. ies of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
ae
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT~TM265~9 3
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upsat. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an expiosien or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the propo.sa| alter
the lecation, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Gene,-~iion of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 ~
15.
16.
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Ce
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
ee
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other 'recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
Use of substantial amoum of fuel
or energy?
be
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sourr_e~_ of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFR PT~TM265~9 5
Yes Maybe No
17.
18.
19.
20,
b, Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
ae
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health ) ?
be
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation, Will the proposal result in
an intpact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources,
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or hisbaric
archaeologica|. site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Ce
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal rdstrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 6
Yes Maybe No
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important exampies of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goats? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of tim while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future· )
Does the' project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 7
I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
Earth
1,a.
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a-c.
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort.
There will be substantial grading for this p~oject. However, a
conceptual mass grading plan for the project was zipproved by the City
Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the
Conditions of Approval.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and
results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This
impact is not considered significant.
No. The mass grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross
natural topography of the site in its original condition. While
substantial grading and recontouring of this site will occur in the
immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of
site topography.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will
be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of mural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hyciro-seeding of
disturbed areas after grading. After the project-is completed.
increased water run-off during floods may occur. Water will be
channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage
control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and
designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions
of Approval.
No. Since the project site is net edjacerrt to any creek or stream bed,
the proposed project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any
creek or stream bed.
No. The subject site is designated as subject to liquefaction and
subsidence by the Riverside County General Plan. To mitigate under
hazard, a geolocJical report should be prepared prior to any
construction of the property. The report should include mitigation
measures.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area's air
quality.
STAFFRPT\TM265~9 8
Water
3.a,d-e.
3.b.
3.c.
3.d-g.
3.h.
3.i.
Vecletation
~.a-c.
~.d.
Wildlife
5.a-c.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water
bodies. The proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and
quality of run-off water in the City.
No. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the
ground through the construction of impernteable surfaces on the site.
Run-off will increase but not substantially.
No. Flood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood
channels.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or
quantity of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not impact the public water supply.
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require
proper design and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified
on-site.
No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
No. A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project
analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no individuals of the
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found there is no occupied habitat within
the bounds of the tract map.
Implementation of the tract as proposed will not result in a taking nor
would it result in any adverse effect on the species or on the species'
habitat. In that surrounding lancls to the north, south, east and west
have previously been developed at urban levels of use or ere presently
being developed at such levis of use, preservation of this site as a
reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is now isolated from all
other known colonies by impassable residential and other barriers and
reinvasion of the site is virtually impossible. Implementation of the
project as proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation
other than payment of fees under the Stephe~'s Kangaroo Rat Fee
Ordinance is required.
STAFFRPT~TM2654~9 9
Noise
6.a-b.
No. A noise assessment was prepared for this project.
Analysis indicates that the project site is exposed to significant levels
of noise as a result of traffic on Rancho California Road. However, it
is concluded that the project design, as recommended herein, will
comply with the interior noise exposure standard placed on residential
construction by the County of Riverside and the State's noise insulation
standards.
It is further recommended that the final enginc~-ing design of the
project be reviewed by a recognized acoustical engin::r to ensure
compliance with the County's noise standards.
Liciht and Glare
Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with
applicable lighting standards.
Land Use
No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the
Southwest Area Community Plan.
Natural Resources
9.a-b.
No. This project itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of
natural resources. Construction materials and petroleum products will
be used extensively to support the specific plan project overall.
Risk of Upset
10.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release
hazardous substances nor will it interfere with emergency response
plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 260
units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use
Designation which allows a maximum of units (according to
SWAP ),
Housinq
12.
No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use
will not create a demand for additional housing.
STA FFR PT\TM265~9 10
T ran sportation I C ircu lation
13. a. Maybe.
13. b-e. No.
13. f. Maybe.
The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed
project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has
concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be
significant.
Public Services
14.a-f.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on
public services other than parks and recreational facilities.
Enerqy
15.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or
increase in demand of fuel or energy.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not
require substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse affect on
human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
No. Because the proposed project provides adequate recreational
facilities for the subject residents.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d. No impact.
Mandatory Findingis of Siqnificance
21 .a.
No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or
wildlife species. However, if a project is located within an area
designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees
for the Stephents Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.
STAFFRPT\TM265a&9 11
21 .b.
21 .c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually
limited or cumulativety considerable. nor will they have environmental
affects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
STAFF R PT\TM265~9 12
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~vill be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a Te~
significant ect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC EPORT~
required. "
/ /
October 30, 1990 """'
Date ' ~~~ /M/EC
ten lot
F F T ULA
X
STAFF R PT\ TM265~9 13
/,
i '. VOV.~OW . i
li
iVE iDE cotlnc.
PLannin DEPartmEnt
DATE:
TO:
JANUARY 3, 1990
CITY OF TBMECULA;
FRANK ALSHIRE,
PLOT PLAN NO. 10864
RgQUEST:
Appeal of Planning Commission's approval
of 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22
acres.
LOCATION: South of Rancho California Road and east
of Moraga Road
APPLICANT: Helen Moore Oder
Plannin~ Co·mission and Staff Rscomnd:
A~OPTTON of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No.
33292 based on the conclusion that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment; and
DRqeTAr. Of the Appeal based on the findings and conclusions
incorporated in the staff report; and
~PPROV~T. Of PLOT PIaNNO. 10864, AND. !e0. 2, based on ~he findings
and conclusions in the staff report and subject to the conditions
of approval.
R . reeter Planning Dire r
KJJ:aea
1-3-90
City Nanagate Note:
The prc~oeed Iwoject i· · preYiousty el~ovecl ptot p|en to conltruct · 33S ~l~tt 81:mrtmmt campLax m
Woximtety 22.22 acres Located south of Nanthe CaLifornia Reed and esst of Nor·g· Road. The ·tie, vhtch is
currently vacant, is zoned l-2. Surrounding zoning is l-2, I-]*4alX), I-]-__M~__ end l-). Surrounding Lind uses
inckude mJitifwai Ly and single fmi Ly residence and vaunt property. The project vie ellwaved at the PLanning
Director he·ring of August 7, 1989. The adjacent pre]plrty whets, Locitad to the s4mtll, filed an al3peaL based
on the contention that deveiqmwent veuid significantly increase surface runoff end sufficient Be·lures vere not
taken to insure that their dramstream property uouid not he dieBead.
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46'209 OASIS STF~EET, ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) 342-8277
/ PP ~0e64/4ppE4L
t.
-~000
EXISTING 70NING
.R-3-,3oo_o
CHURCH/.
/"O,'VG
= R'3'3000
C-p ...._, ~Nc~o cAu __
O0
3
SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: October 27, 1989 ~
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN N0, 10864 - Rancho Viego Apartments - \'~
First Supervisorial District - Rancho California Area - 22.22 Acres -
REQUEST: APPEAL of Planning Commission's Approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
The Planning ConTnission and Staff Recon~end:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
No. 33292 based on the findings incorporated in the environmental
assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project will not
have a significant effect on the environment; and,
APPROVAL of PLOT PLAN NO. 10864, in accordance with Exhibit A,
Amended No. 2, based upon the findings and conclusions incorporated
in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 11, 1989; and,
DENIAL OF THE APPEAL based on the findings and conclusions incor-
porated in the Planning Commission minutes dated October 11, 1989.
10/24/89
treeter, lanning Director
tmO imJwm ? 1 -A ( 12/l~l
ih'ev. A4n. ref.
Depts. Comments DisI.
AGENDA NO
MIN ES OF THE BOARD OF SUPER% :)RS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10.2
1:30 p.m. being the time set for further hearing on the
aOoption of the negative declaration for EA 33292 and on the
appeal on the Planning Commission's denial of the application of
~ancho ViegO Apartments in the Rancho California area for Plot
Plan No. 108a~, for a 335 unit apartment complex the Chairman
called the matter for hearing.
The matter was presented Dy Joe Riobards of the Planning
Staff who turned the discussion over to Gerald J. Geeflings,
County Counsel.
Gerry Geeflings, County Counsel, stated it is now in the
juriSdiCatiOn Of the City of Temecula.
On motion of Supervisor Abraham, seconded by Supervisor
Dunlap and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that
the Planning Staff is directed to refer the matter to the City
Council of the City of Temecula.
Roll Call resulted as follows:
Ayes: Ceniceros, Dunlap, Litson and Abraham
Noes: None
Absent: 'Younglove
I hereby ceflily Thal lhe foreloing is · full. lrue and correcl cor~7 of an order made and entered on
nlcemhe~ l~, 1989 of Supervisors Minutes.
WITNESS my hand and The seal of the Board of Supervisors
(seal)
10.2
xc: Planning, Applicant, to. Co., City of Temecula
FliR4 II Oil,
(AGENDA ITEH 5-6 - Tape 3A, 3B)
APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 10864 - EA 33292 - Helen Hoore Oder - Rancho California
Area - First Supervisorial District - 22.2~ acres, south of Rancho California
Rd, southeast of Moraga Rd - PROJECT: 335 unit Aparl3nent Complex - REASON FOR
APPEAL: Appeal of project approval by adjacent property owners
Hearing was opened at 3:23 p.m. and was closed at 3:50 p.m,
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of a Negative Declaration for EA 33292,
approval of Plot Plan No. 10864, Amended No. 2, and denial of appeal of
approval of Plot Plan No. 10864 based on the findings and conclusions listed in
the staff report. Staff advised that the proposed project is a previously
approved plot plan to construct a 335 unit apartment complex on approximately
22.22 acres located south of Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road.
The site, which is currently vacant, ts zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-2,
R-3-4000, R-3-3000 and R-3. Surrounding land uses include multifamily and
single family residences and vacant property. The project was approved at the
Planning Director hearing of August 7, 1989. The adjacent property owners,
located to the south, filed an appeal based on the contention that development
would significantly increase surface runoff and sufficient measures were not
taken to insure that their downstream property would not be damaged. The
appellant Indicated that she would not be available to attend the public
hearing until November, but staff scheduled this item for hearing on the first
available date in order to move it along In an expeditious manner.
TESTIHONY OF APPELLANT:
Robert Oder (29923 rJira Loma Drive, Temecula) said that he was the son of the
appellant. He said that his parents are overseas and cannot attend this
hearing, but would make theeselves available as soon as they come back.
Therefore, he asked that this item be continued. When asked, Hr. Oder said
that he believed that his parents will be returning on October 19th. Staff
advised that possible cbntinuance dates were suggested. In answer to
Commissioner Purviance, Mr. Oder said that his mother has an attorney but he
was also unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Oder said that his mother
suggested that November 15th would be an appropriate date.
TESTIHONY OF PROJECT PROPONENT:
Grant Becklund (647 N. Hmtn Street, Riverside), representing the project
applicant, Indicated on a mylar exhtblt of the subject site that the upper
portion showed the existing drainage conditions. He noted that the stte has a
ridge that runs through the property in an east/west direction. The lower
portion (in blue) drains to the south onto the Oder's property and the yellow
portion drains out towards Rancho California Road. The bottom exhibit showed
the drainage pattern which will occur after the project is built out. The
conditions from the Flood Control District require that they do not change the
drainage areas, but maintain the drainage patterns as they exist. They are
also requtred to place the water onto the offsite property in the same manner
as the drainage presently occurs.
Mr. Becklund said that he met with Robert Oder and offered a $12-13,000 offsite
storm drain which would deliver the water underground further south and on to
Empire' Creek. Tht.~ storm dratn would be butlt at his cltent's cost and would
alleviate any concerns that the Oders had concerning water gotng onto thetr
property. The only thing the Oders had to do was to provide an easement so the
storm drain could be constructed. Mr. Becklund said that that proposal was
evidently not satisfactory. He said that he knows the Oders are asking for a
continuance, but he was requested that a decision be made today. They have
done what the rules require them to do. The Flood Control District has
conditioned then so that they cannot drain all the water onsite to to Rancho
California Road. He did not believe a continuance would gain anyone anything.
Commissioner Purviance said that he did not believe the water in the blue area
could be diverted. I~r. Becklund concurred, but said that that was the opinion
expressed at the Director Hearing. Nrs. Oder wanted them to take all onsite
water and drain it towards the north. He felt that they went an extra step in
offering to build the underground storm drain, but they are not getting
anywhere. He did not want another month's continuance.
In answer to Commissioner Turner, I~r. Becklund said that the Flood Control has
conditioned them to be within one acre of a match in drainage. John Kashuba,
Flood Control District, said that they do not want to see the blue area
changed. Commissioner Turner asked about the proposed underground diversion to
Empire Creek. Mr. Kashuba said that the Flood Control District would be
satisfied with something less, but the underground drain could be done, if the
applicant could acquire the easement.
REBUTTAL:
Mr. Oder said that he was not fully prepared to present this case, but what he
heard scared him. He lived on one of the properties immediately south of this-
tract when the 100 year flood occurred ten years ago, and he personally
witnessed what happened. If they take a nondeveloped piece of land and pave
it, then water that used to soak into the ground will be put into pipes and
sent on in concentrated fashion to those areas which are presently ice plant
landscaping. The place where the water ends up eventually is Empire Creek,
which is the southwest boundary of the parcel to the south. He said that this
is an extrenely sensitive area. During the 100 year flood the water got so
high, the buildings nearly washed away and people had to be moved out. Now,
they are talking about sending more water onto those apar)ent~. He said that
there are several other problem with the design and documentation, and those
problems are substantial, but he was not prepared or qualified to present them.
He said that water runoff was not one of those problems, but that some of those
problems ware significant. If his parents are not able to attend soon, then he
will prepare and present the case to the Commission. Their downstream property
has been substantially damaged by a project that was approved.
Commissioner Purvtance said that he read the letter from the law firm and noted
that there was quite a btt of staff, with partners and associates. It seened
to him that there could have been seemone from that firm who could have
artended today. Mr. Ocler said that he wished that they had. He has been told
of some of the issues; however, without documentation, he could not bring them
up. He was very concerned that Mr. Kashuba said that he would approve the
concentration of storm runoff. He suggested that there might be some facts
that Mr. Kashuba was not aware of.. Mr. Oder-said that they have owned and
operated the two properties for 15 years and have seen what happens tn that
area. Mr. Oder went to the exhtbtt to state that where the stte plan shows
"storm drains to existing channel ," and satd that there Is no existtng channel.
i(owever, if a storm drain is put there, then there wtl] be a channe]. He
indicated where the proposed underground storm dratn would go. He said that
they have had problems with Empire Creek, where the proposed drain is to empty,
and expressed concern about anymore water betng dumped into that Creek. He
felt that thts needed further study. He also discussed the storm dratn with
Mr. Kashuba. Hr. Oder satd that the storm dratn and easemeht was origlnal]y
his idea, and he presented that idea to Hr. Becklurid.
Mr. Kashuba said that he heard general agreement that the drainage problem
could be taken care of with the pipe. It was Mr. Oder's suggestion to put the
pipe in, and it seemed like a good suggestion. He heard that there were other
matters, but they did not sound like ones that he could speak to. Commissioner
Smith asked about the discharge where the drain would terminate. Mr. Kashuba
said, if designed properly, the discharge could be handled by the drain. He
said that the Creek itself has problems, but not necessarily as a result of
water from this property. Mr. Oder said that the runoff would be increased
from the developed property. Commissioner Beadling said from the way the
drainage is shown, that in a 100 year flood, the water would not flow straight
down and hit the Creek in a "V" shape. Mr. Oder said that the stream changes
course. Mr. Kashuba said that he was not aware which storm frequency hit this
area ten years ago. Mr. Oder said that it was classified as a 100 year flood.
Mr. Kashuba said that there were several points where damage was done, and at
one point the walkway of the existing aparl;nents were eroded underneath. There
were also soma construction going on, and both water and mud caused
considerable damage.
Commissioner Turner asked if this item could be appealed further. Ms. Lind
advised that it could be appealed to the Board. Commissioner Turner saicX that
he could understand the appellant's concern. On the other hand, in giving
people the right to make an appeal, they also have the responsibility to be
available to represent the case; in not in person, then by counsel. He did not
believe a delay was fair to the applicant.
f4r. Oder said that the topic was brought up with the Planning Deparl:nent and
they had several discussions regarding scheduling. He said that he had a
letter (a memorandum of understanding) dated September 25, 1989 which was the
result of a telephone call between Ms. Dobson, Planning staff, and one of their
people. The letter is from Jean Van Ness (Legal Assistant to E. Ludlow Keeney,
jr., of Mitchell, Keeney, 8arry & Pike) in reference to the telephone call,
where they were led to believe that the appellants would not have to be at the
hearing, or they would have been. He said that they understand and respect the
responsibility they have to present the case that they started. However, they
were given
in omitton indicating that this course of action was acceptable.
Mr. Streeter asked Ms. Dobson to mike her position clear. Mr. Dobson said that
when she spoke to the attorney's assistant on the phone, she was asked if the
appellant needed to be there. Ms. Dobson advised that she said that staff was
going to mike a recommendation, and whether or not the item is acted upon or
continued was entirely up to the Planning Commission. ~. Dobson said that she
could not commit to the attorney's assistant. Mr. Oder said that he was not a
party of the telephone call, so he could not argue the position. Commissioner
Purvtance said that Mr. Oder does not have any evidence tn hand as to how
Dobson responded, except the lawyer's offtce's Interpretation of the
conversation. The letter may be the understanding of one party, but may not be
the understanding of the other party. Hr. Oder said that he understood.
Ms. Lind asked, for the record, tf Ms. Dobson ever Indicated to Jean P. Van
Hess that a decision could not be made without the appellan't's presence at the
hearing. Ms. Dobson advtsed that she did not. Commissioner Turner said that
Mr. Oder did an admirable job with the small amount of information that he had,
and that the appellant has a further right to appeal, which would not hold up
the applicant. Mr. Oder said that there were other substantial issues besides
the one of storm water runoff. Commissioner Purviance said that they have not
discussed nor have received any evidence of those issues.
Commissioner Bead ling said that she personally belt eyed that there was a water
problem, but that she also believed that it is up to the person who is
appealing to have someone present when the case comes up. ~4r. Oder said that
he was not a party to the telephone call, but he did not believe that Ms. Van
Hess "dreamed it up."
P.r. Streeter said that no one on his staff is going to tell someone that a
decision will not be made when an item is scheduled for hearing. He felt that
the real issue is one of flooding, and Mr. Kashuba has said that he is
comfortable with the conditions the way they appear on this plot plan. Also,
that there are some solutions to the problem, which he believed was the key.
They do not need any more information, as they have relied on the Flood Control
engineers in the past and he sees not reason to-change that now.
Hr. Oder responded to that statement by saying that, yes, the Flood Control
District is the authority here,. but he felt that the history frcxn the 100 year
flood proves that Flood Control makes substantial mistakes. He said that they
will not see that happen again.
The hearing was closed at 3:50 p.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Plot Plan 10864 is an approved request to construct
a 335 unit apartment complex on 22.22 acres; the site is located south of
Rancho California Road and east of Moraga Road in the Rancho California area;
Plot Plan 10864 was continued from the July lOth to the August 7th Planning
Director's Hearing due to flooding concerns raised by an adjacent property
owner; the August 7th decision was deferred and the subsequent determination
made that flood mitigations required were adequate; Plot Plan 10864 was
approved on August 8, 1989 by the Planning Director; the site is vacant,
surrounding by vacant land and apartment complexes; the site is zoned R-2;
surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3, R-3-3000, R-3-4000 and C-l/C-P; environmental
concerns include slopes, grading, noise, biological and archaeological
resources; the General Plan calls for Category I and II uses in this area; the
I~roposed project meets the criteria for Category I residential development; the
Southwest Area Co, mnuntty Plan shows a tentatively approved designation of 8-16
DU/acre; the appellant°s stated basis for appeal is the contention their
downstream property would be severely damaged by runoff from PP 10864 during
the '100 year flood"; and, the appellant objects tot he property development
because of runoff concerns and becau.~e of the density of the project. Plot
Plan No. 10864 Is consistent with Ordinance 348, Category I residential
criteria, the General Plan, and with the tentatively approved Southwest Area
Community Plan; Plot Plan 10864 ts compatible wtth area development;
environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of Insignificance; the
Planning Department defers to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Conservation DIstrict in matters of flood control; and, Riverside County Flood
Control and Conservation District determined there were adequate provisions
made for offsite drainage, therefore, staff cannot support the appellant's
appeal request.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner, seconded by Commissioner Beadling,
and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the Negative Declaration for EA
33292, approved Plot Plan 10864, Amended 2, subject to the conditions of
approval, but denied the appeal of Plot Plan 10864, Amended No. 2, based on the
above findings and conclusions.
Zoning Area: Rancho California
Ftrst Supervtsortal Dtstrtct
E.A. Number 33292
Regional Team No. I
APPEAL OF PLOT PtM NO. 10864
RIVERSIDE COIMTY PLAMIIING DEPARTMEMT
STAFF IEPOItT
1. Applicant:
2. Type of Request:
3. Location:
4. Existing Zoning:
5. Surrounding Zoning:
6. Site Characteristics:
7. Area Characteristics:
Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
9. Land Division Data:
10. Agency Recommendations:
11. Letters:
12. Sphere of Influence:
Helen rioore Oder
Appeal of Planning Director's
approval.
South of Rancho California Road
East of Moraga Road
R-2
R-2, R-3-4000, R-3-3000, R-3
Vacant, moderate to severe slopes.
Vacant, multi-family and single
family residences.
Land Use: Category I
Denst ty: 8-20 du/ac
Open Space/Cons: Areas not
Designated
Total Acreage: 22.22
Total Lots: 1
DU Per Acre: 15
See letters dated:
Road: 4-14-89
Hea 1 th: 4-03-89
F1 ood: 4-19-89
Ft re: 4-04-89
Bldg, & Safety -
Land Use: 4-20-89
Grading: 12-01-89
Health-Special Services: 7-07-89
Co, Geologist: 6-05-89
Opposing/Supporting: None received
Not within a City Sphere
ANALYSIS:
Pro,tect Description:
Plot Plan No. 10864 was submitted as a request to construct a 335 unit
apartment complex on 22,22 acres, The site is located south of Rancho
California Road and east of Moraga Road in the Rancho California area.
APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN 10864
Staff Report
Page 2
Project Background
Plot Plan No. 10864 was first heard at the Planning Direct~r's hearing on July
10, 1989 where it was continued to allow time for investigation of flooding
concerns raised by adjacent property owners. At the August 7, 1989 Planning
Director's hearing the adjacent property owner's, the Oders, indicated they
were still not satisfied their downstream property would not be damaged by
run-off. The Hearing Officer deferred decision for one week to confer with the
Flood Control District. On August 8, 1989 (see letter attached} the
determination was made that the existing conditions of approval were sufficient
to mitigate the concerns raised on July 10 and August 7, and the project was
approved.
Land Use/Zoning:
The site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include apartments to the
north and south, commercial and vacant land to the west, and a horse ranch to
the east. The site is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning includes R-2, R-3,
R-3-3000, R-3-4000, and C-1/C-P.
ProJect Consistency:
The project site is with the Rancho California subarea of the Southwest
Territory Land Use Planning Area. Policies for future land uses indicate uses
should generally be Category I and II. Plot Plan No. 10864 meets the criteria
for Category I residential land uses, and the applicable requirements of
Ordinance No. 348.
The site has a tentatively approved designation of 8-16 du/ac on the Southwest
Area Community Plan.
Environmental Anmlysh:
The initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 indicated the
following concerns; slopes, noise,biological and archaeological resources, and
grading. Studtes were prepared to address all the issues and mitigation
measures were incorporated in the conditions of approval when applicable.
