The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About111291 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE NOVEMBER 12, 1991 - 7:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-42 Resolution: No. 91-109 CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Pastor Erik Krag, Temecula Evangelical Free Church Flag Salute Councilmember Moore ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks' PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Certificate of Valor - Andrew Gonzales Proclamation - Great American Smokeout Day PUBLIC FORUM This is a portion of the City Council meeting unique to the City of Temecula. At the meeting held on the second Tuesday of each month, the City Council will devote a period of time (not to exceed 30 minutes) for the purpose of providing the public with an opportunity to discuss topics of interest with the Council. The memb~.e,~_f the City Council will respond to questions and may give direction to City staff. The Council is prohibited, by the provisions of the Brown Act, from taking any official action on any matter which is not on the agenda. If you desire to speak on any matter which is not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 2/agentis/111291 I 11/06tO 1 CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Waive reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 3 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Approve the minutes of October 1, 1991 Approve the minutes of October 8, 1991 Approve the minutes of October 10, 1991 Approve the minutes of October 22, 1991 Approve the minutes of October 29, 1991 Resolution Aooroving the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Risk Management Claims Administration RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUTHORIZING A CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURE TEMECULA 21agerids/111291 2 11/07/91 Acceotance of Offer of Dedication - Portion of Via Las Colinas RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES AND ACCEPTING INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM, A PORTION OF VIA LAS COLINAS Award of Desion Contract - Marqarita Road RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Award a design contract for street and drainage improvements for Margarita Road from Winchester Road to North General Kearney Road to Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for an amount not to exceed $62,950.00. 6.2 Authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 7 Traffic Siqnal AQreement for Winchester and Margarita Road between Bedford Prooerties and the City of Temecula RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve an agreement for the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads, between the City of Temecula and Bedford Properties and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said. 8 Acceotance of Public Imorovements -Tract No. 20130-2 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 20130-2 and authorize the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds. 8.2 Accept the Maintenance Bond and approve the Subdivision Agreement rider. 8.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 2/agerde/111291 3 11/07/91 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 9 Ordinance Establishing City Clerk as Custodian of City Seal and Insionia RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-39 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE CITY CLERK AS CUSTODIAN OF THE CITY SEAL AND INSIGNIA 10 Ordinance Pertaining to Advertisina Regulations and Use of Directional Sions RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 9140 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER FOUR TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. 11 Ordinance Regardina Change of Zone No. 17/First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 23125 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 9141 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - 2 1/2 ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND R-6 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN S PACE COMBINING ZONE -RESI DENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926- 070-020. 21ageride/111291 4 11/07/91 PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 12 Change of Zone No. 5631 - Vestino Tentative Tract No. 25320 Property located north of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of December 10, 1991. 13 Change of Zone No. 5740 Property located on the west side of Ridgepark Drive, south of Rancho California Road. RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740. 13.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A- 20 TO I-P AND R-5 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE AND SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-020 AND 021. 13.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-20 TO I-P AND 4-5 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-320-020 AND 021. 2/agefide/111291 6 11/07/91 14 Second Extension of Time - VestinQ Tentative Tract Mao No. 23125 Property located at the northeast corner of DePortola and Butterfield Stage Roads. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Accept Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. 14.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23125, A 212 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH 13 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON 88.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926-070-020. COUNCIL BUSINESS 15 MarQarita Village Soecific Plan/Rancho California Road Reimbursement Agreement RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve an agreement with the developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (Bedford Development Corporation, Marlborough Development Corporation, Margarita Village Development Company and Tayco) to reimburse the City for the construction of certain improvements to the I-15/Rancho California Road Freeway Ramps and Rancho California Road from Margarita Road to westerly of Moraga Road; through the imposition of an additional building permit fee of approximately 82,600 per residential unit, and; 15.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. 16 Leaal Advocacy in Suooort of Other Cities RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Consider adopting a legal advocacy policy. 21egeele/111291 6 11/07/91 17 Aooointment of Old Town Historic Review Board RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Appoint five regular members and one alternate as recommended by the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to operate within the guidelines adopted August 13, 1991. 18 Chancje of Zone No. 19 - Old Town Historical District Boundary RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Direct staff to establish boundary proposal for Old Town Temecula Historical District expansion, notice all property owners within proposed boundary and schedule for public hearing by the Council. 19 Alignment of Butterfield Staoe Road Study RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve the vertical alignment for Butterfield Stage Road north of Rancho California Road adjacent to Callaway Winery and direct staff to proceed with processing the second extension of time for Vesting Tract Map 23103. 20 Consideration of Change of Zone 5425 and Tentative Tract Mao No. 24308 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Direct staff to forward a recommendation of denial to the County of Riverside Planning Department relative to Change of Zone No. 5425 and Tentative Tract Map No. 24308. 20.2 Direct staff to formally request that the County of Riverside adopt a policy which provides that whenever the County considers a project having any impact upon a local jurisdiction, proper notification be given to that jurisdiction. Further that the community be allowed to provide input on the project prior to action by the Board of Supervisors. 2/ageride/1112e I 7 11/O7/~ 1 21 Consideration of Traffic Alternatives - Calle Medusa RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Approve the following Traffic and Transportation Commission recommendations: Extension of Margarita Road Extension of Butterfield Stage Road Completion of improvements at Nicolas Road and Winchester Road. 21.2 Direct staff to proceed with implementation of the approved alternatives. 21.3 Consider recommendation to table any further action on Calle Medusa by the City Council for a minimum 24 month period of time. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: November 19, 1991, 5:00 Executive Session, City Hall, Main Conference Room - Regular meeting, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California Next regular meeting: November 26, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center 2,7475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00) CALL TO ORDER: President J. Sal Mu~oz' ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mur~oz PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS: Introduction of Bob Kast, Maintenance Superintendent 21/gende/111291 6 11/07191 PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink "Requeat to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record, CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 8, 1991. 1.2 Approve the minutes of October 22, 1991. 2 Phase I and Phase II - Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project - Completion RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Accept Phase I and Phase II of the Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project as 100% complete. 2.2 Authorize final retention payment to Assured Electrical Contractors, Contract No. 0137 and No. 0207, to be released pursuant to section 9- 3.1 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. 2.3 Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion. 3 Award of Bid - Recreation Brochures RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Award a contract to The California to produce two (2) issues of the Community Services Recreation Brochure. GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Dixon DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting November 26, '1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 2/egende/111291 9 11/07/91 T~MECULA REDEVELOPM~NT AGENCY MEETING. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Peg Moore presiding AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks Moore, PUBLIC COMMENT: AGENCY BUSINESS Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 8, 1991. 1.2 Approve the minutes of October 22, 1991. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting , 1991, 8:00 Community Center, 27475 Commerce California. PM, Temporary Center Drive, Temecula Temecula, 21ageride/111281 10 11/07/91 PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society's Great American Smokeout is a lighthearted effort to encourage smokers to give up their habit for 24 hours on Thursday, November 21; and WHEREAS, for fourteen consecutive years, millions of smokers, including many in the City of Temecula have participated in this event; and WHEREAS, the health benefits of not smoking are substantiated and well known; and WHEREAS, there are additional civic benefits, such as a reduction in the risks of accidental fires and illnesses related to secondhand smoke; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald J. Parks, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim Thursday, November 21, 1991 to be: GREAT AMERICAN SMOKEOUT DAY in the City of Temecula, and in so doing, urge all smokers and smokeless tobacco users in the community to demonstrate to themselves and their families that they can quit if they wish by joining the American Cancer