Basis for Appeal:
The appellant's primary lasts for appeal (see attached statement dated 8-22-89)
is tn re ards to the potential dama to thetr downstream property (adJacent to
the south) due to triadequate provisions on Plot Plan No. 10864 for runoff
control durtng the "100 Year Flood". The appellant contends they are not
legally required to accept runoff from upstream properties. The Riverside
County Flood Control and Conservation Dtstrtct's letter dated 11-30-88, Item
#2, does require a drainage easement to be'obtained from affected property
owner's for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows prior to the
APPEAL OF PLOT FLAIl 10864
Staff Report
Page 3
issuance of peruits. Therefore, the appellant would have the opportunity to
review improvement and gradtrig plans and refuse to grant' an easement tf they
were not satisfactory. The appltcant's engineer (Grant Becklund) indicated to
staff they had offered to construct a dratn on the appellants property in order
to insure prevention of flood damage. The appellant apparently did not feel
this was sufficient protection and subsequently filed an appeal of the Planning
Director's approval of Plot Plan 10864. The Basis for Appeal states that the
appellant ts "vehemently" opposed to the proposed project due to both runoff
concerns and the project's lack of open space. At the ttme the application for
appeal was submitted on August 23, 1989 the appellant Indicated she would be
out of town until November and requested a hearing date during that month.
Staff subsequently informed that appellant that Ordinance 348 required the
Planning Department to schedule appeals within 30 days. On September 18, the
appellant's attorney submitted a letter again requesting a hearing date in
November. For the reason stated above staff could not acconmnodate the request.
It is staff's position that it is in the best Interest of all parttes concerned
to expedtte this matter as soon as possible.
FINDINGS:
1. Plot Plan 10864 is an approved request to construct a 335 unit apartment
complex on 22.22 acres.
2. The site is located south of Rancho California Road and east of Horaga
Road in the Rancho California Area.
Plot Plan 10864 was continued from the July lOth to the August 7th
Planning Director's hearing due to flooding concerns raised by an adjacent
property owner.
4. The August 7th decision was deferred and the subsequent determination made
that flood mitigations required were adequate.
5. Plot Plan 10864 was approved on August 8th, 1989 by the Planning Director.
6. The site is vacant surrounded by vacant land and apartment complexes.
7. The stte is zoned R-2. Surrounding zoning is R-2, R-3, R-3-3000,
R-3-4000, and C-Z/C-P.
8. Environmental concerns tnclude slopes, grading noise, biological and
archaeological resources,
9. The General Plan calls for Category I and II uses in this area. The
proposed project meets the criteria for Category I residential
development.
APPEAL OF PLOT PL4JI 10864
Staff Report
Page 4
10. The Southwest Area Community Plan shows a tentatively approved designation
of B-16 Du/Acre.
The appellant's stated basis for appeal is the contention their downstream
property would be severely damaged by runoff from PP 10864 during the "100
Year F1 ood."
12. The appellant objects to the proposed development because of runoff
concerns, and because of the density of the project.
CONCLUSIONS:
Plot Plan No. 10864 is consistent with Ordinance 348, Category
residential criteria, the General Plan, and with the tentatively approved
Southwest Area Community Plan.
2. Plot Plan 10864 is compatible with area development.
3. Environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
e
The Planning Department defers to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Conservation. District in matters of flood qontrol. Riverside County Flood
Control and Conservation District detemined there were adequate
provisions made for off-site drainage, therefore staff cannot support the
appellant's appeal request·
RECOIIIENDATIONS:
ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33292 based
on the finding the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment; and,
APPROVAL of PLOT PLAII l). 10864, MIENOIl NO. 2, based on the findings and
conclusions in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval; but,
DENIAL of the appeal based on the ftndtngs and conclusions in the staff report.
LD:bc;sc
9/25/89
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS Of AP;ROVAL
Rancid vqeJo Apartments
P.:st Off~ce Bcx 5718
Canyon LaKe, CA 92360
PLOT PLAN NO. 10854. Amended NC.
Proaec~ DescrlD~lon: Tc GCnS~rur'
a 335 ur-,lt aDar~men~
Assessor's Parce'~ NO.:
Area: RanGno California
Tt~e iDer,,'.~tLee sna]i cle~end. indemnify. and ~ol3 r, arm]ess T.r,e
COurt) of I~vers~de, ~ts agents. off'cots. ant em:,:c~ees fro~
an,' :~.a~m~., ac.-.lon. or 13r'oceedlng against. tr:e Co~r,t:,'
~.vers~cle or its agents, of~lcers. or emP, lcyees to att.~c~'.
aside, v:~lc~. ,jr annd). an aDor-cva] of ,the County o~
~ts aa,.~-:o-) age~cles. appeal I;oarcls. or ~eg';s~a.*.~.e
ccncer~]n-] J:]ot Plan 10864. Amended' No. 2 E',~=l:.~t ~
Count) of I~vers'~de will PrOmPt]> notify ,the Dermlttee c',t ar~y
s~cl~ c'a~m. action:. c, proceeding against tP.e Count>' or
t; ~,/9rsl'Je acd w; ] ] cooperate fu]] y in the defense. if
CCur]Cy fal]s to DrcmDt]y notify ~he DermlCtee of any s~cn
claim, action or C~oceed~ng or fa~]s to cooperate fully in the
Oefense, the permattee shall not. thereafter. De responsible
to ~efene. ~demP~fy. or ho!O harmless the County
~ ~ ve rs ~ ~e.
This approval shall be used warbin two (2) years of approval
dace; otherwise it shal] Oecome nu]] and void and of no effec;
whatsoever. By use ~s meant the beginning of substantial
construction conCemp]aCed Oy th~s approva] withan the two (2)
year period which ia thereafter di]~genC]y Oursued tc
comp]e~ion, or the Diginning of subs~antia] ut~]lzat~or
contemplated Uy this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform suUstan~ally
with ,that as shown on plo% plan marked ExhiDit A, Amended
2, or as amended Oy these conditions,
the event the use hereDy permitted ceases operation for a
period of one (1) year or more. this approval s~a11 Oecome
null and void.
7
l:.
°4.
15.
15.
:E' : -..,
The &o: ' 1 c.~rlt ~ha 11 ;om;D 1 y w ~ tr. t!',e r'ecomn,en..~t ~ c.-,~: .ca t ". ' ~ ·
in the Depar~n~nt of Health transm~ttal Oate~ t,~ c- ' 'O.:. ~
Jul~ ?, IgBg. a co~y of wh~c~ ~s attacnea. t Csrrectea
Dir~ctor'~ He~r~ng
The applicant shall comply with the Eisinore
reCOmmendatIOnS datea NovamDer 14.
All landscapea areas shall be planted ~n accorCance
aDDroved landscape. irrq~atlon and sha~nq plan5 prior
issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sDr~n~,ler s'vs~em
shall be Installed and all land~capea areas sr, a',~
ma~nta~,lea in e v~ble growth cc,:~:tio.~. P~ntlr~
(10) feet of an entry or ex'mt arl~e.a~ ~ha): nc.t be
to gr'o~ h~gher than thirty (~0) ~,~cl~es.
PLOT PLAN NO. 10B64
Ccqd~t~ons of Approval
Page 4
2;
PrlOr tO +,he ~ssuance of DuiIC~lr%g De~-m~ts, the a;D~!cant sha~i
obtain c]eJr~nce a:~/cr Oerm~ts from 1:no follower9 aq,~ncqe;-:
Road DeDar;ment
Environmental Health
R~vers~de County Floo~ Cc>n~rcl
F~re DeDartmen~
Written evidence of comE118nce shall De presented to ~ne Long Ds~
D~s~Jn of ~he DeDar~men~ of Building and Safe~x.
22.
Building elevations sna]] be ~n suDstant~a]]y ConFormante ~
tkat shown on ExhlOlt M-2,
Mate- lals used in the constructlet, of a'l 1 ~u~ ~C~:-.u-~ ~:f-..~] I te
',~ substarwtlal conformante ~th that ShOwn
,OcelOt Elevations ~ ..~r~ E,~lbl~ M-1 (Materials
~re ~ fO! 'OwE:
Mate..-~al
Rcc. f T~!e Clay Re~
wa; l -.- ~ Accent
Paint
X-50 CryStal
w~ ndow G1 ass C )ear
walls Stucco .White'
25,
26.
27,
Roof-mounted equipment shall De shielded from ~round v~e~.
Screening mater~a) shall be subject to Planning Depa,'tmept
approval.
N~ne (91 trash enclosures which are adequate to enclose 8
total of two bins each shall be centrally located w~th~n the
project. and ehall be constructed prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be s~x feet ~n height
and shall be made with masonry block and a gate which screens
the bins from external view.
All street l~ghtl and other outdoor lighting shall De shown
on electrical plans suOm~tted to the Department of Bu~ldqng
and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply w~th the
requirements of R~vers~de County Ordinance No, 655 and the
R~vers~de COunty Comprehensqve General Plan,
Four (4) Class II b~cyc!e racks shall De provided ~n
convenient )ocatqons to facilitate b~cycle access to the
project area.
R
I / ~p 10864 / 4PPEA~
· ~P 15864 - Amend #2
April 14, 1989
Page 3
15.
16.
9e
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to
Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard
Specifications.
Projects 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.
All entrance driveways 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 50 feet measured from face of curb.
The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient
public offsite rights of way to provide for full width
right of way on "A" Street. Said right of way shall be
improved to the nearest paved maintained road in accordance
with Riverside County Standard No. 103, Section A.
(44'/66') at a grade and alignment approved by the Road
Commissioner. Curb and gutter on project site only;
asphalt concrete dike may be required for drainage control.
Street lights shall be installed in accordance with
Ordinance 460 and 461 at all intersections of roads
constructed or improved within the development. The County
Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the
development is within an existing .assessment district. If
not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO
for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in
pursuant to Governmental Code Section 56000 st. seq.
All private and public entrances and/or intersections
opposite this project shall be coordinated with this
project and shown on the street improvement plans. Street
design and improvement concept shall be coordinated wish PP
9195 and PP 8328.
A striping plan is required for aoraga Road and Rancho
California Road. 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.
Principal Eng. Technician
LJ:Jw
KINNITH L. m~DWARDI
CNIIIm INOINmmIM
till MAItKrr ITIIIIT
Ira, O. IOX IOI3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Rivers i de County .,v.e,om. cAL,ro,.,. easoz
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention: Regional Team No.
Area: '~¢~m~c)lo ~m~k'~/t~CL~m~"'~
Re:
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
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rGlesArea
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 N~Y 3o~Ii~S is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached coments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. El)WARDS
N'H. I~HUBA
or Civil Engineer
DATE:
C unty of River,
TO:
FROM:
RE:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: April 3,1989
: v a ten
ONI~ENTAL, HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
PLOT PLAN 10864, Alandad No. 2
Environmental Health Services ham reviavad Amended No.2
dated March 30, 1989. Our current cosants rill remain
as seated in our memo dated November 18, 1988.
SN:tac
· APR ~ '~u~ ~
RIVERStOE (~Jlfr/
~.,..?JqNING D~?.~''''' "T
GEN FORM 4, (Key 8/87)
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
R I VERS I DE COUNTY PLANN I N(3 DEPT.
ATTN: Alex Gann
Steve Hinds, St.
Plot Plan 10864
Sanitation,
DATE:
Environmental
11-18-88
Health Svcs DXv
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot
Plan 10864 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and
water servlces are available in this area. Prlor to any
bulldlng plan submittals, the followzng items will be
required:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the water and
sewsring agencies.
..Three complete sets of plans for the
swimming pool/spa viII be submltted,
in order to ensure compliance wzth the
California Administrative Code. CalifornZa
Health and Safety Code and the Unlform
BuXldin~ Code.
SH:tac
GIN. FOiIM 4, (Rev. 8/8T)
K/NNrrH L. I:DWARDS
CNIIF INOIN&IR
reel MARKET ITRICT
P. O. BOX 1013
TBL.EJIt4ONI (714)
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IIIVilIIIDI. CAI, IIrORNIA IllOf
Re:
Attention: Regional Team No.
Area: ~(~m~c~o ~m~k'~/t.;CZm~an
PP
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
drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea
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 Oistrict's report dated Nw 3o/IqtS is still current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWAROS
t~f';gt~
N'H. I~ASHUBA
or Civil Engineer
DATE:
KINNrrH L. IDWAR~I
CNILIF INIINlI31
I III MARKI"r ITR![?
P. O. BOX 1033
TELEPHONE (714)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVIrRIIDI. CALIFORNIA IZIOl
November 30, 1988
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
Attention:
Regional Team No. 1
Alex Gann
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Plot Plan 10864
This is a proposal to construct an apartment complex in the
Rancho California area. The 22.22 acre site is located on the
southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Horaga Road,
This site lies on a ridge with little or no tributary offsite
runoff. The developer proposes to drain the site with interior
streets and storm drains. The site plan shows a diversion to the
north of about 4 acres which should drain to the south.
The Board of Supervisors has adopted the Hurt,eta 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 Dralnage 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 Pub110 Use Cases be required to pay a flood mitigation
charge. MItigation charges, where appropriate, w111 be slmtZar
to the current Area Dralnage Plan fee rate.
Following are the Dtstrtct'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 thls case includes a total of 20.88 acres.
At the current fee rate of $932 per acre, the mitigation
charge equals $19,q60. The charge is payable to the
Flood Control District prior to lssuance of permits. If
Area Drainage Plan fees or mitigation charges have al-
ready been pald on thls 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.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Re: Plot Plan 1086~
November 30, 1988
The property's street and lot grading should be designed
in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural
drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage
area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a
drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property 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
prlor to the issuance of permits.
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 dralnage facilities should be located within
publlcly dedicated dralnage easements obtained from the
affected property owners. The documents should be re-
corded and a copy submitted to the Dtstrlct prior to the
issuance of permits.
A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along
wlth supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations
should be submitted to the District for revlew and .ap-
proval prior to the issuance of.grading or building
permits.
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Krls Flanigan
of this office at 71q/787-2333.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Chief Engineer
JOHN H. KASHUBA
Senior Civil Engineer
cc: Palmer-Namdar Engineering
KF:bab
city Counc~ Minu~es
Jmnu~ry 23. 1990
i]
~r
~he
3
F:
|#
ith
PUBLIC H~ARING
Plot p1 an !~o. 10864 - Aortas1 of p1 In-lug Commissions e s
aeorOvsl Of 335 Un4t lDa-ttent Colqplev on 22,22 Acres.
Mayor Parks declared ~he Public Hearing open at 8:46 p.m. and
explained =he process for hearing all interested parcies.
Staff Re;oR
City Manager Frank Aleshire introduced County of Riverside
Planning staff member Laurie Dobson who gave ~he staff report
outlining ~/le history of ~he zoning considerations on the
subject property. She explained ~/le basis upon which ~he
appeal had been filed.
Councilmember Lindemans questioned if ~he provisions of the
Quimby Act had been met for this project. He also inquired
if the park fees had been paid.
N t antes \ 1 \Z3\gQ - 5 -
C~tv Council Minutes
J-nuary 23. 1990
Richard McCatt, principal planner for the County of
Riverside, responded stating that only he didn't know if this
project is subject to park fees.
ADDliCant Presentation
The applicant, Stan Steel, 13555 Plantation Way, Moreno
valley, addressed the Council, expressing a willingness to
return to the City Council with the specific landscaping plan
showing the percentage of open space and play areas. He also
stated that the figure of 1,800 additional residents would
represent 5-6 residents per apartment, which in his opinion
could not be determined prior to actual occupancy.'
Grant Beckland, 647 North Main, Riverside, engineer for the
project, presented a map showing how drainage is being
handled.
Mayor Parks questioned the position of the retaining wall
adjacent to the appellants proper~y.
Mr. Beckland showed a map detailing the retaining wall and
percentage of the grade slope at Los Colinas.
Councilmember Lindemans questioned the street access for the
project. Mr. Steel pointed-out two points of entry and exit,
one from Moraga Road and one from the cul-de-sac off Rancho
California Road.
City Manager Aleshire requested a report from the developer
regarding the fees being paid for public improvements. The
applicant responded that fees were being paid for traffic
signalization, fire mitigation, flood mitigation, Kangaroo
Rat litigation fees, and building permit fees.
Appellant Presentation
Robert Oder, 29923 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, addressed the
City Council speaking in opposition to the proposed apartment
development. He addressed the history of ~/le project and
presented his continuing concerns about the project. He
advised the Council that the project represents a 53%
increase in density over his neighboring apartment project.
Tamar Stein, Esq., of Cox, Castle and Nicholson, 2049 Century
Park East, Los Angeles, representing the appellants outlined
the points covered in her letter to the City Council dated
January 19, 1990. Her testimony stressed concerns regarding
the incompleteness of the project file currently in the
II | rtutes \ 1 '~3\90 -6- 02/091g0
C{ty Counct~ MInutes
Jsn,,srv 23, 1990
City's possession. In summary, she stated the environmental
assessment was not complete enough for the Council to support
the recommendation of the County Planning Department.
Roberic Oder, St., 29911 Mira Loma Drive, #63, Temecula, spoke
to the matter of retaining the current topography. In
response to a question from Mayor Parks, he stated that there
is not an existing flood control easement across his
property. In response to a question from Councilmember
Lindemans, Mr. Oder stated the density of his apartment
project is 12.18 units per acre.
Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive #63, Temecula, requested
~hat the Council consider the fragility of the Empire Creek.
Public InPUt
Ron Fortson, Assistant Superintendent of Schools,
representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District,
requested the City Council allow the School District time to
assess the impact regarding the number of students this
project will generate.
Jean Sparkman, 30554 San Pasqual, Temecula, representing the
Temecula School Board requested denial of this project based
on the n,,mher of additional pupils it will generate.
Steve Sander, 40213 Holden 'Circle, Temecula spoke in
opposition to the project because of the limited open space
and because of the lack of input by citizens of Temecula
during the planning process.
Jim Allmon,
are already
congestion.
43594 Gatewood Way, Temecula stated that there
too many apametns and too much traffic
John Cloghen, 41304 Bravos Court, Temecula spoke in
opposition to ~he staff recommendation, citing the traffic
congestion and crime rates in rental properties.
Rebuttal
Grant Becklurid said there is a need for a flood control
easement and ~hat ~he school impacts were addressed during
the approval process at the staff level.
NJnul:u\l~a3'~ 4- 0~/09/90
City Counc~ ~nute~
J~nuary 23. 1990
Stan Steele said he believes the developers have adequately
addressed environmental concerns in the planning of this
project. He stated that he would look favorably on a
continuance to allow the developers to explore the City's
criteria which differs from that of the County.
The owner, Mr. Tony Boyd responded to a question from
Councilmember Lindemans tJlat he might not be the builder of
the project if further delays occur.
Mayor Parks declared the public hearing closed at 10:15 p.m.
Councilmember
considerations
topography.
Lindemans spoke regarding the density
and the need to respect the existing
Mayor Parks expressed his concern regarding the changes in
topography inherent in the design. He also outlined his
concerns about ~he retaining walls and agreed that the
criteria has changed as a result of the City's incorporation
and involvement in these projects.
City Attorney Scott Field outlined the Council's options as
follows:
1. Approve =he project and deny the appeall
2. Approve the project and add new conditions.
Reopen the hearing and continue the project to a date
certain with instructions to staff for considerations to
be addressed at the next hearing·
Deny the project subject to staff preparing a resolution
reflecting the findings which confirm the denial·
It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by
Councilmember Lindemans to deny Plot Plan 1086 subject to the
appropriate resolution to be prepared by City staff
reflecting the appropriate findings·
Tony Boyd, owner, responded to a question from Councilmember
Moore, that he would prefer to see the project given the
opportunity to make modifications rather than compelling them
to starc over again with the entire development process·
Councilmember Munoz withdrew the motion on the floor and
Councilmember Lindemans withdrew the second·
1~ i flutes\ 1%a3\~0 -I- Oal O e lgg
C.ttv Council Minutes
J~n,,arv 23, 1990
Councilmember Birdsall questioned the necessary time frame
needed by the developers to address the concerns expressed by
the City Council during the deliberations..
It was moved by Councilmember
Councilmember Lindomens to continue
additional five (5) minutes.
Munoz, seconded by
the meeting for an
The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by
Councilmember Lindemans to continue the matter "off calendar"
and refer it back to staff.
The motion was unanimously carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS
Birdsall, Lindemans
Moore, Munoz, Parks
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS
None
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by
Councilmember Munoz to extend the'meeting to 11:00 p.m. The
motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember LAndsmarts left the chamber at 10:37 p.m.
nut es ~ 1 \Z3\ fO - 9- 0;Z109190
6ABEL COOK & BECKLUND TEL No.714-788-5~84 Nov.2?,90 17;08 P.05
'..:';T:.t.:,,' ....' ............
COx. CASTLE 8 NICHO!.SON
LAWYI, KS
E~4GI Cf F~eUIY IANK rA~3'r
r'J%CSI~eli-IP 11:31 ~77-719D
November 20, 1989
(213) 284-2248
FAX
Grant
G~bel, Cook & Becklund
647 North M~i~ ~treet, Suite 1-~
Riverside, California 92501
Re: .Plot Plan 10B64
Dear Mr. Becklund:
At the request of the project' proponent and the Board,
my clients have reviewed t~e ~rawin~s.received b~ them from
Mr. Isz]er on November 9, )989. As you know, the drawings
Jndlcate the proposed site aE the proposed storm ~ra~n that your
client has suggeste~ as a solution to the drainage issues.
· he foZlo~'ing points re, resent the initial ~ems thu~ my
clients wou=d require as part of suoh e solution. I want to b~
very clear that those points do not represent ~n offer by my
clients and, indeed, may not represent'all of the points that we
would wish to raise. Tho~ ere merely ~hose that, ~n the brief
ti~o since the hearing, we have been able to formulat~ based upon
the drawing received. As you know, no engineered ~l~nB are yet
Nove~.ber 20, 1989
Page 2
~valloble to us. Further, we are attempting to retain an
independent engineer to look at the proposal~ however, due to the
thanks~ivin~ weekend, this has proved difficult.
Lastly, although we W~sh In good faith to discuss a
solution to the drainage problamQ, I further want to b~ clear
that thic doac not m~an that ~y o~ients have waivQd or
r~linquiGbed any issue raised by them at the hearing, including
ie~uec related to d~nGity. ~e are, however, a~:tempting in good
faith to eett!e with your client.
My clients' requirements
1. The pipeline is to be constructed at no e~pense to
the
Your client will construct an underground R.C.P.
storm drain from the east part of their south road
to a point near their southwest corner, to acce~t
r t the Edison easement~ then
down through the Edison easement to the bottom of
the hill into Empire Creek.
The s~re of the pipe is to be 24 inches or more to
drain 8 improved acres of lO0-year flood waters as
~pproved by the Riverside county Roads Department.
At Empire Creek an ener dissipater ls to be
constructed ~o dtrec~ p~pe Slow downstream, slow
the rlow of heavy rains~ and protect the sldes and
bottom or Empire creek.
Plan~ and construction are to be subject to the
Odors' review and engineerin~ approval·
There must be a written and recorded agreement
between the parties. The provisions of the
agreement must be=ome a part of the conditions of
proJeo~ epproval.
References to mexisting chennels" on the Odors'
properties shall be deleted ~rom all project plans,
8iagrame an~ doouments.
GABEL COOK ~ BECKLUND TEL No.714-788-5184
Grant W. B~cklund, ROE
November 20. 1989
Page 3
Nov.27,90 17:10 P.06
Thc offer by %he Odere of an easement shall expire
within one year if =he project is not developed·
We look forward tO your early response.
Tamar C. Stein
TCS:bol
TCS:ll-17-O!
[rank J. Fea!re, ~.E.
Tony BOyd
Supervisor wal~ Abraham
RIVERglDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONS~:RVATIOIt DISTRICT
November 27. 198~
River~ide County
PJennlt:G Department
County Administrative Center
Rivcratdet Californ[a 92501
AttelitlDn: ~e(~lonal Teas }Io. 1
Klm Jarroll Johnsun
La~es and Gentlemen:
Plot Plan 1086~
Supplemental Report
Approval of Plot Plan lOB6q by the Planning Commission wee ap-
pealed at a public hearing before the Riveraide County Board or
Supervisors on November 1~, 1989. Followjns public testimony the
matter was continued until November ~Sm 1989. end this District
wa~ requested to roylet4 concome expressed by Mr. and Hrs. ~obert
J. Dder and their representatives re~aFdin~ impacts on their
prol, crty due to surfsos drainage from the proposed prOjeCt.
The Odors' properly lies aou6herly of Plot Plan 1086q and ~orth
of Empire Cre~k (see attached Exhibit "A"}. Their property is
improved ~itl, apartment units. BuildinS contrOlS were less
stringent Hh~n their property was developed, and they have expe-
rienced flood .n,~ sedtm~ntatlOn damage to their property in the
past. A ~?~tloml of the appliean~'s projeer since about 8 acres,
ie nature, tributary to the OOers' north boundary at two well
defined
Specific concerns expressed by the 0derm regarding the proposed
project include diversion of flow~ concentration of flo. and in-
cret, sed runoFf due to loss or pervious area on the project site.
They also have expressed concern over possible discharge of sedi-
ment Lo their property due to ~radin$ operations on the proposed
project.
In m'e~;ponse to the Odorst concerns, the project applicant has
offered to oon~truc~ a storm drain at hie expense ~o convey flows
from h~s proJec~ directly ~o Empire Creek, rather than discherR-
ing ~hem a~ the two e~isting concentration points onto U,e Oder~'
propCr~y. This offer is eonditioned on the Odors providing an
underground easement aQross their property alert6 ~he weaLerly
boundary as shown on ~xhZbit "B" s~aohed. To date, the two
pertic~ have not been able to come ~o an aircement regardln~ this
proposal.
RIVal'SIde CoUnty
Planning Department
~e: Plot Plan 1086q
Supplemental Report
-2-
November ZT~ 19~9
The t~istriot has'reviewed this ease in mere detail and has the
followthE observations:
He diversion of flou is Involved In the applioant's pro-
pose). )he dralnnge facilities 3hewn on th~ spproved
Amended Hap No, 2 disch~rge flo~s to the Odors' property
at two naturalm historic eonoentratlon points.
The District would require that flows dtsnharged to the
Odors' property ba r~turned to their nmtural condition
with reapsot to velootty of f].ow, ate.m by me~ns oJ' aner-
$y dissipaters. fie ooneentratlon or eooeleration of flo~
is ~nvoSv~d ~n ~he applioant~s proposa1.
Cvnatruction of d~ellin~ss s~reetsm drivewayam etc,, on
the pro~eo~ site wl)l reduce the pervious area available
for Infiltration of rainfall to the soilm and runoff in e
given ralnfall event will thorease In ~he after condi-
tion. Constm'uotion of a storm drain to Enmpire Creek as
proposed by the epplloant ~ould mitigate this Instease.
Dis~harge of sediment from the presser site u111 not be m
proble~ if en adequate er'oston control plan is ~mple-
mented ,during gredin~, After the presser ts oompleted
sediment loadlngs wLll be reduoed from natural
conditionn.
In vZew or the above factst the Dtstrtot recommends the followJnE
eondiL[ons be added to those previously approved by the PXanntn[
Commisston:
An underground oonoreta storm draln should be constructed
ms sho~n ~n oonoept on Exhibit "B" mtteahed hereto, to
oonvey the entire 100 year flo~ from the southerly por-
tion or ~he proposed roJeo~ to Empire Cr'eek. An energy
dissipater end/or roo~ slope proteoticn she).% be provided
a~ Empire Crock to prevent erosion or the channel banks
end invert. All facilities shell be o0nstruoted to Dis-
tric~ standards. The offsite portion of the required
drain Should be cons~ruo~ed prior to any 6radtng opera-
blond on the proposed project·
RJver~Ldc County
P]annlng Department
Plot ~lan lo86~
Supplemental ~eporb
-3-
November 27, 1989
A comprehensive ¢rc~lon gontrol plan shall be develOped~
and ~hal] be implemented Immediately rollowing grading to
prevent d~posttloH of debrls onto aounstream properties
or drainage facilities.
qveationz~ conoernin~ this matter may be referred to this office.
A~teehments
O~
Supervisor ~elt Abraham
Cabel~ 'Coo~ end Beoklund
Attn~ Grant Bccklund
Cox, Ca~tle & ~tchol~on
Attn: ~amsr Stein
Very truly yours,
F~ANK J. PEAZRS
chler or Plannin8 Division
MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS
29911 MIRA LOMA DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92;590
(714) 676-5218
November 16, ! 990
Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, Members of the Planning
Commission, and Planning Staff of Temecul~.
About a year ago, after we had appealed certain provisions of Plot Plan
10864, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors remanded this application
and our appeal to the City Council of our newly formed City of Temecul~
Our points of appeal were presented to the Council, followed by the voiced
opinions of other groups and Individuals. Finding sufficient support for the
appeal, yet willing to allow the developer another opportunity to develop his
land, the Council decided to contlnue the matter 'off calender'. Now the
matter is to be heard November 19, 1990, by the Temecula Planning
Commission
The Council handled this matter the last time and we presume will
ultimately do so again, utilizing the findings of the Planning Commlssiof~
Therefore we submit our observations to the Council and to the Planning
Commission. We appreciate being noticed of the forthcoming meeting and
anticipate being noticed for the Council heartno~
Our Appeal, as outlined In a letter from Tarnat C. Stein to the City or
Temecula dated January 19, 1990 was based upon these Issues.
I. Inadequacy of the Environmental Review
2. Density of the project
3. Drainage and Flooding
We have studied Plot Plan 10864 carefully and are pleased that many
changes have been made In response to earlier objections. However, some of
the same problems that faced us before are still there and there are some
new ones as well. They ar~.
A) Inadequacy of the Environmental Review/Drainage and Flooding
We have owned and operated a business on our land rot well over fifteen
years, and by rat the most rrlghtenlng Issues to us are those concerning
protection from rloodlng and eroslorL
Storm runoff from the Southerly half of Plot Plan 10864 will flow In a
Southerly direction, straight towards our property. The Plot Plan provides
for an East to West storm drain as well as street flow which in severe
storm conditions might not be adequate. Water, mud and debrls will flow to
the southwest comer of the property and It is shown going into a '20' Storm
Drain Easement" on our property (Mira Loma Apartments, Tract 4040, Lot
two). Although the plot plan as presently drawn Indicates an Easement,
there Is at present no drainage Easement of any kind on the northwest side
of our property. Furthermore, while some talk has been made with regards
to said Easement, absolutely no 'good faith' offer has been made by anyone
to acquire such an Easement for any material compensattor~
There are at present no facilities on our property to accommodate water
from the Emergency Overflow Structures of Plot Plan 10864. Where Is that
water to go? Through our landscaping and subsequently through our
buildings? From our perspective, these look like potential fifteen foot
waterfalls: the waterfall to the West would flow right onto our property;
the waterfall to the East would flow onto tract 8369-1, and subsequently
onto the Northeastern comer of our property.
During major rainstorms, heavy rains would fill the driveways of the
proposed project, and on the Western driveway it would flow rapidly in a
Southerly direction down the I0 percent grade and pass right by catch
baslns clogged with debris. The water would then exlt the Emergency
Overflow Structure. Where It goes then is completely unacceptable. The end
of that street Is about 1130 elevation. The natural level there is I! 15
elevation on our property. This waterfall would create great wash outs at
the drop and bring destruction to both properties, periling building 39 of the
proposed project and eroding hundreds of feet on Mira Loma Apartments !an~
The southeast corner of plot plan 10864 has the same problem. The eight
percent grade down 400 feet of the Eastern driveway will pour water
rapidly down the hill. The thousand foot plus storm drain at two percent
grade will not carry much flood so where does It go? The proposed Building
number 33 ls 13 feet higher than the catch basin only a few feet away. The
Emergency Overflow Structure shown Is unacceptable as It pours water onto
Tract 8369-1 which has no means of accommodating excess water and
therefore will flood out Rancho Apartments precisely as was done in the
· 1 O0 year" flood.
The current drainage system In that location was designed exclusively for
Tract 8369-!. It ls not large enough rot any more water than it currently
carries. The system carries water from the Levande Place development and
16 houses.
Heavy storms could wash out the end or the Eastern driveway, resulting In
disaster to the proposed buildings 32 and 33 and disaster to the Rancho
Apartments directly to the Soutl~
The storm drain which Is Just above the retaining wall along the entire
5outh boundary or Plot Plan 10864 !s not very specific. This wall In some
places exceeds 15 feet and the dirt goes up at a 2-1 slope well above the
wall to the building slabs. Any failure of the wall due to hydraulic problems
would be a disaster to both plot plan 10864 and to the Rancho Apartments
below It. It may In fact be Inappropriate to build such a structure on this
ian~
The valley to the east or Plot Plan 10864 Is an area or concern. The current
low point rot that valley's drainage Is on Plot Plan !0864's !and for about
160 feet. Problems during the ' I00 year' flood were due to developed
property washing out. The plan shows they will rill this !n at their south
east corner and block any flow with I0 to 15 feet of rill. This will block all
now to the point or wash-out, endangering their buildings, tract 8369-I and
certainly everything downstream.
The issue of Empire Creek will have to be addressed more thoroughly than
has been done so far. To call It a Creek Is an understatement. We have seen
this Creek become a raglng torrent of a River during severe rainstorms. The
last such rainstorm tore out sidewalks at the rllra Loma Apartments that
were thirty feet above the level of the creek bed, severely undermined the
foundations or buildings, and tore loose large Edlson Company Electric Poles,
leaving one of the poles suspended by its wires. There has been considerable
development In upstream regions that are tributary to Empire Creek, so the
next major rainstorm will create more water flowing in the Creek than
before. In addition, in the Creekbed immediately downstream of the Mira
Loma Apartments, and adjacent to the Summer Breeze Apartments, there
now exists a "Sewer Protection and Streambed Stabilizer Structure" (a
Dam). Presence of this Dam, downstream of our property, In concert with
the inevitably greater flows that will result in Empire Creek upstream of
our property due to the increased development In the region, wlll create
great peril throughout the area In the next major rainstorm.
We feel that the · Initial Environmental Study" contained In the Staff Report
is inadequate with respect to these Issues regarding this creek. We feel
that entering a Negative Declaration based upon this report Is improper, that
a closer look into the situation ls called for, possibly mandating an
Environmental Impact Report_
The developers have other alternatives for delivering their water to Empire
Creek; we suggest they consider them. They could Just as well put a
plpellne through the adjacent "Summer Breeze" Apartments to the west and
then send It down the Creek, not a bit farther than through our property and
possibly a shorter run of pipe. In fact, the bottom of the hill at the dam
would be a better place for the addition of concentrated flows into the
Creek than on the Mira Loma property where it would have to go abruptly
into the Creek at a sharp angle relative to the direction of flow of the Creek,
causing serious erosion and other water flow abnormalities that could
become critical during a severe rainstorm.
B) Density of the project
The project has been downscaled from 335 units to 260 units. However,
there Is now a significantly greater number or three bedroom units than
before, and the one bedroom units have been eliminated altogether.
Following Department or Fair Housing stipulations, we therefore will see
the 23% reduction In total units leading to only an I1% reduction in the
number of persons, and a 9% reduction In the number of bedrooms. This Is
still a 39% Increase In persons per acre density over and above the density
or the adjacent MIra Loma and Rancho apartment complexes, and is
incompatible with the adjacent single family residences. The present staff
report completely overlooks these adjacent single family residences In the
sections titled 'Surrounding Zoning' and 'Surrounding Land Uses'.
C) New Concerns
I. A Pedestrian Accessway is mentioned in the staff report. Where are the
schoolchildren to go after they exit the Southwest corner of Plot Plan
10864? Are they to trespass our property, walk down to the Creekbed and
wade across the Creek In the vlclnlty of the Edlson Substation? Such a
mixture of children, high voltage electricity, and flooding would be unwise.
The expense of the Improvements necessary to make this pathway safe
would be extremely hlgl~
2. Where is the management office for apartment rental and maintenance?
Where Is the service/maintenance faclllty for the buildings and grounds?
3. We are concerned about the garbage collection procedures outlined in the
staff report. Will garbage cans sit In front of garages? If garbage sits
outside the apartments, dogs and cats wlll stir it up and the wlnd will blow
it around - probably onto the catch baslns clogging up the storm dralns~
4. How do you get into the units from the street? How are deliveries to be
made? It ls a long walk around the end of the building to the front door on
the side opposite the street.
5. Where are the windows? Some Inner rooms appear to have no natural
II~L
6. In plan E, It appears that the back bedrooms and the garage occupy the
same space.
7. These are mostly three bedroom units. W~.ere are all the children going
to play? One pool and one tot yard does not offer much play space for so
many children, and the large open space In the middle or the lot Is rather far
away rot children living In the furthest away units.
In summary, we still seriously GuestIon several aspects or Plot Plan 10864.
we look rotward to seeing these questions addressed In the near future.
51ncerely,
Helon rioore Oder
Robert J, Oder
Robert L. Oder
,.,1-
/.
Ii
MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS
29911 MmA LOMA DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92390
(714) 676-5218
November 30 1990
Mr. Larry R Markham, Principal
Markham and Associates
41750 Winchester Road, Suite N
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Markham,
Please accept my most sincere apologies for taking so long to send
you the accompanying letters'from the RIverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District. They were burled In old riles at one
of our 5an Diego offices, and I flna!ly uncovered them today. So here
they are at lastl
You will please take note or the foliowin!;
I. The developer significantly failed to build the structure In
accordance with the design that was reviewed and approved by the
District in November 1986. Instead, he attempted to modify an
existing structure that had originally been built for an entirel),
different purpose. The DIstrict later determined that after the
modifications to the structure were complete, It still failed to
satisfy the Design Requirements for Streambed Stabil Izatlo~
2. During their field trip to the site In February 1988, the DIstrict
observed that ponding of water was not taking place on our propert),
(the Mira Loma Apartments). In the 34 months that have passed since
that observation was made, there has been a significant progressive
buildup of silt behind the structure. I fact, this buildup ls so severe
that there ls now a localized Inversion of the stream bed slope
Immediately upstream of the structure. (/ks you and I discussed, this
could possibly be a result of Inadequate low-level flows through the
structure.) This buildup has caused pondlng to occur on our propert),.
This was observed by Mr. Middleton of the CIty of Temecula during his
visit to the site yesterda),.
'Temecula's Finest Value in Luxury ADart, ments'
3. Apparently, the modification to the structure occured
sometime during the winter of 1987/1988. When we noticed ponding
starting to occur on our property during this time frame, we filed an
official complaint with the County Of Riverside on January 21, 1988.
At that time, it seemed our only recourse to the problem.
4. Like you, I have several years of Engineering experience, and I
am confident that the following sequence of events will occur. The
silt will progressively build up over time. This will result in the
ponding becoming more significant as time progresses, thus placing
the Mira Loma property at risk during severe storms such as those we
experienced in 1978. The installation of the proposed storm drain in
this region of the streambed could seriously impact these
instabilities.
5. The situation calls for a complete engineering analysis of this
critically unstable region of the stream, and a properly engineered
solution to solve all of the above mentioned issues. You are uniquely,
postured to assist in the solution of this problem. i look forward to a
timely addressal of this issue. As you know, my interest in this issue
is simply to see that my property is adequately protected.
Robert L. Oder
cc: John Middleton, City Of Temecula
'Temecula's Finest Value in Luxury Apartments"
_~INNI~TH L. rDWARDS
CNI[F ENGINEEli
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
\~/ATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERlID[ CALIFORNIA U2,~r, 2
,luLy 1L>, 198,r~
,~,ttent ion: ReJ,ion,tL Tenrn No . I
Plot PZan 9195 is a proposal to const;ru<;t dp}rLments on Jpproxi-
rn .' ;ty 10 aares in the Rancho Cal[/'orn[~ ;~rt.a. The properly
IotaLed on thu south side or V~a Los (:ut[na.~, :~ppr3xL:nately -',,.)0
f'~et, '~O,~th,.~aSt, '~f ~ancno CaliFornia
The southerly portf. on '~f' this property [s trav~.r'sed by ~ deeply
enodej wasi~. This wash [5 not stable :~', t",'j Jenced by the :~nt iv..
h~.a,/w.-~r'] er'osL,>n an.J b~ink sl,~uChin~J. The w'~:sn has cut ~ nearly
v~rtt~al ":~rC .-~ or;._~ the north.~rly bank.
The; .~i~:':li'-ar"-'s exhibit pr,.~posce:s ', "~ras:s ] [ned" channel to ,.
vt-y bribut,.ry storm Fl'~ws throug~ thu prdpert. y. The
strea:q sl'>;~,,~ .oF '~ppr ~xi~nat. ely ~% '~[DnF, wLth the hi:-~h' 1/
natur.: oS Lhe Local ,s:)iLs tends Ld pr'e~:[;~{le tQiS <'on,'.-~?t
v iab L~ ,~l :ern,~t Lye.
.it,
'J.~;'y tr'u:y y3urs,
CC:
%ellaLore Cons~rjctian
~,Ii;:
,41:TH L. El)WARDS
C~mlllll IrNI31NI~ER
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION D!StRiCT
RIVERlID[ CALIFORNIA f/25OL
T,irljcs ,nl,]
PLot PLan 9L95 j~; ,i pr,.Tr~s'~l LD cDnstru,'r ,ff~trtmerlts r>n ,ff'~pr,~xi,nLely lO 7K-res
in ~{~ f~tll,'h,~ Q~J Lfnrnia area. ~e property Ls 1,~:at,~t ~l t-i~-. ~uth ..;[ le of
VL.-~ [c.s G~l inas, q~pcoxh~Lety 3e,: feet ~-n~th,:,,~::t .ff t~',n, 71~ (MI ifiwni,~ I~,1.
The sDut;~erly ~z'tion of this .nro.~erty ~:4
'Ih[~ ~sh }~l~; b~,'.~ fillet an,] a *e-,-r~rary
graded r~uth,~rl.y ,}f the prevLous ~nsh.
nor_ ;~d,~;tt.,-. '~u' drop is nr.>lir.~, the
the out nf si4'~: .l~nsl,D[x~ 1~:,it: i-:: GF this ~l i.n,~l ~x~,~w~y, uv~q t>r,>vi,l,,~, ~it t:,,
<]ev~'l..>t~::.'Bt l~S ct cnt.~l Of 9, 56 ,~cr,es
of $9J2.,~0 5~r ilcre, ~e :'itiqatinn
i~(~st?] ,Dll the prevai.]
ing h'/.h-~[{~Tic and
Distr Lct for review ;Drier to die i ssu.url,Te ,~f ,lr.~,}L[Yl ~' i~Ui I,]fnq
Very trulv yours,
co: Be, ll;~to~'e G~nstr. uction
JHK: pml
Oscc=.qbcr 14, 19.~'i
Riverside County
Oepartr. lent of Buj. ld'Lr~S
a;~d Safety
254.0'3 Ynez Road, Sui~e 212
Plaza Professional Center
Rancho CaliFornia, CA 92390-2263
Attention: Hack
Gentlemen: :{e:
Plob Plan 9195
15-Inch Sewer Protection
and Erosion Control Plan
The Disbri:;t 'has received a conceptual drawing] of e~osion control
measures to be taken in order to protect an existing sewer line
and ~o cn~ck channel erosion adjace~t to Plot Plan 9195. This
.,. RCE and was r~3ceived by the
plan was prepared by Mi~ ~a'aa.:]a, ,
Disbrict r,]ovembar 2~, 19~37.
The District nc~s revie~m] this pl.~n and fi.qds i~. satisfactory
~itn respect Lo its function to present a wor~<ab~e solution to
the potential ~rosion problooms.
I~ should b.s no~ed, ho~.v~r, that the District msl<es no commit-
'.,qent to~ard assurinJ that per'.nission to proceed with the v~ork
outside the prop~r~y associated ~;ir.h Pl. ot Plan 91.~5 is obtained.
Questio:is concernin:~ this ~,qatter .,nay be referred to Steve Stump
this office at 71~4/787-23~3.
Very truly your3,
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
Chief EnG, ineer
cc: Hik 'l~-~mada
COE!{ COUWE~{3ERG
Senior Civil En.,.~£neer
~:bab
SlOB MARKET STREET
P. O. BOX 1033
TrtEPHONE (714) 767-2015
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RIVERBIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502
January 28, 1988
Ba!latore Construction Co.
15615 Caminito La Torre
San'Diego, CA 92128
Gentlemen: Re:
Plot Plan 9195
15-inch Sewer Protection
and Erosion Control Plan
Pursuant to our meeting at the site of Plot Plan 9195 on January
22, 1988, we are summarizing the problems left to be addressed
arising out of your decision to utilize the recently built sewer
protection and streambed stabilizer structure in lieu'of. the en-
ergy dissipator presented on approved plans reviewed by this
office in November of 1986.
There are three basic issues that need attention as discussed in
our January 22 meeting:
1. Poor drainage upstream of the structure
2. Lack of flow containment at the structure
3- Slope and channel erosion adjacent to and below the
structure
In regard to the poor drainage, it was concluded that part of the
problem arises out of grading which has taken place in the
streambed upstream of the structure which has created localized
depressions along the flow line. In addition, the streambed flow
line that was established prior to your construction of the
stabilizer was somewhat lower than the crest of the structure.
This was due to the poor condition of the old existing sewer pro-
tection wherein flow was "piping" under.the old structure. It
was decided that no action would be taken .until the current wet
season is over and we have a chance to see if the stabilized
streambed will re-establish flow line grades that existed when
the original sewer protection stabilizer was placed on the
streambed by the Rancho California Water District. After the
stream dries up, you should fill any streambed depressions which
may exist on your property and adjacent property to the south, a
reasonable distance upstream to allow standing water to drain.
The condition of the stream adjacent to the sewer line protection
was not before, or is it now, adequate to contain design flows
from breaking out on the southerly bank of the stream. Unfortu-
nately, your rectifying the "piping" situation that formerly ex-
isted at the structure could result in flows breaking out of the
stream under lesser flow rates than before. While you are not
necessarily responsible for solving this containment problem, we
feel it would be prudent for you to assess the extent of the
problem by having a hydraulic analysis done.
Ballatore Construction Co.
Re: Plot Plan 9195
15-inch Sewer Protection
and Erosion Control Plan
-2-
January 28, 1988
The analysis should make an estimate of flow depths over the ~
structure as it now exists, and the expected behavior of the flow
with respect to depth and velocity as it drops into the earth
channel below.
Certain modifications and additions should be made to the
stabilizer as follows and as indicated on the attached drawing:
1. Slope protection should extend up channel slopes adjacent
to the dissipator a sufficient distance above the expec-
ted depth of flow.
A cutoff wall should extend along the downstream end of
the terminus of riprap in the channel bottom and up the
slopes. A 3-foot layer of rock should be extended 20-30
feet downstream of where the rock now ends before instal-
lation of the cut off wall.
To prevent excessive scour from side flows entering the
channel along the southerly side of the stabilizer struc-
ture, a~3-foot cut off wall should be installed along the
southerly top of slope extending downstream of the struc-
ture. It should be tied into the stabilizer cut off wall
on the upstream end and into the wall mentioned in Item 2
above on the downstream end. The wall should be de-
pressed at its center to assure the side flows enter over
the wall and not beyond the downstream end of the cut off
wall.
Finally, steps should be taken to maximize the quantity
· of stream flow that will pass over.the stabilizer without
breaking~out around the southerly side.
This can be accomplished by building up the south stream.
bank just upstream of the structure, moving obstructing
larger rock to the bank, and building a curb along the
south top of the stabilizer to keep stream flows on the'
structure. This should be accomplished without obstruct-
ing flows coming from the power station to the south.
Please have your engineer submit a hydraulic analysis of the
final channel entrance configuration for the design flow of 1100
cfs. Also plans for the modifications mentioned in this letter
should be prepared and submitted for review. Making revisions to
the plans approved by this office in November 1986 would be an
acceptable method of presenting the modification plan.
Ballatore Construction Co.
Re: Plot Plan 9195
15-inch Sewer PrOtection
and Erosion Control Plan
-3-
January 28, 1988
Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Steve Stump
of this office at 714/787-2598.
We regret any misunderstanding that may have developed in the
evolvement of these changes to the originally proposed channel
plan. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWARDB
Chief Engineer
COEN COUWENBERG
Senior Civil Engineer
Attachment
CC:
Mik Hamada, RCE
Dept. 'of Building
& Safety (Riverside)
Attn: Eric Traboulay
Dept. of Building
& Safety (Rancho)
Attn: Max Hakanian
SES:pln
/
f
.J
Suqgested Ad~itio~s to Co~itions of approval for Rot Ran No. 10864
1. Change condtion 1 to read as fobNs:
"The use hereby permitted by this Rot Ran is f~r the Consmjction of a
260-unit condominium devdopment'... etc.
2. Add new con~ffion:
The Find Map fe' Tract No. 26549 must be recerded before ieeJance ot
any bulldng permits.
3. The C,C,&R'e shall include the fallowing stipuletion8:
This development cannot be mass leased er master leased.
Any changes to these C,C,&R8 mum be reviewed and approved by
the City Atta'ney.
4. Add new Contort:
Pria' to issuance of any permits, Proof of inatrance euffident to indemnify
against any damage to downelream property within 300 feet of this
devdopment shall be submitted to downsIre property owners for
bspeclion and reaaorable approval. Downslream property owners ehal
Suggested Addtiorm to Con<ltions of al;q;rovai for Tentative Tract No. 26549
1. Add new con<rrtion:
The Final Map for Tract No. 26549 must be recorded before issuance d
any bulking permits.
2. The C,C,&R'8 shag indude the fogowing etipulatione:
This devdopment cannot be mass leased or master leased.
Any change; to theee C,C,&Re must be reviewed and approved by
me City Attorney.
3. Add new Concidon:
Prior to ieeuence of any permits, Proof of instrance agemet any demage
to downstem propely within 300 feet of fie devdopmmt shall be
submitted to downstream propely owners f~r inepecli~ and reasonable
epproval. Downstream property owners shell be named insurede.
PLKNNIN~ COIO~ISSION ~INUTES NOVEK~ER 19~ 1990
AYI
of
C~
f
8. TRACT MAP 26549 AND PLOT PLAN 10864
8.1
Proposal to construct a 260 townhouse development on
22.22 acres located south of Rancho California Road,
East of Moraga Road.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item.
He stated that there was a drainage issue and the
applicant has proposed to drain towards Rancho California
Road and the southerly portion of the property is proposed
to drain to the southwest corner of the project. He added
that the applicant will be required to obtain the proposed
storm drain as well as oversizing the drainage structures
to divert the run-off from other properties to the storm
drain. He also stated there was an issue that the school
district wanted to address relating to an unimproved
pedistrian walkway within the project to be utilized by
children walking to Vail Elementary School. He stated
that the school district has been in contact with SCE and
property owners to the south and the flood control
district to acquire the necessary easements. The
applicant is proposing a ten foot wide easement along the
westerly property line which would extend from Moraga Road
along the southerly property line and end at the adjoining
pcminll/19/90 -14- 11/28/90
PLKI~IN6 COIO~ISSION MINUTES NOVEHBER 19, 1990
southerly property. He added CSD was not prepared to
indicate if they were willing to accept this area or an
easement. He stated that Condition No. 25 of the Plot
Plan approval did not apply, and should be deleted, and
added to staff responses to Environmental Analysis,
No. 11, should indicate under SWAP it would be permitted
to have 365 units.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that they were adding Condition No.
22B to Tentative Map No. 26549 and 77B to Plot Plan No.
10864 stating that, in the event the improvements to the
south side of Rancho California Road have not been
completed by the Margarita Village Benefit District prior
to occupancy, the developer shall construct these required
off-site improvements.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the condition requiring
the applicant to obtain a drainage easement prior to
recordation of the final map and what would result if the
applicant could not get the easement.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that the applicant could not
record their map.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDasked for clarification of Condition
No. 39.
JOHN MIDDLETON stated that staff has been working with
the applicant's engineer to restrict as much drainage to
the south as possible and direct flow to the southwest
corner by way of a drainage system. They had been
discussing a sump system to do this. The engineer is
now proposing two storm drain systems, one on the private
drive, oversized by 50% and another system on the south
property line running down to the southeast corner.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND commented that staff should review
Condition No. 9 of the Plot Plan. He suggested that the
parenthesis from aspbaltic to base should be deleted as
well as the remainder of the paragraph beginning with
"decomposed". Commissioner Hoagland also asked for
clarification of Condition No. 26.
OLIVER MUJICA stated that the first set of parenthesis
should have been commas'.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if there will be a
signal at "A" Street and if there will be road
improvements to Via Las Colinas.
pcmin11/19/90 -15- 11/28/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1990
KIRK WILLIAMS stated that there would be a right-in and
right-out signal at "A" Street. He explained that the
main course of traffic would be through Rancho California
Road and Morago and Via Las Colinas would carry a small
amount of the main traffic.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if there was any report on
the needs of the community for multiple family dwellings
and what could be expected from a study of this type.
GARY THORNHILL stated that the Lightfoot study would
address this and that it would recommend a fee structure.
C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:30
P.M.
LETTIE BOGGS, Temecula Valley Unified School District
representative, stated that the School District is in
disagreement with the Environmental Assessment that
there is no impact from this project to the schools.
She stated that the area where this project exists has
been zoned for high density housing, which causes a
problem for the schools which would have to house the
students generated from this project. She also stated
that there was no safe route to walk from this project
to the schools and would recommend that the developer
provide a public trail through the SCE easement. She
stated that they contacted all the adjacent property
owners. Mr. Boyd and SCE were agreeable to provide
a foot path through their properties as well as Flood
Control's approval. Mr. Oder, another adjacent property
owner, stated that he would agree to allow the foot path
along his property; however, he wanted the flooding of
the creek addressed. She stated that the City is willing
to discuss accepting this within the City's trail system.
The City Engineers have stated that it will be difficult
to mitigate the creek issue which supports Mr. Oder's
flooding issue. She also stated that although this
project was in walking distance of two schools, they
would have to bus students to other schools.
LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester
Road, Temecula, stated their concurrence with staff's
conditions and they are prepared to dedicate the strip
of land required by the school district for the foot
and bike path. He explained the route of the drainage
system, one along the southerly road system and also
along the southerly property line. He stated that
once they get to the southerly corner of the property
they have the option of going down the Oder property or
pcmin11/19/90 -16- 11/28/90
PLLNNIN3 COIOIISSION MINUTES NOVEKBER 19# 1990
the Summer Breeze property to get to the creek, and they
are still reviewing this.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if there would be any
on-site trash enclosures.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that each homeowner would be
responsible for trash containers.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the Engineering
Condition requiring that medians being built on Rancho
California Road.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that if SP199 did not build them
then they would be conditioned to complete those
improvements.
DOUG STEWART stated that SP199 would not be building the
medians.
LARRY MARKHAM commented, with regards to the Oders, that
the have agreed to go to 50% over-bulking of the flood
drains.
COMMISSIONER FORD questioned a phased development plan.
He was concerned with the improvements of Rancho
California Road being done in off hours construction so
that the public is not affected and also the need for
a phased construction plan for this project.
DOUG STEWART stated that the improvements to Rancho
Califoria Road are being considered for night-time
improvements. Phased construction would be based
on staff approval and the applicant would have to get
a phased map.
GARY THORNHILL stated that there was no requirement
for phased construction.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that they would agree to phased
construction of the project.
SALLY HORN, 41540 Winchester Road, Temecula, spoke in
favor of the project and the need for affordable housing
for homebuyers.
ROBERT L. ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, stated
that he is very pleased with the progress this project has
made; however, he is still concerned with the proposed
drainage of this project. He provided staff with pictures
pcmin11/19/90 -17- 11/28/90
PLKNNING COIO~ISSION MINUTES NOVEK~ER 19, 1990
of flooding to his property as a result of flooding of the
creek. He stated that he felt the proposed drainage is
incompatible with the proposed density of this project.
He expressed a concern for the density of this project
and stated that he would like to see the project
restricted to a condomium project so that in the future
it could not be sold and bought to be converted to a
apartment complex.
ROBERT J. ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, also
addressed the Commission with his concerns that the
drainage of the project has not been properly addressedt
in relation to his project Summer Breeze Apartments.
ROBERT L. ODER also stated that he felt the proposed path
along the creek and the SCE easement is a proposed safety
hazard. He stated that he felt that the flooding of the
creek has not been properly addressed.
TAMARA STEIN, 2049 Century Park Boulevard, Los Angeles,
attorney for the Oders' stated that she feels her clients
of addressed their concerns and would like staff and the
Commission to look at all of these issues before sending
this project on to the City Council for their approval.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Oders' were
opposing improvement to this site.
TAMARA STEIN stated that her clients were not opposed to
development, they just wanted to see quality as well as
sensitive grading.
LARRY MARKHAM stated that the issues that have been
addressed by the Oders' is better suited for the final
map stage. He stated that if there was some drainage
that was not being addressed it would be addressed.
He stated that they are willing to work with the school
district and the Oders' between now and the City Council's
approval.
COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDquestioned if the City would be held
liable if there was flooding resulting from this project.
JOHN CAVANAUGH agreed that the possibility did exist.
GARY THORNHILL stated that he would feel more comfortable
with revising the Environmental Assessment to ensure
that all issues are reviewed and proposed that the
Commission continue this item to the next meeting.
pcminll/19/90 -18- 11/28/90
PLANNING COIOflSSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 1990
COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to leave the public hearing open
and continue Tract Map 26549/Plot Plan 10864 to the
meeting of December 3, 1990, seconded by COMMISSIONER
HOAGLAND and carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES:
P.~IEL
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
a
t
C~
N~
pcminll/19/90 -19- 11/28/90
ITEM NO. 7
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
December 11, 1990
Parcel Map No. 25212/Change of Zone No. 5663
PREPARED BY:
R ECOMMEN DAT I ON:
DISCUSSION:
Steve Padovan
Approval
The City Council considered this application on
November 27, 1990. At that meeting, the Council
directed Staff to prepare a resolution for approval
and for Staff to recommend the zoning be changed
from R-R 2.5 to R-R 1.
In addition, the City Attorney has recommended
that Condition No. 37 be replaced with a new
condition which reads:
"The developer shall enter into an agreement
with the City stating that the developer or
any future owner of the parcels contained
within Parcel Map No. 25212 agrees to record
on the property, prior to recordation of the
final map, a deed restriction in a form
approved by the City Attorney and Planning
Director. This deed restriction provides that
the applicant agree to participate in and
waive any right to protest the formation, or
annexation to, a financing district providing
for the construction of public infrastructure
including but not limited to: roads, sewers,
storm drains, and flood control projects."
STAFF R PT\PM25212 I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 90- ;
ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Change of
Zone No. 5663 and Parcel Map No. 25212;
ADOPT Change of Zone No. 5663 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report.
ADOPT Parcel No. 25212 based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
SP:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
5.
Staff Report
Conditions of Approval
Resolution
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
STAFF R PT\PM25212 2
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING OF PARCEL MAP NO. 25212 TO
SUBDIVIDE A 5.02 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR PARCELS
AND TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING FROM R-R-2.5
TO R-R-1 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
NICOLAS AND LIEFER ROADS AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-280-012.
WHEREAS, Durango Development filed Parcel Map No. 25212 and Change
of Zone No. 5663 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map and Zone Change application was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Parcel Map and Zone
Change on December 11, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity
to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council
approved said Parcel Map and Zone Change;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
the following findings:
Findinqs.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
{ 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
STA F F R PT\ PM25212 1
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b}
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Parcel Map and Zone Change is consistent
with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of
the Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The City Council finds, in approvin9 projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
(a) There is reasonable probability that Parcel
Map No. 25212 and Change of Zone No. 5663
proposed will be consistent with the general
plan proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable
time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
STAFFRPT\PM25212 2
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made:
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
b)
That the design or improvement of the
proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
c)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired .by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The City Council in approving the proposed Parcel
Map and Zone Change, makes the following findings, to wit:
STAFF R PT\PM25212 3
Chanqe of Zone No. 5663
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
The proposed zone change will not have a
significant adverse effect on the
environment, as determined in the initial
study performed for this project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that the
zone change from R-R 2.5 to R-R will be
consistent with the future General Plan.
Further, densities and uses proposed are
similar to existing densities and uses in the
vicinity of the project site.
There is not a reasonable probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future and adopted General Plan, if
the proposed use or action is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. The project is not
of significant scope.
The proposed change in district classification
is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it
is a logical expansion of residential uses
which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity
of, the project site.
The proposed change in district classification
will likely be consistent with the goals,
policies and action programs which will be
contained in the General Plan when it is
ultimately adopted. The density and land use
proposed are consistent with the Southwest
Area Plan.
The site of the proposed change in district
classification is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the
proposed zoning district as it is of adequate
size and shape for the proposed residential
use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely
to arise as the project proposes residential
uses similar to those existing in the general
vicinity of the subject site.
Adequate access exists for the proposed
residential land use from Nicolas and Lielet
Roads. Additional internal access and
required road improvements to proposed lots
STAFF R PT\PM25212 4
will be designed and constructed in
conformance with Riverside County
standards.
h)
That said findings are supported by analysis,
minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application
and herein incorporated by reference.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25212
a)
The proposed Tract Map will not have a
significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial
Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
b)
There is a reasonable probability that this
project will be consistent with the future
General Plan.
c)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference
with, the future adopted General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
d)
The proposed use complies with State
planning and zoning law. The project
conforms to the proposed zoning for the site
and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule H.
e)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and
density.
f)
The design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
g)
The design of the subdivision is consistent
with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities.
STAFF R PT\PM25212 5
h)
All lots have acceptable access to existing
and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which
are open to, and are useable by, vehicular
traffic.
i)
The design of the subdivision, the type of
improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project.
j)
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare.
k)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT ION 3, the Parcel Map and
Zone Change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Change of Zone
No. 5663 to change the existing zoning from R-R-2.5 to R-R-1; and further approves
Parcel Map No. 25212 for the subdivision of a 5.02 acre parcel into four parcels
located at the northeast corner of Nicolas and Lielet Roads and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 914-280-012 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1990.
RONALD J PARKS
MAYOR
STA FFR PT\PM25212 6
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
11th day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth
herein above in this Resolution of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 25212.
DATED: By
Name
Title
STAFF R PT\PM25212 7
ORDINANCE NO. 90-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE
APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 5663, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R-2.5 {RURAL
RESIDENTIAL - 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO R-R-1
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ON
5.02 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER
ROAD..
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission
and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the
Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of
Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is
hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of
Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time
by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning
Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone
No. 5663 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the
City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and
cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City.
SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the
date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1990.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
PLANNING\M53
.j'
II
II
II
II
i
..;.>:.:v.I I..v.v.'.vov. .....
I
I
v.'.- ::;::::;::: ::::::::.:,
-:.:-:-:
'.:.:.:-:,:..:.:.:.:.:.:
........ i~.i-i.i.i.!
X.
...... ::1:
::1:':¥::1:1 :::':.
C,~sE NO.- CN.~N~F,. 0,c' ZONE.- No.
CHAN6E OF ZONE FROM R-R-2.5 TO R-R-1 ON 5.02 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD.
R-R-1 : RURAL RESIDENTIAL - ONE ACRE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE;
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Council
December 6, 1990
Parcel Map No. 25212/Change of Zone No. 5663
The following conditions have been revised as agreed upon by the City Council at the
November 27, 1990 scheduled hearing:
Condition No. 16 Shall Read:
"Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-R zone. The minimum lot size shall be
one ( 1 ) acre gross."
Condition No. 2~ Shall Read:
"Liefer Road shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement
plus one 12' lane, or bond for the street improvement may be posted per
Condition No. 26, within a 33' dedicated right-of-way in accordance
with County Standard No. 103, Section A (L~L~'/66') minus sidewalks and
street lights. County Condition Nos. 5 and 13 shall be deleted."
SP:ks
PLANNING\M53
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 25212
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planninq Department
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative
Parcel Map No. 25212, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in California Government Code Section 66499· 37. The City of Temecula will
promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of
Temecula.
The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460,
Schedule H unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved
tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Planning Commission
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 City·
Street names shall be subject to approval of the City of Temecula.
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 City of Temecula.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel
map boundary to a City maintained road.
STAFF R PT\PM25212 I
9.8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated April 27, 1990,
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 March 28, 1990,
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. County Road Commissioner's
recommendations outlined in the Office of Road Commissioners and County
Surveyor's transmittal dated May 7, 1990.
The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations
outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated March 9, 1990, a copy
of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building
and Safety Department: Grading E;ection's transmittal dated May 7, 1990, a
copy of which is attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Airport
Land Use Commission letter dated October 2~, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County
Geologist's letter dated March 29, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall be required to pay
applicable Quimby fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance ~60.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the
provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the R-R zone.
STAFF R PT\PM25212 2
17.
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 City Engineer. Prior to the recordation of the final
map, a copy of the 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.
"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 sodium lamps
that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the
horizontal plane passing through the luminare."
Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the subject
property as of the date of recordation of the final map.
Ce
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
City Engineer. These constraints affect all parcels.
18.
Parcel Map No. 25212 cannot be recorded until Change of Zone No. 5663 is
approved and effective.
19.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following condition shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-
in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility
financing measures· A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per
lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineerin9 Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
20.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
STA FFR PT\PM25212 3
21.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
22. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
23.
Street "A" shall be a private street, not to be maintained by the City, and
shall be constructed 24 feet in width, with an acceptable aggregate base (0.33'
thick) on a 32 foot graded section, with a 38' radius turn-a-round. County
Road Department Condition Nos. 3 and 14 shall be deleted.
24.
Liefer Road shall be improved with 22 feet of half street improvement plus one
12' lane, or bond for the street improvement may be posted per Condition No.
26, within a 33 dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard
No. 103, Section A (44'/66'). County Condition Nos. 5 and 13 shall be
deleted.
25.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
26.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in
conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, drive approaches, signing, striping, and other traffic
control devices as appropriate·
b. Domestic water systems.
27. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
28.
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property
line.
STAFF R PT\PM25212 4
29.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
30.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
31,
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
32.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
33.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office,
in addition to any other permits required.
34.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
35.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
36.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
37.
The developer shall enter into an agreement with the City stating that the
developer or any future owner of the parcels contained within Parcel Map No.
25212 will not protest any Assessment District formed for the purpose of
constructing the public street improvements for Nicolas Road on the frontage
of this map.
STAFFR PT\PM25212 5
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
38.
Construct full street improvements includin9 but not limited to, curb and
gutter, A.C. pavement, drive approaches, and parkway trees on all interior
public streets.
39.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
40.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon
per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and
94 of the State Standard Specifications.
41.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation En.qineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
42.
A si9nin9 and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Lielet Road and Street "A", and shall
be included in the street improvement plans.
43.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
44.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
45.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
STAFFRPT\PM25212 6
ITEM NO. 8
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT.'
AGENDA REPORT
CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL
SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY
NOVEMBER 27, 1990
DECEMBER 11, 1990
SOLID WASTE HAULERS
RECOMMENDATION:
(1)
(2)
DISCUSSION:
That the City Council:
Authorize the City Attorney to notify solid waste haulers that their
permits expire in no later than five years; and
Adopt a resolution fixing current hauler rate schedules.
Statutory Authority: The California Legislature has given local public entities broad
authority to establish a system for solid waste collection and disposal. Collection
services may be provided by the City, by another local entity, or by a private
hauler. The City Council may, by ordinance or resolution, prescribe the terms and
conditions of any contract for the collection and/or disposal of solid waste. These
terms may regulate the nature, location, and extent of the services provided,
including, but not limited to, the frequency of collection, the means of collection,
and the charges or fees imposed for collection. Collection services may be
provided by either exclusive or nonexclusive franchise agreements, contracts,
permits or licenses, and may be awarded with or without competitive bidding.
(Public Resources Code Sections 40058, 40059 and 49300.)
Countv System: Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 90-04, Temecula adopted by
reference the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 657 regulating solid waste
collection and disposal. The County system provides such services via the
issuance of permits to individual hauling contractors.
Agenda Report- Solid Waste Haulers
December 11, 1990
Page 2.
The principal County permittee for both residential and commercial collection in
Temecula is Inland Disposal, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste
Management of North America, Inc. The other permittees are:
Jesse Rodriquez Disposal
Waste Management, Inc. - Moreno Valley Disposal
Suburban Disposal
Canyon Lake Disposal
HBJJ/Perris Disposal
Western Waste
Newco/IRS (a)
O.K. Associates
The County system involves significant regulation of the haulers. Minimum and
maximum rates, and equipment are all regulated. There is also a procedure for the
investigation of complaints. To pay for this regulatory system, the County
imposed a 5.5% of gross revenues permit fee.
In order to fully implement the County system, until the City selects its own
hauler(s) through the RFP process, we recommend the Council adopt the attached
resolution adopting the existing County rate schedule. In addition, we anticipate
bringing a new rate schedule to the Council for consideration after the first of the
year.
In addition, in order for the City to establish its own hauling program it is
necessary to terminate existing County permits. However, Public Resources Code
Section 49520 provides that where a local agency (such as the County) has issued
nonexclusive permits for the collection of solid waste, and a change to exclusive
permits is contemplated, notice must be given five years before the change from
nonexclusive to exclusive permits is made to all permittees who have provided
services for at least three years. Consequently, we recommend that Staff be
authorized to notify existing permittees that their existing permits will expire upon
the grant of new City franchises, but in not event later than five years from the
date of the notice.
FISCAL IMPACT:
City will Collect 5.5% permit fee from the effective
date of incorporation.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution establishing maximum solid waste
collection rates (Exhibit A)
RESOLUTION NO. ~)-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ESTABLISHING FEES PURSUANT TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE
NO. 657 REGULATING THE COLLECTION, TRANSFER AND REMOVAL OF
SOLID WASTE
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 90-4 the City of Temecula has adopted
by reference Riverside County Ordinance No. 657;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 6 of Ordinance No. 657, a fee schedule for
permit application reviews and operating permits relating to the collection, transfer and
removal of solid waste is hereby established to be effective December 1, 1989, as follows:
(a) Collection Permit Application Review Fee (New Permits).
(1)
(2)
First permit area applied for per review - $397.00
Additional permit areas applied for by the same company,
per review, - $265.00
(b) Transfer Vehicle Permit Fee (New and Yearly Renewal)
(1)
(2)
(C)
First Transfer Vehicle
Additional transfer vehicles same site,
same company per vehicle
$153.00
$ 77.00
Exempt Area Permit Fee (New and Yearly Renewal)
(1) First Exempt Area Permit - $202.00
Additional Exempt Area permits applied for by same company, per
permit.
(d) Collection Permit Renewal Fee
5.5% of permittee's gross receipts from service charges (excluding tipping fees)
shall be paid quarterly by the 15th of month following the end of each calendar quarter and
shall be accompanied by a financial report on a form provided by the City Finance
Department coveting the preceding calendar quarter.
Resolution 90-
Page 2
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of December, 1990.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1 lth day of
December, 1990 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
ITEM NO. 9
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL
SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY
DECEMBER 11, 1990
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council of the City of Temecula introduce and
adopt the Ordinance attached hereto which establishes regulations governing integrated
waste management.
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to City Council instructions, we have prepared an Ordinance,
adding Chapter 6.10, entitled "INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT," to the Temecula
Municipal Code. This new Chapter 6.10 would place Temecula in a leadership role in
the State of California in dealing with the nettlesome problem of solid waste disposal.
As the Council is aware, the Legislature completely revised California law regarding
management of solid waste when it adopted the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989, commonly known as AB 939 (Sher).
Cities (and Counties) have been slow to come to grips with AB 939. Many are just
now realizing that considerable effort will be required to meet the legislature's mandate
to reduce the solid waste stream by 25% by January 1, 1995 and 50% by January 1,
2000.
A synopsis of the proposed Chapter 6.10 is as follows:
Division 1 - Would provide necessary definitions.
Division 2 - "Integrated Waste Management" establishes several critical points. First is
that the City shall provide for or furnish integrated waste management services for
refuse, recyclables and compostables throughout the City. This would be accomplished
by (i) the City; (ii) contractors franchised or licensed by the City; or (iii) agreement with
another local agency, such as a joint powers agency. The Council, by resolution, would
specify the manner in which services would be provided, and the hours, days, and
frequency of collection. Persons responsible for all property in the City would be
required to make arrangements for collection of refuse, recyclables, and compostables.
A.~enda Re~7ort - Inteflrated Waste Mana.~ement Ordinance
Page 2
Division 3 - Would authorize the Council to set fees and to award franchises, by
resolution. The Council could award an exclusive or multiple residential and up
commercial franchises. Multi-family residential units using commercial bins, would be in
the residential or commercial franchise at the discretion of the Council.
Division 4 - "Containers," would give the Manager the authority to designate a standard
for residential containers and commercial bins. If designated, use of the standard
containers and bins would be mandatory.
Division 5 - "Collection," sets once weekly as the minimum frequency for residential
pick up. Twice weekly would be the minimum for food preparation establishments.
The Manager would set the standards for frequency and container/bin size in other
CaSeS.
Division 6 - Specifies unlawful acts. These include use of containers other than those
prescribed by Chapter 6.10, removal of refuse by unauthorized persons, refuse burning
and failure to make arrangements for refuse collection services.
Division 7 - "Special Collections," provides that the Council may authorize special
collections for Christmas trees, white goods, household hazardous wastes, semiannual
cleanups and other events.
Division 8 - Sets standards for contractor equipment, including trucks and bins.
Division 9 - Imposes obligations on Self-Haulers;
Division 10 - Prohibits anyone other than the designated recycling contractor from
scavenging recyclables set out at curbside.
Division 11 - Prohibits unlawful leaving of solid waste anywhere in the City.
Division 13 - Imposes cleanup responsibilities on those who generate, dump or spill
refuse.
Division 14 - Establishes violations of the Ordinance as a misdeameanor.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 90- regarding "Integrated Waste
Management."
ORDINANCE NO. 90-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
GOVERNING INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT,
INCLUDING REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY, AUTHORIZING THE
FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICES BY THE CITY OR
PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE OR PERMIT, AND
REPEALING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657
WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Riverside County Ordinance No. 657 as the same was
incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by City Ordinance
No. 90-04, is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. Chapter 6.10 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal
Code to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 6.10
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Divisions:
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
Division
1 Definitions
2 Integrated Waste Management
3 Fees, Franchises, and Licenses
4 Containers
5 Collection
6 Unlawful and Prohibited Acts
7 Special Collections
8 Collection Equipment
9 Self-Haulers
10 Unauthorized Collection of Recyclable Materials
11 Unlawful Dumping
13 Clean-up Responsibility
14 Violations
Division 1 o Definitions
Sections:
6.10.010 Definitions Generally.
6.10.015 Act.
6.10,020 Bulky Wastes.
6.10.025 Authorized Recycling Contractors.
6.10.030 City.
6.10.035 City Manager.
6.10.040 Collection.
6.10.045 Collector.
6.10.050 Commercial Bins.
6.10.055 Commercial Premises.
6.10.060 Container.
6.10. 065 Contractor.
6.10.070 Designated Recycling Collection.
6.10.075 Detachable Bin.
6.10.080 Franchise.
6.10.085 Franchise Fee.
6.10,090 Garbage.
6.10,095 Gross Revenues.
6.10.100 Hazardous Refuse.
6.10.105 Place or Premises.
6.10.110 Recyclable Waste Material.
6.10.115 Recycling.
6.10.120 Refuse.
6.10.125 Residential.
6.10.130 Rubbish.
6.10.135 Single Family Residential.
6.10.140 Solid Waste or Waste Matter.
6.10.145 Standard Residential Refuse.
6.10.010 Definitions Generally. For the purposes of this Chapter the
following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by
this Division. Words and phrases not ascribed a meaning by this Division shall have
the meaning ascribed by Division 30, Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Public Resources
Code, Sections 40105-40200.
6.10.015 ACt. 'Act' shall mean the California Integrated Waste Management
Act of 1989, as it may be amended form time to time.
6.10,020 Bulky Waste. 'Bulky Waste' shall mean and include, but not by
way of limitation, discarded white goods (i.e., major household appliances), furniture,
tires, carpets, mattresses and similar large items which cannot be placed in a covered
container.
6.10.025 Authorized Recycling Contractor. 'Authorized recycling contractor,'
as used in this Chapter means a person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other entity
authorized under and by virtue of a contract with the City to collect recyclable waste
material in the City.
6.10.030 City. 'City' means the City of Temecula.
6.10.035 City Manager. 'City Manager' means the City Manager of the City
or the City Manager's duly authorized representative.
6.10.040 Collection. 'Collection' means the act of collecting solid waste,
recyclables or compostables at the place of generation by an approved collector.
6.10.045 Collector. 'Collector' means, depending upon the context in which
used, either the City, another local agency or a Contractor.
6.10.050 Commercial Bins. 'Commercial bins' means bins provided by a
Collector, usually three (3) cubic yards or greater capacity designed for the deposit of
refuse, charged at commercial rates.
6.10.055 Commercial Premises. 'Commercial Premises' means all premises
in the City, other than residential premises, where refuse is generated or accumulated.
6.10,060 Container. 'Container' means any bin, vessel, can, or receptacle
used for collecting solid wastes for removal, whether owned by the Collector,
property owner or tenant.
6.10,065 Contractor. 'Contractor' means a person, persons, local agency,
firm, or corporation franchised, authorized or permitted by the City to provide refuse,
recycling, or compostable collection services within the City.
6.10,070 Designated Recycling Collection Location. 'Designated recycling
collection location,' as used in this Chapter, means the place designated in the
contract between the City and an authorized recycling contractor from which the
authorized recycling contractor has contracted to collect recyclable waste material.
This location will customarily be the curbside of a residential neighborhood or the
service alley of an commercial enterprise.
6.10.075 Detachable Bin. 'Detachable bin' means a metal container designed
for mechanical emptying and provided by the City or Contractor for the accumulation
and storage of refuse.
6.10.080 Franchise. 'Franchise' shall mean the right and privilege: (1) to
collect, (2) to transport to landfill or other licensed disposal facilities as determined
by City, and/or (3) to recycle from collected Solid Waste and Recyclables all Solid
Waste kept, generated and/or accumulated within the City from the Franchise Area.
Any Franchise is subject to all of the provisions of Title 6, Chapter 10, the Franchise
Agreement, and to any rights held by any other solid waste enterprise holding rights
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 49520.
6.10.085 Franchise Fee. 'Franchise Fee' means the fee or assessment
imposed by the City on Contractor solely because of its status as Contractor. The
term "franchise fee" does not include:
(1) Any tax, fee or assessment of general applicability
(including any such tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both businesses and
Contractor or their services but not including a tax, fee, or assessment which is
unduly discriminatory against Contractor or its customers); or
(2) Requirements, reimbursements, charges or fees
incident to the awarding, administering, enforcing, transfer or renewal of a Franchise,
including payments of bonds, consultants, administrative expenses, fees described at
Section 6.10.300(a) of this Chapter, attorney's fees, security funds, letters of credit,
insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages.
6.10.090 Garbage. 'Garbage' means the putrescible animal, fish, fowl, food,
fruit, bakery goods, or vegetable matter resulting from the preparation, storage,
processing, handling, decay, distribution, manufacturing, or consumption of such
substance, except suet, tallow, bones, or meat trimmings that are not rejected by the
owner or producer as worthless or useless.
6.10.095 Gross Revenues. 'Gross Revenues' shall mean any and all revenue
or compensation in any form derived directly or indirectly by the Contractor, its
affiliates, subsidiaries, parents and any person or entity in which the Contractor has a
financial interest, from the collection of refuse pursuant to a franchise, including, but
not limited to, monthly customer fees for collection of refuse and recyclables, special
pickup fees, bin and drop box rental and collection fees, fees for redelivery of bins
and drop boxes, and revenue from the sale of recyclables, without subtracting
Franchise Fees or any other cost of doing business. Provided, however, that the
amount of gross revenues may be reduced by the amount of any bad debts incurred by
the Contractor or refunds returned to customers, provided that the revenue with
respect thereto has been included in the computation of gross revenues.
6.10.100 Hazardous Refuse. 'Hazardous refuse' means any compound,
mixture, substance, or article which, if improperly used, handled, transplanted,
processed, or stored, may constitute a hazard to health or may cause damage to
property and contaminate the water table by reason of being explosive, flammable,
poisonous, corrosive, radioactive, or otherwise harmful to the environment, including
wastes or refuse defined as hazardous under state or federal law.
6.10.105 Place or Premises. 'Place' or 'premises' means every dwelling
house; dwelling unit; apartment house or multiple dwelling building; trailer or mobile
home park; store; restaurant; rooming house; hotel; motel; office building;
department store; manufacturing, processing, or assembling shop or plant; and every
other place or premises where any person resides, or any business is carried on or
conducted within the City or any other site upon which garbage, waste, or refuse is
produced or accumulates.
6.10.110 Recyclable Waste Material. 'Recyclable waste material,' as used in
this Chapter, means discarded materials such as, but not limited to, newspapers,
glass, plastic and metal cans, and compostables which are separated from other
garbage or refuse for the purpose of recycling.
6.10.115 Recycling. 'Recycling,' as used in this Chapter, means the process
of collecting and turning used products into new products by reprocessing or
remanufacturing them.
6.10.120 RefU~. 'Refuse' includes both garbage and rubbish and means
putrescible and nonputrescible solid waste or debris, except sewage, whether
combustible or noncombustible, and includes garbage and rubbish defined in this
section.
6.10.125 Residential. 'Residential' includes single family residences,
multifamily residences, including apartments and condominiums, but does not include
hotels or motels.
6.10.130 Rubbish. 'Rubbish' means nonputrescible unwanted or discarded
material or debris, either combustible or noncombustible including but not limited to
paper, cardboard, grass, tree, or shrub trimmings, straw, clothing, wood, or wood
products, crockery, glass, rubber, metal, plastic, construction, or demolition material,
recyclables, compostables, bulky wastes, and other municipal solid waste.
6.10.135 Single Family Residential. 'Single Family residential' includes
single family residences and any other residences that do not require bin services.
6.10.140 Solid Waste or Waste Matter. 'Solid Waste' or 'Waste matter'
means 'rubbish' as defined in this section.
6.10.145 Standard Residential Refuse Container. 'Standard residential refuse
container' means a container of a size, design, and weight prescribed by the City
Council by Resolution, for single family residential solid waste collection, designed,
and manufactured for the accumulation and storage of residential refuse. The top
diameter of the container shall in no case be smaller than the diameter of the
receptacle at the bottom.
Division 2 - Integrated Waste Management
Sections:
6.10.200
6.10.205
6.10.210
6.10.215
6.10.220
Provision of Service.
Manner, Time, and Frequency of Collection.
Categories.
Collection Arrangements Required.
Prohibitions.
6.10.200 Provision of Service. The City shall provide for or furnish
integrated waste management services relating to collection, transfer, and disposal of
refuse, recyclables, and compostables within and throughout the City. Such services
may be furnished by any one or combination of the following:
(a) City officers and employees;
(b) Contractors franchised or licensed by the City; or
(c) Agreement with another local agency.
6.10.205 Manner. Time. and Frequency of Collection. The City Council
may establish by resolution, the manner in which integrated waste management
services are provided within the City, specifying the hours, days, and frequency of
collection.
6.10.210 Categories. The City Council may determine waste management
collection categories, i.e., residential, single family residential, multifamily
residential, commercial, industrial, special, special event, household hazardous waste
and other, and may make or impose collection requirements which vary for such
categories.
6.10.215. Collection Arrangements Required. The owner, occupant, or other
person responsible for the day to day operation of every property in the City of
Temecula shall make arrangements with the City, another local agency approved by
the City, or a contractor franchised or licensed by the City for the collection of
refuse, recyclable materials, and compostable materials as set forth in this Chapter.
6.10.220 Prohibitions. No person shall engage in the collection of solid
waste without valid authorization from the City of Temecula.
Division 3 - Fees. Franchises. and Licenses
Sections:
6.10.300
6.10.305
6.10.310
6.10.315
6.10.320
6.10.325
Fees, Franchises, and Licenses.
Residential Refuse Collection Franchise.
Commercial Refuse Collection Franchise.
Hazardous Waste Collection Franchise.
Licenses.
Liability For Fees.
6.10.300 Fees. Franchises. and Licenses.
(a) Pursuant to Division 30, Part 3, Chapter 8 of the Public
Resources Code Sections 41900 et ~1., the City may levy fees upon contractors and
premises for refuse collection, transfer and disposal, and the collection and transfer of
recyclables and compostables. Such fees may include charges for the use of dumps or
landfills, and may include costs of preparing and implementing source reduction and
recycling elements and integrated waste management plans. The City may determine
to collect all or part of such charges on the tax roll, or by such other means as the
Council may elect, whether or not delinquent.
(b) City Council may by Resolution, waive permit fees for recyclers
and collectors of compostables.
6.10.305
Residential Refuse Collection Franchise.
(a) The City Council may award one or more franchises for refuse
collection from all or a portion of residential properties in the City. Any such
franchise shall be granted by the City Council by Resolution, upon a determination
that the public convenience and necessity are served by the award of a franchise.
Co) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as
the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. At a minimum, the franchise
shall provide as follows:
(1)
single family and multifamily).
Residential collection rates by categories (e.g.,
(2) A franchise fee to be paid to the City for a
residential franchise of not less than eight percent (8%) of gross revenues.
(3) The Franchisee shall be required to cooperate
with City in solid waste generation studies, waste stream audits, and to implement
measures to achieve the City's solid waste and recycling goals mandated by the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
6.10.310 Commercial Refuse Collection Franchise.
(a) The City Council may award one or more franchises for refuse
collection from commercial (including industrial, governmental, institutional, and all
other nonresidential) properties. Such franchises shall be granted by the City Council
by Resolution, upon a determination that the public convenience and necessity are
served by the award of the franchise.
(b) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as
the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. At a minimum, the franchise
shall provide as follows:
(1) Commercial collection rams set according to
different classes of commercial rams, based on volume, frequency of collection, and
waste stream composition.
(2) A franchise fee for commercial franchises of not
less than eight percent (8%) of gross revenue.
(3) Franchi sees shall be required to cooperate with
City in solid waste generation studies, waste stream audits, and implementing
measures to achieve the City's source reduction, recycling, and waste stream
diversion goals.
6.10.315 Hazardous Waste Collection Franchise.
(a) The City Council may award additional franchises for hazardous
waste collection from commercial (including industrial, governmental, institutional,
and all other nonresidential) properties. Such franchises shall be granted by the City
Council by Resolution, upon a determination that the public convenience and necessity
are served by the award of the franchise.
(b) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as
the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion.
6.10.320 Licenses. No person shall construct or operate a solid waste
management facility including but not limited to a materials recovery facility, landfill,
cornposting facility, or buy-back recycling center without a license issued by the City,
upon satisfying all City requirements for land use and other approvals. Fees for such
licenses shall be set by the City Council by Resolution.
6.10.325 Liability For Fees.
(a) Every person required to arrange for refuse collection or the
collection of recyclable or compostables shall be liable for the service access fees and
charges for such collection, whether or not collection services are utilized.
(b) The owner, occupant, or other person responsible for day-to-day
operation of the premises shall make arrangements for collection to meet the
requirements of this Chapter. If service fees and charges (and any applicable interest
or penalties) are not paid as required the owner and occupant each shall be jointly and
severally liable for their payment. The City may collect the fees and charges (plus
any interest or penalties) on the property tax roll for the property.
Division 4 - Containers
Sections:
6.10.400
6.10.405
6.10.410
Containers: Location.
Use Of Containers.
Unlawful Acts.
6.10.400 Containers: Location. It is the duty of every person designated
under Section 6.10.215 in possession, charge, or control of any place within the City,
in or from which refuse accumulates or is produced, to keep in a suitable place
readily accessible to the collector, containers capable of holding without spilling all
refuse which would ordinarily accumulate on the premises between the time of two
successive collections.
6.10.405 Use Of Containers.
(a) Every person designated under Section 6.10.215 who is in charge of
residential or commercial premises shall deposit or cause to be deposited all refuse in
standard containers or bins as approved by the City Manager and the collector.
(b) No person shall maintain or place for collection any container not
in conformance with the standard container or bin designated by the City.
(c) No container shall be placed adjacent to a street or public right-
of-way for collection service more than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the normal
collection time.
(d) Containers shall be removed from the street or right-of-way
location within twelve (12) hours after collection.
(e) Dead animals and bulky waste shall not be set out for collection.
Bulky waste shall be collected only during annual cleanups or by contractual
arrangement between the resident or business and the Contractor.
(f) Tree trimmings and brush shall be cut into four (4) foot lengths
and tied bundles of not larger than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter for ease in
pickup.
(g) All residential solid waste must be placed out at the curb pickup
site by 6:00 A.M. on the designated pickup day.
6.10.410 Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for any person to place refuse in,
or to otherwise use the refuse containers of another person, without the permission of
such other person.
Division 5 - Collection
Sections:
6.10,500
6.10,505
Frequency Of Removal.
Containers - Located For Collection.
6.10.500 Frequency of Removal.
(a) Persons in charge of the day to day operation of properties other
than commercial food preparation establishments, shall make arrangements to have
removed, not less frequently than once a week, from the property upon which the
residence or residences are located, all refuse on the premises.
(b) Every person in charge of commercial food preparation
establishments, shall cause all refuse to be removed from the property not less
frequently than twice a week.
(c) The City Manager may specify the frequency of collection of
refuse created, produced, or brought upon the premises of commercial or multifamily
residential premises, and the size and number of bins required.
(d) Collection shall be made only between the hours of 6:00 A.M.
and 5:00 P.M. of any day, Monday through Saturday. Commercial pickup may begin
at 5:00 A.M. Earlier pickup time may be authorized only upon prior written
approval of the City Manager which shall include requirements for the Contractor to
notify the affected customers prior to implementing the change.
(e) In order to prevent problems of traffic, noise, wear and tear on
the highway, or other problems having the potential to adversely affect health, safety,
or the environment, which may develop in any specific area as a result of solid waste
collection, the City Manager may regulate the routes, intervals, delivery points, and
times for collection by all Contractors operating within the City.
6.10.505 Containers - Located For Collection. During the hours for
collection, residential containers shall be placed at the curb or right of way for
collection and shall be accessible for mechanized pick-up. Commercial bins shall be
accessible to the collector.
Division 6 - Unlawful And Prohibited Acts
Sections:
6.10.600
6.10.605
6.10.610
6.10.615
6.10.620
6.10.625
6.10.630
6.10,635
Use Of Containers.
Removal Of Refuse.
Noncompactible Refuse.
Institutional, Commercial, or
Industrial Refuse.
Refuse Burning.
Franchise: Applicability.
Unauthorized Removal.
Public Nuisance.
6.10.600 Use Of Containers. The keeping of refuse in containers or bins
other than those prescribed by this Chapter, or the keeping upon premises of refuse
which is offensive, obnoxious, or unsanitary is unlawful, constitutes a public nuisance
and may be abated in the manner now or hereafter provided by law for the abatement
of nuisances.
6.10.605 Removal Of Refuse. No person, other than the person in charge
of any premises, or the person authorized by law to remove any container or bin from
the location where the container was placed by the person in charge for storage or
collection, shall remove any refuse from any cont,~i.'ner or bin, or move the container
or bin from the location in which it was placed for storage or collection, without prior
written approval of the person in charge of such premises.
6.10.610 Bulky Waste. No person shall place bulky waste adjacent to a
street or public right-of-way for collection or removal purposes without prior approval
and arrangements with the collector.
6.10.615 Institutional. Commercial. or Industrial Refuse. It is unlawful for
any person to place or deposit institutional, commercial, industrial, special, or
hazardous waste in any container placed upon the public street by public authority,
and meant primarily for the disposal of refuse by pedestrians using the sidewalk.
6.10.620 Refuse Burning. No person shall bum any refuse within the City,
except in an approved incinerator or transformation facility or other device for which
a permit has been issued by the Building Official, and which complies with all
applicable permit and other regulations of air pollution control authorities, and
provided any such act of burning in all respects complies with all other laws, rules,
and regulations.
6.10.625 Franchise: Applicability. At such times as one or more
franchises for collection covering all or part of the City is in force, it shall be
unlawful for any person other than the franchisee or its agents and employees, to
collect any refuse for hire from premises covered by the franchise. This section shall
not, however, be deemed to apply to:
(a) Recycling;
(b) Any persons holding a valid city business license to engage in the
nursery or gardening business;
(c) Any person removing shrubbery, grass, tree cuttings, tree
trimmings, or other agricultural debris from any property owned or occupied by the
person; or,
(d) Hazardous or special wastes.
6.10.630 Unauthorized Removal. It is unlawful for any person, other than
a person holding a contract or franchise for the collection of rubbish, to take, remove,
or appropriate for his/her own use any refuse which has been placed in any street or
alley for collection or removal, whether the refuse is so placed in regular containers
or not.
6.10.635 Public Nuisance. It is unlawful, and a public nuisance, for any
person to occupy, inhabit, or maintain any property within the City for which
appropriate arrangements have not been made and kept in full force and effect for
regular refuse removal services.
Division 7 - Special Collections
Section:
6.10.700 Special Collections.
6.10.700 Special Collections. The City Council may authorize, and
subscribers to a refuse collection service may order, special collections of such things
as discarded furniture, white goods, Christmas trees, and other items too large to fit
in standard containers, semiannual cleanups, and household hazardous wastes, subject
to City Council approval, and the payment of rates established by the City Council,
by Resolution.
Division 8 - Collection Equipment
Sections:
6.10.800
6.10.805
6.10.810
6.10.815
6.10.820
6.10.825
6.10.830
Contractor Equipment.
Trucks: Standards.
Trucks: Maintenance.
Trucks: Identification.
Trucks: Cleaning.
Containers-Condition.
Trucks: Noise.
6.10.800 Contractor Equipment. Each Contractor shall provide sufficient
collection equipment in accordance with the terms of the contract with the City
authorizing such Contractor to provide collection, transfer, and disposal services.
6.10.805 Trucks: Standards. Any truck used for the collection or
transportation of waste matter shall be leakproof and equipped with a close-fitting
cover which shall be affixed in a manner that will prevent spilling, dropping, or
blowing of any refuse upon the public right-of-way during collection or
transportation.
6.10.810 Trucks: Maintenance. All trucks used for collection or
transportation of refuse shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, neatly
and uniformly painted, and shall carry a shovel, broom, and fire extinguisher.
6.10,815 Trucks: Identification. The owner of each truck used for
collection or transportation of refuse shall have the owner's name, telephone number,
and truck number printed on each side of all trucks in letters not less than three
inches high.
6.10,820 Trucks: Cleaning. All garbage-conveying trucks, tanks,
containers, and other garbage receptacles shall be washed, cleaned, and disinfected
both on the inside and outside at least weekly, or more frequently if necessary to
protect public health. The outside of all such trucks shall be kept free from refuse at
all times.
6.10.825 Containers-Condition. The collector shall maintain in good repair
and, as necessary, replace containers and bins furnished to customers.
6.10.830 Trucks: Noise. The noise level for the collection vehicles during
the stationary compaction process shall not exceed seventy-five (75) decibels at a
distance of twenty-five (25) feet from the collection vehicle and at an elevation of five
(5) feet from the horizontal base place of such vehicles.
Division 9 - Self-Haulers
Sections:
6.10.900
6.10.905
6.10.910
Authorized Dump Sites.
Spills.
Misdemeanor.
6.10.900 Authorized Dump Sites. Each person removing refuse from
his/her own premises shall deposit such refuse only at authorized disposal or dumping
sites, recycling or composting facilities and shall not deposit, leave, dump, drop,
place, or otherwise dispose of such refuse or other waste upon any street, alley,
waterway, or other unauthorized or unimproved lot or any other place within the
City. Such persons shall report the type, quantity, volume, and weight of refuse
removed, to the City Manager, at such times as the Manager may specify.
6.10.905 Spills. In transporting refuse any self-hauler shall take any and
all necessary steps to guarantee that refuse is not scattered. Self-haulers shall clean
up refuse spilled or dumped during removal or transport within the City.
6.10.910 Misdemeanor. Violation of this Division shall be a misdemeanor.
Division 10 - Unauthorized Collection
of Recyclable Materials
Sections:
6.10.1010
6.10.1015
6.10.1020
6.10.1025
6.10.1030
Ownership of Recyclable Waste
Material.
Unauthorized Collection Prohibited.
Right of Individual to Dispose of
Recyclable Material.
Enforcement - Authority.
Civil Action By Authorized Recycling
Contractor.
6.10.1010 Ownership of Recyclable Waste Material. Upon placement of
recyclable waste material at a designated recycling collection location for collection
by an authorized recycling contractor, the recyclable waste material shall become the
property of the authorized recycling contractor.
6.10.1015 Unauthorized Collection Prohibited. During the twenty-four (24)
hour period commencing at 6:00 p.m. on any day preceding a day designated for
collection of recyclable waste material, no person, other than an authorized recycling
contractor, shall remove recyclable waste material which has been placed at a
designated recycling collection location. Any and each such collection in violation
hereof from one or more designated recycling collection locations during said twenty-
four (24) hour period shall constitute a misdemeanor and a separate and distinct
offense punishable in accordance with Section 1.01.220 et sea_. of this Code.
6.10.1020 Right of Individual to Dispose of Recyclable Waste Material.
Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the right of an individual person, organization, or
other entity to donate, sell, or otherwise dispose of recyclable waste material,
provided that any such disposal is in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
6.10. 1025 Enforcement - Authority. The City Manager or his Designee shall
have the authority to enforce the provisions of this Division. This authority shall be
in addition to the authority granted to police officers pursuant to the Municipal Code.
6.10.1030 Civil Action By Authorized Recycling Contractor. Nothing in this
Chapter shall be deemed to limit the right of an authorized recycling contractor to
bring a civil action against any person who violates Section 6.12.020 of this Code,
nor shall a conviction for such violation exempt any person from a civil action
brought by an authorized recycling contractor."
Division 11 - Unlawful Dumping
Sections:
6.10.1110
6.10.1115
Unlawful Dumping.
Enforcement.
6.10.1110 Unlawful Dumping. It shall be unlawful for any person to place,
deposit, or dump solid waste of any kind whatsoever upon any property, within the
City, or to cause, suffer, or permit such solid waste to be placed, deposited, or
dumped upon any property, in the City, without first having obtained a conditional
use permit pursuant to the zoning laws of the City, as now or hereinafter amended, or
pursuant to any other zoning law that may be hereinafter adopted in the place and
stead of said zoning laws of the City.
6.10.1115 Enforcement. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 836.5,
the Director of Planning and any City Code Enforcement Officer are hereby
authorized to enforce the provisions of this Division and as well as those of California
Penal Code Sections 374, 374a, 374.2, 374.3, 374.4, 374d, 374.7, and 375;
California Government Code Section 68055 et $eq.; and California Vehicle Code
Sections 23111 and 23112."
Division 13 - Clean-up Responsibility
Sections:
6.10.1310
Responsibility.
6.10.1310 Responsibility. Until picked up by a collector, each person shall
be responsible for the cleanup of any and all refuse which that person has generated,
dumped, spilled, or otherwise lost or littered, notwithstanding human or animal
interference with bins or containers (whether or not standard containers were used),
wind or other natural forces, and whether during storage, collection, removal, or
transfer. The City or contractor shall be responsible for any refuse spilled during its
storage, collection, removal, or transfer.
Division 14 - Violations
Section
6.10.1410 Violation.
6.10.1410 Violation. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter,
violations of this Chapter are punishable as set out in Sections 1.01.200 through
1.01.260 of the Municipal Code."
SECTION 3. PRIOR ENACTMENTS. This Ordinance is intended to
replace, upon the effective date hereof, Riverside County Ordinance No. 657 as the
same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by City
Ordinance No. 90-04.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that
the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of
competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force
and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted and
published as required by Law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of
,1990.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, Deputy 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 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:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
ITEM NO. 10
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEETING DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL
SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY
NOVEMBER 27, 1990
DECEMBER 11, 1990
SOLID WASTE HAULING AND RECYCLING - REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider the attached Request For
Proposals for solid waste hauling and recycling and continue the matter to the January
8, 1991 agenda so that staff may solicit public comment on the Requet For Proposals.
DISCUSSION: The Integrated Waste Management Ordinance the Council is considering
provides for issuance of one or more franchises for solid waste hauling. Staff proposes
issuing such franchises pursuant to a Request for Proposal ("RFP"). The form of the
RFP is attached.
In brief, the RFP contemplates obtaining bids for a variety of different services. Once
the bids are evaluated, City Staff will meet with one or more finalists to negotiate the
terms of a franchise agreement. The form of the franchise agreement is attached to the
RFP.
The request for proposal is modified from the one used recently by CSA 143. As the
Council may be aware, on November 1, 1990, CSA 143 began its residential waste
hauling and recycling program. The contracted hauler for CSA 143 is Inland Disposal.
The services are paid for through a parcel charge levied on the property owners within
CSA 143.
The chief distinction from the CSA 143 RFP is that the City's RFP seeks bids on a
"menu" of services. Once the bids are in, the City can decide which of the following
services to use:
1. Residential hauling and recycling paid for through a parcel charge.
Agenda Report - Solid Waste Hauling and Recycling - RFP
Page 2.
Residential hauling and recycling paid for through direct billing to the
customers.
Mechanized residential collection and recycling paid for through a
parcel charge.
Mechanized residential hauling and recycling paid for through direct
billing to the customers.
Exclusive commercial hauling and recycling, with the residential
franchise.
6. Non-exclusive commercial hauling and recycling.
At this time, it would not be possible to institute a parcel charge at least until the '91-
'92 fiscal year. Consequently, bids are being obtained for both types of services so
that a comparison can be made as to the advantages of using the parcel charge, and a
determination can then be made whether to transition to a parcel charge next year.
In addition, there is frequently a dispute among haulers as to whether there is a
substantial savings to a city if an exclusive hauling contract for residential and
commercial services is granted to a single company. Alternatively, granting the
commercial franchise to multiple haulers may result in savings to commercial customers
through competition. Again, bids on both options will be sought.
However, no proposal is being sought for non-exclusive residential hauling. Attached is
the executive summary from the Price-Waterhouse report prepared for the County,
evaluating solid waste collection services in the unincorporated areas. At this time, the
County permits multiple haulers to serve a single residential area. The Price Waterhouse
Report indicates that this practice has resulted in "quilting" where multiple haulers are
serving even a single residential street. This results in trash pickup on two or three
days of the week for each street, resulting in further wear and tear on the roads, noise,
dust and congestion. Consequently, this option is not being sought through the RFP.
Finally, it is requested that the Council continue this item until January 8, 1991 for final
action. This will enable staff to obtain public comment on the RFP and present it to the
Council at the January meeting.
A TTA CHMENTS:
Request For Proposals for solid waste collection and
recycling services.
Price Waterhouse Report Summary
CITY OF TEMECULA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL
AND COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION, DISPOSAL
AND RECYCLING
Sealed Proposals are invited and will be received to provide collection, disposal
and recycling of solid waste within the City.
Proposals must be made in accordance with the Instructions and Specifications
contained herein.
Proposals must be delivered to, and be on file with, the City Clerk of the City
of Temecula on or before : p.m. The proposal shall include
a $500.00 application fee. The City Clerk"s office is located at 43172 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California 92390, (714) 694-1989. The envelope containing the
Proposal must be sealed and plainly marked "Proposal for Solid Waste Collection,
Disposal and Recycling.
Proposals will not be publicly opened or read. All proposals will be reviewed
by the Administration of the City. One or more finalists will then be selected, and
final franchise agreement negotiation will commence. Based upon those negotiations,
a Bidder will be recommended to the City Council for award of the franchise.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals, to waive
irregularities and/or informalities in any Proposal and to make an award in any
manner, consistent with law, deemed in the best interest of the City.
David F. Dixon
City Manager
City of Temecula
I
MINIMUM CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS
Materials:
Cart Body:
Rotationally molded, first quality, Union Carbide GPEP-803-LMDPE. Certified to
contain ultraviolet stabilization provided by the equivalent of .5% of UV 531
stabilization compound. Certified to meet a minimum ESCR rating exceeding 1000
hours for both 100% and 10% Igepal solutions.
Cart Handle Mounts:
Integrally molded part of cart body. External handle diameter, 1,375 inches.
Features three comfortable and convenient gripping areas.
Card Lit:
Rotationally molded, first quality, Union Carbide GPEP-803-LMDPE. Nominal
thickness, 0. 125 inches. Certified to contain ultraviolet stabilization provided by the
equivalent of. 5 % of UV stabilization compound.
Attached with hinge which rotates with no interference. Encases PVC pipe within
1/4" walls.
Domed to facilitate runoff of water.
Imprinted with "Instructions" and "Indications and Contraindications" in English,
French, and Spanish.
Wheel Retainers:
Plastic coated steel.
AxleS:
5/8" galvanized solid steel fully supported by can body. No bolts or rivets used for
mounting.
-1-
Width:
Length:
Height:
Color:
20 inch by 2 inch (nominal) HDPE. Minimum R.M.A. load rating of 180 pounds per
wheel.
Safety Bar:
Minimum 1.00 inch diameter, 16 gauge, galvanized steel tube. Stainless steel
optional.
Rotates freely on its axis to facilitate safe engagement and disengagement of dumper
locking hook.
Accessible for quick, clean, and easy removal and replacement from exterior of cart
by maintenance personnel in the filed without use of power tools.
Capacity:
Container volume 101 U.S. gallons.
Dimensions:
31 inches. Fits through gates and doors.
36 inches.
45 lines.
Ultraviolet stabilized, non-fading dark green, brown, black. Special colors available.
Stability:
Designed to prevent being turned over by winds of up to 25 mph in any direction
when empty
EXHIBIT A
-2-
I. OBJECTIVE
It is the City of Temecula's objective to engage one or more Refuse Collection
Firms to provide refuse collection, disposal and recycling services for residential and
commercial premises. These services include mechanized bin collection, construction
waste removal and curb side recycling.
This bid is subject to the provisions of Chapter 6.10 of the Temecula
Municipal Code. A copy of the Chapter is available from the Temecula City Clerk,
located at 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92390.
A prebid conference will be conducted on at : p.m. at 43172
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Bidders must submit a Statement of
Competency at the prebid conference. Failure to submit the Statement of Competency
may disqualify the bidder from further consideration.
The entire City of Temecula is to be serviced. A map of the City is available
from the City Clerk's Office.
H. INSTRUCTIONS
1. PROPOSAL
A proposal shall be submitted to the City of Temecula by the Bidder indicating
a willingness to perform the services outlined, comply with all requirements and
specifications, and enter into the attached Franchise Agreement. Each proposal must
be accompanied by a $500.00 application fee.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
The work under this Contract shall consist of the items contained in the Bid
Instructions and Specifications, including all incidentals necessary to fully complete
said work in accordance with the proposed Franchise Agreement, Chapter 6.10 of the
Temecula Municipal Code (Chapter 6.10) and the Bid Proposal.
3. CONDITIONS
The Bidder shall fully acquaint oneself with the conditions relating to the scope
and restrictions attending the execution of the work under the Franchise. The Bidder
shall thoroughly examine and be familiar with the Instructions, Specifications,
2
Chapter 6.10 and the Franchise Agreement.
It is also expected that the Bidder will obtain information concerning the
conditions at locations that may affect this work.
The failure or omission of the Bidder to receive or acquaint oneself with
conditions existing, shall in no way relieve one of any obligation with respect to the
proposal or to the Franchise. The City shall make all such documents available to the
Bidder.
The Bidder shall make a determination as to conditions and shall assume all
risk and responsibility and shall complete the work in and under conditions
encountered or created without extra cost to the City.
The Bidder's attention is directed to the fact that all applicable State Laws,
Riverside County Health Regulations, City of Temecula Municipal Ordinances and
rules and regulations of all authorities having jurisdiction over the work to be
performed shall apply to the Bidder throughout, and they will be deemed to be
included in the Franchise as though written out in full in the Franchise.
4. NAME. ADDRESS AND LEGAL STATUS OF THE BIDDER
The Bid proposal must be prope~y signed in ink and the address of the Bidder
given. The legal status of the Bidder, whether corporation, partnership, or individual,
shall also be stated. Partners or major stockholders of the Bidder must be clearly
shown providing full names and addresses. The Bidder and any holding, subsidiary
or associated firms shall provide their office address with county and state and
telephone number.
Anyone signing the Proposal and Contract as an agent of another or others
must submit with the proposal, legal evidence of one's authority to do so.
5. COMPETENCY OF BIDDER
The City reserves the right to determine the competence and responsibility of
the Bidder from its knowledge of the Bidder's qualifications or from other sources.
The City requires to be submitted with the Bid Proposal certified supporting
data regarding the qualifications of the Bidder in order to determine whether it is
qualified and responsible. The Bidder will be required to furnish the following
information sworn to under oath:
3
(a) The name and address of the Bidder.
Co)
Whether the franchise is sought for residential or commercial
collection and recycling, or both.
(c) A list of equipment and information related thereto, including:
(1)
an itemized list of the bidder's equipment available to be
used in Temecula;
(2)
identification of each vehicle with supporting information
relative to all of the vehicles for service (primary or
backup) in Temecula;
(3) a list of vehicle identification numbers; and
(4) the type, year, make, model and mileage of all vehicles.
(d) Identification of the manager and responsible office personnel.
(e)
Financial Statements, for the bidder and its parent corporation if
the bidder is a subsidiary or division. Financial statements shall
be for the last three (3) available years and shall include a
statement whether the statements have been audited by an
independent firm of Certified Public Accountants. The financial
statements shall consist of at least the following documents:
(1) income statements;
(2) balance sheets; and
(3) the total operating budget
(0
Evidence that the bidder is licensed and in good standing in the
State of California and, in the case of a corporation, that it is
organized pursuant to the laws of any state.
(g)
A statement setting forth facts demonstrating that the bidder owns
or has access to suitable facilities for equipment cleaning,
maintenance, storage, and business offices. The addresses of all
4
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
(o)
such facilities shall be provided with the application. Included
with this statement, shall be a clearance from the appropriate
planning agency, Water Quality Control Board, or other
appropriate public or private agencies.
A statement regarding the bidder's experience and capability in
the collection, disposal and recycling of solid waste.
A statement describing the bidder's proposed procedure for the
processing of customer complaints.
Three (3) letters of recommendation.
Evidence that the bidder can provide insurance policies in the
amounts specified in the Franchise Agreement.
The type of organization of Bidder, such as sole proprietorship,
partnership, joint venture, corporation, business trust or company,
including the names, home addresses, and percentage of
ownership of all owners and officers. Information as to
ownership interests of less than one percent (1%) need not be
provided.
A narrative describing the identity and form of the business entity
or entities which would own, manage and operate the franchise.
As to each such entity, a list of the names and addresses of all
officers and directors, and all firms, corporations, other entities
or persons owning more than 5 % of the voting stock, and all
partners.
As to each of the entities or persons described in your response to
Item No. (n), since January 1, 1989, have you
(I) Ever been named as a defendant or respondent in a
complaint filed by any public or private entity or person in a
Federal or Sate Court or administrative tribunal in any case or
matter in which the complaint or cross-complaint alleged, or was
amended to allege, unfair business or trade practices or violation
of antitrust laws or violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. (18 USC §§ 1961-68);
5
(2) Ever entered into a settlement agreement with a public or
private entity or person concerning alleged unfair business or
trade practices or violation of any antitrust laws, or violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. (18
USC § 1961-68);
(3) Ever been found by a court to have violated any federal,
state, or local statute, ordinance or regulation regarding the
proper collection, transportation or disposal of hazardous or solid
waste;
(4) Ever has been named in a complaint, filed in any federal
or state court, alleging the violation of any federal, state or local
statute, ordinance or regulation regarding the proper collection,
transportation or disposal of hazardous or solid waste;
(5) Ever paid, or are now appealing a judgment or order
requiting the payment of any civil penalty or fine to any federal,
state or local administrative agency based on a finding or
determination regarding the violation of a statute, ordinance or
regulation regarding the proper collection, transportation or
disposal of hazardous or solid waste;
(6) Ever been a defendant in a cost recovery or citizens suit
filed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act or the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act;
(7) Ever been found by any court or government agency to
have violated any federal or state law or regulation or municipal
or county ordinance relating to election laws or campaign
contributions;
(8) Ever been named in any complaint filed in any federal or
state court, or regulatory agency, including but not limited to the
California Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging the
violation of any federal or state law or regulation or municipal or
county ordinance relating to election laws or campaign
contributions;
(9) Ever had a solid waste franchise, permit, license or other
6
entitlement revoked or suspended;
(10) Ever had a business license revoked or suspended.
(11) If the answer to any of the foregoing is affirmative,
provide a narrative describing the conduct that led to the
affirmative response.
Provide one copy of each solid waste franchise agreement, license
or permit granted by a sate or local government agency in the
State of California to which the entity or entities identified in
response to (n), above is a party.
6. EVALUATION PROCESS
All Bid Proposals will be given thorough review. All contacts during the
review selection phase will be through the Purchasing Department. Attempts by the
Bidder to contact members of the review committee may result in disqualification of
the Bidder. At the option of the City, finalists will be selected for a final round of
negotiations. However, Bidders are encouraged to present their best offers with their
initial submission to insure their selection for the final round.
The selection of ~nalists will be done by evaluating the Bidder's cost and
qualifications.
All evaluation material will be considered confidential and not released by the
City.
Once a ~nalist is selected, the City intends to negotiate a franchise agreement
with the bidder providing the selected services, equipment and supplies. The content
of the Instructions, Specifications, Franchise Agreement, Chapter 6.10 and Bid
Proposal will become an integral part of the final Franchise Agreement, but may be
modified by the provisions of the Franchise Agreement. Bidders must be amendable
to inclusion in a Franchise Agreement of the terms provided herein or developed
subsequently during the selection process.
GENERAL SPECIFICATION
1. BID PROPOSAL
7
The City is seeking bids on a variety of solid waste collection, disposal and
recycling options, as specified on the Bid Proposal form. The Bidder shall be
prepared to enter into a Franchise Agreement for one or more services.
2. EXCLUSIVITY
The City shall grant a single residential franchise. Based on the bids the City
may chose to enter into multiple commercial franchises or grant a single exclusive
franchise for commercial and residential services. The bids should incorporate a 8 %
of gross revenues franchise fee.
3. FRANCHISE TERM
The term of all franchises shall be eight years.
4. SERVICE FREQUENCY
The Bidder shall provide regularly scheduled service, including recycling, as
specified in Chapter 6.10. Recyclables shall be collected on the same day that refuse
is collected.
5. BILLING - RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
The City may choose to establish a parcel charge for residential service
beginning with 1991-92 fiscal year. Accordingly, residential service bidders shall
make two alternative proposes.
(a)
Bidder shall bill subscribers quarterly for all service. Bidder will
be wholly responsible for collecting payment and City will not be
liable for bad debts.
The Temecula Community Services District will levy a parcel
charge for collection and recycling service. Bidder will be paid
semi-annually for all service rendered according to the number of
residences served.
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SOURCE
REDUCTION AND RECYLING ELEMENT (Public Resources Code Section
41900 et ,W-q.
The Bidder providing residential collection, disposal and recycling shall
contract a qualified solid waste disposal consultant to prepare, on behalf of the City, a
Solid Waste Management Program and Source Reduction and Recycling Elements
CSRREM) pursuant to Public Resources Section 41000 et se~_. The Bid Proposal shall
include the proposed consultant's name and qualifications. Should the Bidder selected
for residential service not also provide commercial service, the City Manager shall
develop a formula whereby the residential Bidder is reimbursed from the Bidder(s)
providing commercial service for their fair share cost of the SRRE. The consultant
shall work under the supervision of the City, and the City may require rewriting of
the SRRE, or selection of a new consultant, should the City determine, in its sole
discretion, that it is necessary to achieve an adequate SRRE.
7. COLLECTION IMPEDIMENTS
The Bidder shall provide regularly scheduled weekly refuse collection service
to each residence in the designated area. A number of collection impediments may
require special effort to accomplish this level of service. If this special effort requires
the distribution of containers, it shall be the responsibility of the Bidder to distribute
them.
(a)
or prolonged rain.
Rain - Some streets become impassable during periods of heavy
When the Bidder determines that collection vehicles
can no longer provide service in the street,
the following steps shall be taken:
(1) Notify the City giving location of
impassable street.
(2)
Notify residents that collection service will be available
temporarily at the street location.
(3)
Notify the City when street is returned to service. Return
containers if applicable.
(4)
Notify the residents of the date that collection service will
again be delivered in the street location.
(b)
Infrastructure Renovation - Periodically major renovation is
necessary to maintain the infrastructure of the City. This includes
such activities as replacing gas, water, and sewer lines, surfacing
or resuffacing streets, and replacing wiring for telephone,
electricity, or cable T.V.
9
If the City is notified in advance of these activities, City will
notify the Bidder. However, it is not uncommon for work to be
initiated without prior notification. Alternate sanitation service
must be provided during this period of disruption. Each
circumstance must be evaluated individually to determine the
appropriate alternative. The City shall be notified of the nature
of the disruption, its location, and the alternative employed to
provide service.
(c)
Street Blocked by Refuse - When material is placed in the street
in such a way that the collection vehicle cannot proceed down the
street, the Bidder may notify the City. The City will attempt to
locate the individual responsible for the material and have them
remove it. However, if the responsible party cannot be located,
the Bidder shall remove the material blocking the alley and collect
the refuse as scheduled.
(d)
Street Blocked by Illegally Parked Vehicle - This is usually a
matter of hours, thus collection can be provided on the scheduled
day. If necessary, collections shall be provided at start of shift
on the following day.
8. FUTURE REOUIREMENTS
The City may impose other requirements for pickup of recyclable materials
throughout the life of the Franchise, to assist the City in meeting state mandated
recycling goals. Good faith negotiations will be required of both parties to the
Franchise when any new mandates are imposed.
9. REPORTING
The Bidder shall provide monthly reports on the quantity (by weight) of each
type of recyclable collected to the City, and compare this to the tonnage of refuse
delivered to disposal sites from the service area.
IV. SPECIAL SPECIFICATION
A. MECHANIZED RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION & DISPOSAL
1. MATERIALS TO BE COLLECTED
-- 10
The Bidder shall furnish all labor, supervision, materials, permits, licenses,
and equipment necessary to provide mechanized contained refuse collection of single
family residential dwelling units within the City of Temecula, California as follows.
(a)
All refuse placed curbside on streets or easements for collections
in containers provided by the Bidder.
Co)
The Bidder will not be required to collect metal bin type
containers.
(c)
They usually occur
The Bidder may on occasion be required to collect refuse placed
for collection in bag or boxes. These collections will be in
special emergency situations and for periods of short duration.
when construction or emergency repairs to utilities
block access to the usual location of
containers.
(d)
The Bidder shall continue carry-out services for those individuals
who are unable to place their refuse for collection in the usual
manner due to severe physical handicap. The Bidder shall not
receive special payment for this service.
2. CONTAINERS
The Bidder will provide both the initial container and any replacement
containers to residents to be served. Residents will have individual containers. They
may also have an unlimited number of additional containers, but each homeowner
must pay the Bidder for each additional container. Additionally, the Bidder shall
notify City of all customers utilizing extra containers, so that City may install price
disincentives in its assessment structure to help promote state mandated source
reduction and recycling goals, and reimburse the Bidder for this extra service.
Specifications for containers: See Exhibit A. Repairs to containers shall be the
responsibility of the Bidder. This includes replacement of wheels, lids, hinges, axles,
and handles.
3. GOVERNMENTAL COLLECTIONS
The Bidder shall provide refuse collection to specifically designated
governmental locations within the City. These may include, but are not limited to,
fire stations, schools, parks, and public buildings. The City will not be billed for this
service.
B. NON-MECHANIZED RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION & DISPOSAL
1. MATERIALS TO BE COLLECTED
The Bidder shall furnish all labor, supervision, materials, permits, licenses,
and equipment necessary to provide refuse collection for residential dwelling units
within the City of Temecula, with all refuse placed curbside on streets or easements
for collection in containers by subscribers.
2. GOVERNMENTAL COLLECTIONS
The Bidder shall provide refuse collection to specifically designated non-
residential locations within the City. These may include, but are not limited to, fire
stations, schools, parks, and public buildings. The City will be billed for this service.
C. SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION
1. SCOPE OF WORK
Regardless of whether residential collection is mechanized or not, the Bidder
shall provide semi-annually collection of bulky waste which is composed of materials
which are not easily contained such as Christmas trees, tree trimmings, furniture and
large appliances, and of household hazardous waste.
D. COMMERCIAL COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
1. MATERIALS TO BE COLLECTED
The Bidder shall furnish all labor, supervision, materials, permits, licenses,
and equipment necessary to provide refuse collection for commercial premises.
Refuse will be placed in a refuse bin located on the premises.
E. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING
1. SCOPE OF WORK
The Bidder for residential service shall provide separate curbside collection of
recyclable materials to all single-family residential units receiving refuse service.
Curbside collection shall be performed weekly and shall be provided either by the
Bidder, or be subcontracted by the Bidder to another subcontractor, as approved in
12
writing by the City.
2. MATERIAL TO BE RECYCLED
Curbside collection shall provide a system for separation of the following
designated recyclable materials from waste collected prior to transportation to the
landfill:
(1)
Newsprint, glass, and PET and aluminum beverage
containers are designated as the initial items for collection.
(2)
Used motor oil shall be collected from all participating
customers commencing July 1, 1992.
(3)
Additional items may be added to the list either by
amendment or resolution adopted by the City Council.
(4)
Additional materials may be collected for recycling
purposes at the discretion or desire of the Bidder.
3. RECYCLING CONTAINERS
The Bidder shall provide containers for curbside collection of recyclable
materials. Containers provided shall have a minimum combined capacity of seventeen
(17) gallons, be constructed of rigid, durable, recyclable materials with a minimum
five (5) year life expectancy warranted by the manufacturer. The Bidder's company
or subcontractor's company name and phone number shall be permanently affixed to
each container. Newspaper may be bundled or bagged separately. All containers or
handling methods shall be approved by the City.
4. REPORTING
The Bidder shall report monthly tonnages of refuse disposed of and each
recyclable material collected to include the gross ievenue for each material to the City
to the best of the Bidder's ability, in a format prescribed by the City.
5. HANDLING RECYCLABLES
The Bidder shall not dispose of separately collected recyclable products at
County landfills without prior written approval from the City, or violate any state
statute or local ordinances regarding the handling and storage of the recyclable
materials.
-- 13
RECYCLING REVENUE SHARING.
(1)
Grantee shall share equally with City gross revenues which
are received from the sale of recycled materials collected
by Grantee from this Recycling Program.
(2)
Grantee shall not begin to charge
customers for residential recycling until the
effective date of the recycling program.
MULTI-FAMILY UNIT AND COMMERCIAL
RECYCLING
1. SCOPE OF WORK
The Bidder(s) for multi-family unit service and commercial service shall
provide separate collection of recycable materials to all such units receiving collection
and disposal service. As part of the Bidder's proposal, it shall provide a plan and
associated rate to provide multi-family and commercial recycling, beginning January
1, 1992. The City may choose to revise the plan based upon its SRRE, and will
establish a new recycling rate to address any increase/decrease in the work necessary
to accomplish the plan, as revised.
2. MATERIAL TO BE RECYCLED
Curbside collection shall provide a system for separation of the following
designated recyclable materials from waste collected prior to transportation to the
landfill:
(1)
Newsprint, glass, and PET and aluminum beverage
containers are designated as the initial items for collection.
(2)
Used motor oil shall be collected from all participating
residential customers commencing July 1, 1992.
(3)
Additional items may be added to the list either by
amendment or resolution adopted by the City Council.
14
(4)
Additional materials may be collected for recycling
purposes at the discretion or desire of the Bidder.
3. REPORTING
The Bidder shall report monthly tonnages of refuse disposed of and each
recyclable material collected to include the gross revenue for each material to the City
to the best of the Bidder's ability, in a format prescribed by the City.
4. HANDLING RECYCLABLES
The Bidder shall not dispose of separately collected recyclable products at
County landfills without prior written approval from the City, or violate any state
statute or local ordinances regarding the handling and storage of the recyclable
materials.
5. RECYCLING REVENUE SHARING.
(1)
Grantee agrees to share equally with City gross revenues
which are received from the sale of recycled materials
collected by Grantee from this Recycling Program.
(2)
Grantee shall not begin to charge customers for residential
recycling until the effective date of the recycling program.
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
Proposal For
Residential and/or Commercial Solid Waste
Collection, Disposal and Recycling
Proposal of:
Name of Firm
Address
City, State, Zip Code
An individual - Partnership - A Corporation - duly organized under the laws of
the State of California.
The undersigned having carefully read and considered the terms and conditions of the
contract requirements, specifications and contract documents for Solid Waste
Collection, Disposal and Recycling for the City of Temecula, does hereby offer to
perform such services on behalf of the City, of the type and quality and in the manner
set forth in the request for proposal at the rates hereinafter set forth:
ALL RATES INCLUDE LANDFILL CHARGES AND FRANCHISE FEE
I. Exclusive Franchise for residential and commercial service City-wide:
a. Mechanized Residential Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing:
1. dollars and cents ($
single family unit
) per month per
2. Special services per single family unit:
Recyling - $
per month.
1
Used Oil - $
per month.
dollars and cents ($
multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin.
) per month per
Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) -
$ per month.
Non-mechanized Residential Collection and Disposal
Service - Bidder Billing:
1. dollars and cents ($
single family unit
Special services per single family unit:
Charge:
) per month per
- Recyling - $ per month.
- Used Oil - $ per month.
3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin.
4. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) -
$ per month.
Mechanized Residential Collection and Disposal Service - City Parcel
1. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
single family unit
Special services per single family unit:
- Recyling - $ per month.
- Used Oil - $ per month.
3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin.
-2-
Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) -
$ per month.
Parcel Charge:
Non-mechanized Residential Collection and Disposal Service - City
1. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
single family unit
Special services per single family unit:
- Recyling - $ per month.
- Used Oil - $ per month.
3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin.
Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) -
$ per month.
Special Services:
1. Bulky Waste Residential Pick-up - $ per pick-up per
residential unit.
2. Hazardous Waste Round-up - $ per pick-up per
residential unit.
f.
yard bin) - monthly
Commercial Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing (3 cubic
rate:
1. Pick-Up
1 x week $
2 x week $
3 x week $
4 x week $
5 x week $
6 x week $
7 x week $
-3-
Recycling (1 x week) per month per bin.
g. 40 Cubic yard
h. 10 Cubic yard
Exclusive Franchise only for residential service city-wide:
a. Mechanized Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing:
1. dollars and cents ($
single family unit
2. Special services per single family unit:
Recyling - $ per month.
Used Oil - $ per month.
dollars and cents ($
) per month per
) per month per
multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bid.
4. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) -
$ per month.
Non-mechanized Collection and Disposal Service - Bidder Billing
1. dollars and cents ($
single family unit
2. Special services per single family unit:
) per month per
multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin.
Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) -
$ per month.
-4-
Recyling - $ per month.
Used Oil - $ per month.
3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
C®
Mechanized Collection and Disposal Service - City Parcel Charge:
1. dollars and cents ($
single family unit
2. Special services per single family unit:
) per month per
- Recyling - $ per month.
- Used Oil - $ per month.
3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin.
4. Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) -
$ per month.
Non-mechanized Collection and Disposal Service - City Parcel Charge
1. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
single family unit
Special services per single family unit:
Recyling - $ per month.
Used Oil - $ per month.
3. dollars and cents ($ ) per month per
multi-family residential 3 cubic yard bin.
Recycling per multi-family residential unit (1 x week) -
$ per month.
Special Services:
Bulky Waste Residential Pick-up - $
residential unit.
Hazardous Waste Round-up - $
residential unit.
per pick-up per
per pick-up per
-5-
Multiple Franchise Commercial Service City-Wide:
a. Commercial Service - Bidder Billing (3 cubic yard bin) - monthly rate:
1. Pick-Up
1 x week $
2 x week $
3 x week $
4 x week $
5 x week $
6 x week $
7 x week $
2. Recycling (1 x week) - $
per month per bin.
b. 40 Cubic yard
c. 10 Cubic yard
4. Number of vehicles to be assigned specifically to the City of Temecula
5. Number of full time staff to be assigned specifically to the City of Temecula
All rates bid are fixed through June 30, 1991; subsequently, they are subject to
adjustment a follows:
A. Annual Consumer Price Index ("CPI") and Tipping Fee Adjustment.
The maximum rates shall be automatically adjusted to reflect changes in the
consumer price index and tipping fees. The CPI adjustment shall be made annually
and such adjustment shall be effective as of the first day of July of each calendar
year. The "CPI adjustment shall be equal to the amount derived by multiplying (a)
the previous rate by (b) the percentage increase or decrease in the Consumer Price
Index for all urban consumers within the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside
Metropolitan Area during the prior calendar year, excluding the housing component.
The comparison shall be made for each March 1st during the term hereof and shall be
effective each July 1st. The first CPI adjustment shall occur July 1, 1991. Any
increase in tipping fees shall be passed through on a pro rata basis, and shall be
effective at the start of the first full billing period after the tipping fee increase.
B. Extraordinary Costs.
In addition to, and not in lieu of, the annual CPI increase or decrease
described above, Bidders shall also be enti~ed to rate increases or decreases in an
amount equal to their extraordinary increases or decreases in its cost of collection.
Such extraordinary cost increases or decreases shall be subject to City Council
approval. Such extraordinary increases or decreases in its cost of collection shall
include, by way of example and not by way of limitation: (1) a change in the
location of the landfill or other lawful disposal sites to which the Bidder is required to
transport Solid Waste collected hereunder; (2) increase or decreases in other permit
fees payable by Bidder based on its operations; and (3) changes in the local, state or
federal laws governing collection, separation, transportation or disposal of Solid
Waste.
This is a true and complete proposal of this firm and this firm will enter into Contract
at the above rates and conditions.
Signed
Name Position
Bidder Firm Name
Principal Office Address
City, State. Zip Code
Telephone Area Code & Number
CORPORATE SEAL
I certify that this proposal was signed and sealed by the above mentioned individual
before me on this date.
Notary Public Date
' i
· e ....... ~ ........... ~ ..... 0 O0
'::'cca:accc coo:a: ccac a:acac.- - ~z~
~r~r~r~or~c~r~r~COrJr~c~r~cJ orJ
'J,, --
:i ~ ~ o ~ ~oo~ -~'~
ITEM NO.
11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT.'
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
December 11, 1990
Sphere of Influence
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report.
BACKGROUND: Over the past several days I have had the opportunity of
meeting with members from the wine country, CSD-149, and the City Council Elect
from Murrieta. A final report has not been prepared at this time but will be sent to
you under separate cover for action either on December 11, or December 18, 1990.
DFD:jsg
ITEM NO. 12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT.'
CITY OF TEMECULA
A GENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
December 11, 1990
Rancho California Town Center Traffic Signalization
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report.
BACKGROUND: The City has ~eceived notification that the developer for the
Rancho California Town Center has met with all of his major tenants and has received
preliminary approval for their share of the traffic signalization program. Staff will be
working with all of the parties involved to finalize a cost sharing agreement that will
provide signalization on Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The cooperative
agreement will be brought to the City Council for execution in the very near future.
DFD:jsg
ITEM NO. 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
December 11, 1990
Consideration of Establishing New Position and Classification
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the establishment of an Assistant City Manager/Director
of Administrative Services position and adopt an appropriate resolution modifying the
personnel classifications.
BACKGROUND: Several months ago I presented to the City Council a report which
addressed the expansion of the administrative staff to include a position of Assistant City
Manager. I have not approached the subject since August in hopes that the workload could
be assumed by others. It has now become apparent, not only to me but to the members of
the Council, that additional administrative staff is warranted.
You will recall that Michael Deblieux of IEM had recommended a salary range of $6,172 -
$7,685 per month and based his recommendation on a survey which he conducted. That
material was sent to you several months ago.
It is now appropriate to once again revisit the issue of establishing the position of Assistant
City Manager. The duties of the Assistant City Manager will be targeted to the day-to-day
administrative work of overseeing the business functions of the City and therefore the
position, although it will be classified as Assistant City Manager, will also have a working title
of Director of Administrative Services. I am also recoh~mending a change in the salary level
of $5,763 - $7,176 per month. As you will note this is approximately 9% below that which
the consultant recommended but it put it at approximately 10% above the existing
department head salary range. I feel comfortable that I can recruit successfully within this
salary range.
Based upon the above information, I am recommending that the City Council, (1) authorize
the position of Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services and approve the
salary range of $5,763 - $7,176 per month, (2) adopt the attached resolution and (3)
authorize the City Manager to start recruitment.
DFD:jsg
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority under Chapter 2.08.060 of the City's Municipal
Code, the City Manager has the authority to hire, set salaries and adopt personnel policies; and,
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended and the City Council now wishes to
adopt those policies as identified below;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula as follows:
SECTION 1. The attached list of Position Titles and Salaries (Exhibit A) is hereby
adopted pursuant to Section 45001 of the California Government Code. Such list is attached to
this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The list of Position Titles and Salaries shall become effective immediately
and may be thereafter amended.
SECTION 3. The City Manager shall implement the above list of Positions Titles and
Salaries and has the authority to select and appoint employees in accordance with the City's
personnel policies.
SECTION 4. All prior resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with this
Resolution are hereby rescinded.
PASSED, AND ADOFrED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting held on the 1 lth day of December, 1990.
ATTEST:
Ronald J. Parks, Mayor
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/Resos 119
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the l lth day of
December, 1990, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
3/Resos 119
# of
Positions
Exempt/
Non-exempt
CITY OF TEMECULA
Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges
Attachment I - Exhibit A
Titl~
Minimum Maximum
2 NE
1 NE
1 E
5 NE
1 E
1 NE
1 E
2 NE
3 NE
1 E
1 E
1 NE
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
1 E
2 NE
7 NE
2 NE
2 NE
1 E
0 E
1 NE
1 E
2 NE
1 NE
2 E
49
Account Clerk
Accountant
Administrative Assistant
Administrative Secretary
Assistant City Manager/Director
of Administrative Services
Assistant Planner
Assistant to the City Manager
Associate Planner
Building Inspector
Chief Accountant
City Manager
Code Enforcement Officer
Deputy City Clerk
Director of Building and Safety
Director of Community Services
Director of Finance
Director of Planning
Executive Secretary
Information Systems Manager
Maintenance Supervisor
Maintenance Worker
Office Assistant
Planning/Building Technician
Recreation Leader
Recreation Superintendent
Recreation Supervisor
Secretary
Senior Accountant
Senior Building Inspector
Senior Maintenance Worker
Senior Planner
$1,600 $1,993
$2,498 $3,111
$2,105 $2,621
$1,702 $2,120
$5,763
$2,464
$2,807
$2,885
$2,431
$3,377
$2,193
$2,414
$5,236
$5,236
$5,236
$5,236
$2,285
$4,148
$3,331
$1,667
$1,303
$2,193
$1,424
$3,331
$2,533
$1,454
$2,788
$2,675
$1,926
$3,424
$7,176
$3,068
$3,495
$3,592
$3,027
$4,205
$2,731
$3,006
$6,519
$6,519
$6,519
$6,519
$2,846
$5,165
$4,148
$2,076
$1,624
$2,731
$1,774
$4 148
$3 154
$1.811
$3 471
$3 331
$2 398
$4 236
December 11, 1990
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
A GENDA
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
A REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 1990 PM
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall
Introduction of Parks Development Coordinator
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CSD BUSINESS
1. Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of November 27, 1990 as mailed.
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) - Parks and Recreation Master Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Appoint one member from the Board to serve on the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan Selection Committee·
Comoletion of Process for Dedication of Tract 23128, Martinique by Sunland
Housing
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Accept Tract No. 23128 for Dedication to the Temecula
Community Services District.
Annexation to TCSD Zone B - Parcel Map 21383 - Rancho Core Associates No. 1
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Accept Annexation of parcel Map '21383, Rancho Core Associates
No. I to the Temecula Community Services District, Zone B.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting:
January 8, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
Pujol Street, Temecula, California
28816
CSDAgenda 2./12 1190 2 12/05/90
ITEM NO. 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD NOVEMBER 27, 1990
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order
at 8:45 PM, President Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks,
Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were Acting City Manger David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field
and June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CSD BUSINESS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to approve the
minutes of November 13, 1990, as mailed.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
4\CSDMIN\I 12790 -1- 12/06/90
CSD Minutes
2.
November 27, 1990
Election of President of the Temecula Community Services Board of Directors
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to nominate
Director J. Sal Mu~oz to serve as the President of the Temecula Community
Services Board of Directors.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 3 DIRECTORS: Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Mu~oz
Election of Vice President of the Temecula Community Services Board of
Directors
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by President Birdsall to nominate
Director Peg Moore as serve as Vice President of the Temecula Community
Services Board of Directors.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Moore, Mu~oz, Parks
Birdsall
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: I DIRECTORS: Lindemans
President Birdsall congratulated Director Mu~oz and Director Moore on their
new appointments and stated she had very much enjoyed serving the
Community Services District with its tremendous realm of work to be
accomplished.
4\CSDMIN\I 12790 -2- 12/06/90
CSD Minutes November 27, 1990
4. 11 cceptance of Donated Property
Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, stated this parcel contains a
Metropolitan Water District Easement, and said it is north of La Serena Way,
between the La Serena and Ridgeview Developments. He recommended the
Board accept this donated property and hold it until completion of the City-wide
master plan. He explained this property could possibly be used as a part of a
City-wide bike path and trail system.
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Mu~oz to accept
donation of property (3.47 acres) located off La Serena Way, containing a
Metropolitan Water District Easement for possible future park development.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
DIRECTORS REPORTS
None given.
4\CSDMIN\I 12790 -3- 12/06/90
CSD Minutes November 27, 1990
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:50 PM
to a meeting on December 4, 1990. The motion was unanimously carried.
Patricia H. Birdsall, President
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk
4\CSDMIN\I 12790 -4- 12/06/90
ITEM NO. 2
~o~ ~~-~
cITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
DECEMBER 11, 1990
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
RECREATION MASTER PLAN
(RFQ) - PARKS AND
PREPARED B~
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Appoint one member from the Board to serve on the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan Selection Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT.' $60,000 has been budgeted for the development of a Parks
and Recreation Master Plan.
DISCUSSION: Requests For Qualifications (RFQ) will be submitted to the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) by several consultants aspiring to
develop the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. A selection committee comprised
of a member from the Board of Directors; two parks and recreation commissioners;
and city staff members from Planning and the TCSD will review the proposals, and
select the top consultants to make a formal presqntation and proposal to the
Selection Committee.
Once the final consultant is selected, the final Master Plan document will be
completed in approximately six (6) months. The selected consultant will be re-
quired to include a time table as part of the proposal.
ITEM NO. 3
Riverside County Service Area 143
JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR
29377 Rancho California Road, Suite ~05 - Rancho California, CA 92390
[714] 699-0235 · Fax [7~4] 699-4390
DATE:
December 5, 1990
TO:
FROM:
- City of Te ecula De uty lerk
Rebecca L. Stein C~ Supervising Office Assistant I
SUBJECT:
Temecula Community Service District Agenda Items for
December 11, 1990
URGENT - We request this ite~ be placed on the December llth agenda; therefore,
enabling the CSA to take over maintenance froe the developer prior to 1991.
Please find attached the CSA 143 Staff Report for Completion of the Process for
Dedication for Tract 23128 Martinque by Sunland Housing.
This office requests this item to be placed on the Temecula Community Service
District Agenda for December 11, 1990.
The Developer has been notified the CSA will assume maintenance responsibility
when approved by the Temecula Community Service District Board.
Riverside County Service Area 443
JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR
29377 Rancho California Road, Suite '105 - Rancho California, CA 92390
(7t4] 699-0235 · Fax (714] 699-4390
DATE:
December 5, 1990
TO:
FROM:
SI~JECT:
Temecula Community Service District
Staff Report for December 22 emecula Community Service
District Meeting
Completion of Process for Dedication
Tract 23128
Martinique by Sunland Housing
The CSA 143 requests the Temecula Community Service District to accept the above
tract, therefore, enabling the CSA to commence maintenance on these areas. This
will complete the Process for Dedication.
This dedication package has been reviewed and approved by Riverside County
Counsel and Building Services and also by Dana Robie of the City Engineering
Department.
SENT DY:WILLDAN $,B.
;12- 5-90 ;10:46AM;
WILLDAN S. 8.~
6994390;# 2
850 RespiteIlkx Lane, Suite 400
San hrnardino, CA 92408
(714) 386-0200
TO: Riv. CO. Garyice Area Ona-lortl-Thrae
29377 Rucho California Road, Suite 105
Telsouls, CA 92390
A~R: Deborah Tharp
RE: CSl 23128
S/O Micolaa Road I/0 M, Gueral harny
Me are forwardin2 bl meoeaulsr the fallowinJ plans for/our usa:
DATE : 12/04/90
JOB No.: 02150
~'Deserlptioq
Mo. of
Lefa] Description Cheek 3
. Remarks:
Dana labia L.S., St. Survey Analyst
~NT ~Y:WILLDAN 8.~,
;12- 5-90 ;10:4?AM; WILLDAN ~,~,~
EXHIBIT "A"
6994390;# 3
/z-4 .po
LOTS 85 AND 86 AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 23128 IN THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
198, PAGES 96 THROUGH 102, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICU-
LARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
T,OT .85
COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 23128 SAID
POINT ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF DEER MEADOW
ROAD AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT NO. 23128 AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP; THENCE,
NORTH 13' 16' 48" WEST ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT
NO. 23128, 33.01 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID
DEER MEADOW ROAD AND THE ~RU~ POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE,
ALONG THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
DEER MEADOW ROAD (33.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE):
SOUTH 75' 12' 17" WEST, 277.88 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE; THENCE,
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, HAVING A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31' 11' 56" A RADIUS OF 267 00 FEET AND AN
, ,
ARC LENGTH OF 145.39 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 73' 35' 47" WEST, 141.10 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE; THENCE,
WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 64' 53' 35" A RADIUS OF 333 O0 FEET AND AN
, ·
ARC LENGTH OF 377.16 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 41' 30' 38" WEST, 159.06 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE; THENCE,
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, SAID
CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69' 11' 32" A RADIUS OF
,
267.00 FEET AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 322.44 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST-
ERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK ON SAID DEER MEADOW ROAD;
THENCE,
NORTH 22' 35' 45" WEST, ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK 33.23 FEET
TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE, cONCAVE TO THE WEST
A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 68' 17' 22" EAST;
THENCE,
1.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
26.
27.
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, AND ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (44.00 FEET FROM
CENTERLINE), SAID CURVE HAViNG A CENTRALANGLE OF 12° 35' 59",
A RADIUS OF 1244.00 FEET AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 273.56 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF SALERNO
ROAD; THENCE,
NORTH 50' 22' 30" EAST ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK, 33.23 FEET;
THENCE,
SOUTH 83' 22' 38" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF SALERNO ROAD (30.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE), 33.97 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE; THENCE,
EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND ALONG SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01'
1O' 18", A RADIUS OF 1030.00 FEET AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 21.06
FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 84' 32' 56" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, 29.77 FEET TO
THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF SALERNO
ROAD; THENCE,
SOUTH 39° 32' 56" EAST ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK AT SALERNO
ROAD, 4.00 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 89' 18' 02" WEST, 83.85 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 43' 00~ 56" WEST, 23.42 FEET; T~ENCE,
SOUTH 09' 51' 06" WEST, 20.68 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 11' 20j 52" WEST, 40.21 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 14° 40' 38" WEST, 73.99 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 17' 52' 14" WEST, 127.83 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 14' 39' 48" EAST, 21.74 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 70' 55 58" EAST, 23.46 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 74' 14 24" EAST, 25.81 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 86' 42 48" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH S5' 17 12" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 79' 47 12" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 69' 10 18" EAST, 27.54 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 61' 14' 03" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE,
SENT BY~WILLDAN S, 8,
;12- 5-90 ;10:48AM;
WILLDAN S,B,~
699~390;# 5
81
39,
30,
31.
32.
33.
34,
35.
37.
38.
39.
40,
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
9e
NORTH 54' 14' 03" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 43' 06' 50" EAST, 85.58 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 39' 18' 52" EAST, 85.92 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 43' 32 06" EAST, 60.85 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 55' 16 56" EAST, 35.00 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 61' 12 08" EAST, 63.91 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 72' 12 19" EAST, 45.00 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 75' 53 25" EAST, 42.77 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 83' 28 18" EAST, 35.00 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 85' 25 Sg" EAST, 31.25 FEET: THENCE,
SOUTH 87° 09 04" EAST, 46.35 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 73° 04 17" EAST, 155.94 FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 75' 34 29" EAST, 77.08 FEET; THENCE,.
NORTH 88' 33' 09" EAST, 45.00 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 49' 00' 53" EAST, 8.60 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 88' 11' 34" EAST, 28.79 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 75' 30' 14" EAST, 152.90 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 75' 28' 55" EAST, 102.95 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 76° 23' 55" EAST, 22.75 FEET~ THENCE,
NORTH 01° 56' 41" EAST, 8.10 FEET; THENCE,
NORTH 76' 43' 12" EAST, 10.00 FEET TO SAID EASTERLY TRACT
BOUNDARY OF TRACT NO. 23128; THENCE,
SOUTH 13' 16t 48" EAST ALONG SAID TRACT BOUNDARY, 12.50 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SENT BY:WILLDAN S,B. ;12- 5-90 ;10:~BAM; WILLDAN S.B,~
6994390 ;# 6
LOT 8~
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO.
23128[ THENCE,
SOUTH 75° 12t 17" WEST ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT I AND
THE WESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, 208.55 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY
TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF VILLA VENECIAAND THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING; THENCE,
SOUTH 75' 12' 17" WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF NICOLA8 ROAD (55.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE), 872.15 FEET TO
THE NORTHEASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF NORTH
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE,
SOUTH 40' 19' 40" WEST ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK, 26.30 FEET;
THENCE,
8OUTH 05' 27I 04I' WEST ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
SAID NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD (44.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE),
218.94 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-
BACK OF SALERNO ROAD; THENCE,
SOUTH 36' 31' 40" EAST ALONG SAID CORNER CUT-BACK, 33.62 FEET;
THENCE,
SOUTH 83' 22' 38" EAST ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF SALERNO ROAD (30.00 FEET FROM CENTERLINE), AS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP, 33.63 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE; THENCE,
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONg SAID CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND ALONG
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SAID CURVE HAVINg A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
1' 10' 18", A RADIUS OF 970.00 FEET ANDANARC LENGTH OF 19.84
FEET; THENCE,
SOUTH 84' 32' 56" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINEi 29,77
FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF
SAID SALERNO ROAD; THENCE,
NORTH 77' 26' 14" WEST, 79.84 FEET; THENCE,
9. NORTH 31' 58 34" WEST, 25.20 FEET; THENCE,
10. NORTH 03' ~5 43" EAST, 101.13 FEET; THENCE,
11. NORTH 05' 02 28" EAST, 110.89 FEET; THENCE;
12. NORTH 36' 38 42" EAST, 23.36 FEET; THENCE,
13. NORTH 74' 02 10" EAST, 69.66 FEET; THENCE,
14. NORTH 75' 48 04" EAST, 49.62 FEET; THENCE,
15. NORTH 75' 12 17" EAST, 746.76 FEET; THENCE,
$ENT BY:WILLDAN
;12- 5-90 ;10:49AM;
WILLDAN 8.8.4 6994390;#
SOUT}~ 72' 16' 59" EAST, 33.49 FEET TO THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF
THE CORNER CUT-BACK OF VILLA VENECIA; THENCE,
NORTH 62' 10' 54" WEST (SHOWN INCORRECTLY AS NORTH 62° 10' 54"
EAST ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT NO. 23128) ALONG SAID CORNER
CUT'BACK, 33,97 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BFGT~3qING.
SEE EXHIBIT HB,, ATTACHED HERETO
AND
BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF
\
e~, \.
.ZlG, II-/X..,:
~ #:06~t66g ~'B'g NVO~TM ' ~V6t:OL~ O6-g -aL:
'~ 'g NV(1'r'ITM:Afl
SENT BY:WZLLDAN &B.
.-:
;12- 5-90 ;10:49AM;
t k'Hil,:31T
WILLDAN ~. B. ~
,
1. N ?5' 12~ 17" g B72.15~
2. N 40' 19~ 40" E 26.30~
3, N 05' 27' 04" E 23R.94'
4. N 36' 3~' 40" W 33.62'
5. N e3' 32e 38" ~ 33.63'
6, 01' 10~ 19" 19.B4~
7. H B4' 32~ 56" H 39.77~
8. H 77' 26~ 14" ~ 79.84~
9. H 31' 58~ 34" ~ 25.20'
10. H 03' 5~s 43" ~ 101.13'
11, N 05' 02~ 18" ~ 110.B9'
12, N 36' 38~ 43" ~ 23.36'
13 · H 74 ' 02 s 10" ~ 69.
14. N 75' 48~ 04" ~
15, N 75' 12t 17" ~ 746.76~
~6. H 72' ~6I 59" ~ 33.49'
17, H 62' 10' 84" H 33.97~
18. N 75' 12' 17" ~ 277.88'
19. 31' 11t 56" 145.39'
20. N 73* 35~ 47" W 141.10~
31. 64' 53t 35" 377.16'
22, N 41' 30' 38" ~ 159.06~
23. 69' 1~~ 32" 322.44*
34. N 22' 35I 45" W 33,53e
3~ · 12 ' 35 t 59" 273,
26. H SO* 32* 30" E 33,23'
27, H 83' 32* 38" N 33.97
28. 01' 10' 18" 21,06'
29, N 84' 32I 56" W 29.77'
30. N 39' 32I 56" W 4.00w
3~. N 89' 18~ 02' E 83.85;
32. H 43' O0t 56" E 23.42'
33. N 09' 51~ 06" E 20.68'
34. N ~1' 20' 52"E
3~. N 14' 40~ 38"E 73.99'
36, H 17' 52~ 14" E 127.83~
3~. N 14' 39~ 48" W 21.74;
38. H 70' 55' 58" W 23.46'
39. N 74' 14~ 24" W 25,8Z'
40, N 86' 42t 48" W 4O,OOt
41, N 85' 17~ 1~"~ 40.00'
42. H 79' 47I 12" ~ 40.00'
43, H 69' 10~ 18' E 27.54'
44, N .61' 14t Q3" E 40.00~
45. H 54' 14~ O3"~ 40.00s
46. H 43' 06~ 50" E 85.58'
47, H 39* 18~ 52" E 85,93'-
48. N 43' 32~ 06" E 60.85'
49. N 58' 16~ 86" ~ 35.00'
50, N 6~~ 12* OB"E 63.91'
51. H V3' IIt .19" E 48.O0~
~3. N 15' 53~ 25" B 43.77'
53, N 83' 28' 18" g 35.O0~
54, H 85' 25~ 59" E 3Z,25~
55. H 87' 09~ 04" N 46.35'
56. N 73' 04~ 1~" N 155,94~
87, N 7S' 3q~ 29" W 77,08~
5e, H Be* 33! 09" ~ 45.00'
8S. N 49' 00t 53" I 8.60'
60. H 88' 11~ 34" ~ 38.79~
61. N 7S' 301 14" ~ ~1.90I
62, N 75' 28~ 5~" E 102.g5~
63. N ~6' 25~ 55" E 22.~5
64. H OZ' ~6~ 41" E 8.10~
6~, H 76* 43I 12" E 10,00
66, N 13' 161 48" W
6994390;# 9
RADIUS
970,O0t
267. O0~
333.00~
267.00'
1,244,00'
1,030.001
"o IVIL tNliNlEfiew "'
LAND IURVIYOrt$, PLAtlNIRR
ITEM NO.
4
Riverside County Service Area 143
JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR
29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 405 - Rancho California, CA 92390
[744] 699-0235 · Fax [744] 699-4390
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
December 3, 1990
June Greek - City of Temecula, Deputy Clerk
Deborah M. Tharp - CSA 143 Office Assistant
Temecula Community Service District Agenda Item for Dec. 11, 1990
Please find attached the CSA 143 Staff Report for Annexation to TCSD Zone B for
Parcel Map 21383, Rancho Core Associates No. 1.
This office request this item to be placed on the Temecula Community Service
District Agenda for December 11, 1990.
Should you have any questions on this matter please contact this office.
Riverside County Service Area t43
JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR
29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 405 - Rancho California, CA 92390
[744] 699-0235 · Fax [7t4] 699-4390
DATE:
December 3, 1990
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Temecula Community Service District
Riverside County Service Area 143
Jeanine R. Overson - Director
,</
Report for December 11, 1990 TCSD Meeting
Annexation to TCSD Zone B
Parcel Map 21383
Rancho Core Associates No. 1
The above tract has requested annexation to the TCSD for additional
services. All legals have been reviewed and approved by Dana Robie of the
City of Temecula, Engineering.
The CSA 143 recommends annexation of this area into the TCSD.
cc: Dana Robie
APPT.ICATION TO THR TF. MRCU;.A
COMMUNITY' SF. RVICRS DISTRICT
Mail or deliver to:
Temecula Community Service District c/o CSA 143
29377 Rancho California Road. Suite 105
Temecu] a. CA 92390
For office use only
INTRODUCTION: The questions on this form are designed to obtain
sufficient data about the proposed project and site to allow staff to
assess this proposal. Submit this original. a boundary map and metes
and bounds legal description of the affected area. and two ~] complete
copies of all materials. No other application form wi]] be accepted.
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO:
Annex to TCSD Zone B
(Describe proposal or action requested)
APPLICANT: Rancho Core Associates No. 1 Telephone: 676-1604
ADDRESS: 29400 Rancho California Road, Temecula, Ca 92390
CONTACT PERSON: Max Harrison Telephone:(619) 549-3303
ADDRESS: 9968 Hibert Street, San Diego
LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) city of Temecula
West of Diaz Road/South of Winchester Road/East of Rancho California Road
A. OWNERSHIP:
Is the applicant a~pe~y owner in the area of the proposed
project (circle)
Is the applicant sole owner of this property (circle)~ NO
B. AREA INFORMATION:
How many acres or miles of territory are included in this
proposal? 168-14%%~a~J
re
2. Specifically describe how the property will be improved or
developed (e.g. number of dwelling units mobilehomes, etc.)
130 lots with industrial buidlings on each ~ot
Specifically describe how the property is presently used (e.g.,
vacant, groves, single family residences, etc.)
vacant
Population within the area at the present time? N/A Industrial
Number of registered voters within the boundaries? None
Expected change in population which will result from this
proposal? None
7. Area assessed value? $ 7,000,000.00
Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries
Assessor's Parcel Number Assessor's parcel number wiF~ be
assigned after map records
Current zoning? MSC
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN:
where necessary)
1.
(attach additional sheets
Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible.
(Note: Refer to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.):
Parcel map 21383
Outline the full range of services which will be extended to
the property as a result of this proposal, and the cost of
these services to the landowner and/or future residents.
street lights
If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and
intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). ~
attach street ]~ghting layout prepared bY the responsible
public utility. and approved by the County Traffic Rng~neer.
71-22,000 LPSV
If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be
maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level
of service to be provided.
Street lights
PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION:
1. How many landowners make up the total ownership of the project
area? one
How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project
one
3. How many landowners are in favor of the project? (attach
letters of consent from landowners) one
4. How many landowners are not in favor of the project? none
NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and address of people to
whom notices and communications should be directed.
NAME: Max Harrison
ADDRESS: 9968 Hibert Street
TELEPHONE:(619) 549-3303
CITY & ZIP: San Diego, Ca 92131
NAME: Mike Kinney TELEPHONE ~76-1604
·
APPLICANT'S SIGN E ,
TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: Dean Allen
TITLE: President
~ Johnson & Johnson Development
General Partner
Rancho Core Associates No. 1
Date: 9/25/90
APPT.ICATION TO THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY' SERVICES DISTRICT
Mail or deliver to: FOr office use only
Temecula Community Service District c/o CSA 143 "
29377 Rancho Cal~forn4a Road. Suite 105
Temecu]a. CA 92390
INTRODUCTION: The questions on this form are designed to obtain
sufficient data about the proposed project and site to allow staff to
assess this proposal. Submit this original· a bQundary map and metes
and bounds legal description of the affected area· and two (2) complete
copies of all materials, No other a~lication form will be accepted.
APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO:
Annex to TCSD Zone B
(Describe proposal or action requested)
APPLIC~NT: Rancho Core Associates No. 1 Telephone: 676-1604
ADDRESS: 29400 Rancho California Road, Temecula, Ca 92390
CONTACT PERSON: Max Harrison Telephone:(619) 549-3303
ADDRESS: 9968 Hibert Street, San Diego
LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) City of Temecula
f
West of Diaz Road/South o Winchester Road/East of Rancho California Road
A. OWNERSHIP:
1. Is the applicant a~pe~y owner in the area of the proposed
project (circle)
2. Is the applicant sole owner of this property (circle)e NO
B. AREA INFORMATION:
How many acres or miles of territory are included in this
ro osal ?4
Specifically describe how the property will be improved or
developed (e.g. number of dwelling units mobilehomes, etc.)
130 lots with industrial buidlings on each ~ot
Specifically describe how the property is presently used (e.g.,
vacant, groves, single family residences, etc.)
vacant
Population within the area at the present time? N/A Industrial
Number of registered voters within the boundaries? None
Expected change in population which will result from this
proposal? None
7. Area assessed value? $ 7,000,000.00
Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries FF
Assessor's Parcel Number Assessor's parcel number wi be
assigned after map records
Current zoning? MSC .~
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN: (attach additional sheets
where necessary)
Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible.
(Note: Refer to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.):
Parcel map 21383
Outline the full range of services which will be extended to
the property as a result of this proposal, and the cost of
these services to the landowner and/or future residents.
street lights
If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and
intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). Ai~
attach street ]~ghting layout prepared bY the responsible
public utility. and approved by the County Traffic Rngineer.
71-22,000 LPSV
If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be
maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level
of service to be provided.
Street lights
PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION:
1. How many landowners make up the total ownership of the project
area? one
How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project
one
3. How many landowners are in favor of the project? (attach
letters of consent from landowners) one
4. How many landowners are not in favor of the project? none
NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and address of people to
whom notices and communications should be directed.
NAME: Max Harrison
ADDRESS: 9968 Hibert Street
TELEPHONE:(619) 549-3303
CITY & ZIP: San Diego, Ca 92131
NAME: Mike Kinney TELEpHONE~76-1604
ADDRESS: 29400 Rancho California Road ~ITT~Y : ., 2390
TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: Dean Allen
TITLE: President
D~ Johnson & Johnson Development
General Partner
Rancho Core Associates No· 1
Date: 9/25/90
EXHIBIT "A"
ANNEXATION NO.
TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
LAFCO NO.
PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN BY PARCEL HAP NO. 4646 ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75
OF PARCEL HAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, IN THE
TEMECULA RANCHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4, SAID POINT
BEING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO, DISTANT
THEREON SOUTH 39° 48' 32" EAST, 2816.61 FEET FROM CORNER NO. 5 OF
THE TEMECULA RANCHO.
THENCE: NORTH 39° 48' 32" WEST, ALONG SAID RANCHO LINE, 2333.93
FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4;
THENCE: NORTH 38~ 50' 27" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL 4, 1532.84 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN;
THENCE: SOUTH 19~ 50' 46" EAST, 798.73 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 850.00 FEET;
THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
04~ 39' 03", 69.00 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL THERETO BEARS NORTH
65~ 30' 11" EAST;
THENCE: NORTH 65° 30' 11" EAST, 259.85 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET;
THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF
12° 16' 14", 107.08 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS
SOUTH 12~ 13' 35" EAST;
THENCE: NORTH 77° 46' 25" EAST, 651.63 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET;
THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF
28~ 39' 45", 400.20 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS
NORTH 40~ 53' 20" WEST;
THENCE: NORTH 49~ 06' 40" EAST, 1571.26 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET;
THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
21~ 05' 03", 294.39 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS
NORTH 61~ 58' 23" WEST;
THENCE: NORTH 28~ 01' 37" EAST, 277.47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY
CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4;
THENCE: SOUTH 61° 58' 23" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL 4, 1170.71 FEET;
THENCE: SOUTH 45° 22' 27" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL 4, 5096.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
A CALCULATED AREA OF 168.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART
HEREOF.
October 17, 1990
WILLIAM G. RYDEN
L.S. 5589 EXP. 12/31/93
II II II II "// II II II II
tt/la/90 K Rz~/
EXHIBIT "A"
ANNEXATION NO.
TO THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
LAFCO NO.
PARCEL 4 AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP NO. 4646 ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75
OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, IN THE
TEMECULA RANCHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4, SAID POINT
BEING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO, DISTANT
THEREON SOUTH 39° 48' 32" EAST, 2816.61 FEET FROM CORNER NO. 5 OF
THE TEMECULA RANCHO.
THENCE: NORTH 39 ° 48 ' 32" WEST, ALONG SAID RANCHO LINE, 2333 . 93
FEET TO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4;
THENCE: NORTH 38~ 50' 27" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL 4, 1532.84 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN;
THENCE: SOUTH 19~ 50' 46" EAST, 798.73 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 850.00 FEET;
THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF
04° 39' 03", 69.00 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL THERETO BEARS NORTH
65~ 30' 11" EAST;
THENCE: NORTH 65~ 30' 11" EAST, 259.85 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE
CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET;
THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF
12° 16' 14", 107.08 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS
SOUTH 12° 13' 35" EAST;
THENCE: NORTH 77~ 46' 25" EAST, 651.63 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET;
THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF
28~ 39' 45", 400.20 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS
NORTH 40~ 53' 20" WEST;
THENCE: NORTH 49~ 06' 40" EAST, 1571.26 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET;
THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF
21~ 05' 03", 294.39 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS
NORTH 61~ 58' 23" WEST;
THENCE: NORTH 28~ 01' 37" EAST, 277.47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY
CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4;
THENCE: SOUTH 61° 58' 23" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL 4, 1170.71 FEET;
THENCE: SOUTH 45° 22' 27" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL 4, 5096.78 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
A CALCULATED AREA OF 168.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART
HEREOF.
October 17, 1990
WILLIAM G. RYDEN
L.S. 5589 EXP. 12/31/93
[--
(~ * ,~.~.j,
II II II II
:1
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
FOR THE RECORD
7
1° -it-y.,2
Jv'efr WESTSIDE ASSOCIATIONS COUNCIL
P .O . Box 1788 , Temecula , CA 92390
December 10, 1990
City Council
City of Temecula
Temecula , CA 92390
Honorable Councilmen :
The Westside Associations Council is comprised of the
presidents of the five property owners associations on the
west side of Rancho California . Those associations are :
DeLuz Ranchos Association , Sandia Ranchos Property Owners
Association , Santa Margarita Association , Santa Margarita
Rancho Property Owners Association , and the Santa Rosa Groves
Association .
On December 8th , the Westside Associations Council met
and voted unanimously to oppose the incluson of our area in
the Sphere of Influence being requested by the City of
Temecula . By ouT area" , we mean the area included within
the boundaries of the Santa Rosa Community Services District ,
an established public agency.
Our area is a hilly , rural area in which no development
will occur which will have any impact on the City of Temecula
or a City of Murietta if one is formed . We wish to keep ours
a rural area not under the sphere of influence of either
city . Our Santa Rosa Comunity Services District provides us
with adequate local control of our road maintenance , police
protection and trash collection. Most of our area is
restricted by CC&R ' s from undesireable development . If need
be , we can apply for expansion of the authority of our
existing community services district .
If the purpose of your current proposal is to include
our area so that it would at some day be included in Temecula
rather than Murietta and thus add to Murietta ' s growth at the
expense of your potential , rest assured that we shall be
equally opposed to such a Murietta relationship also .
For the foregoing reasons , we would greatly appreciate
it if you would take action at this time to remove our area
from inclusion in your proposed Sphere of Influence .
Cordially ,
THE WESTSIDE ASSOCIATIONS COUNCIL
Michael P. Huebner
Chairman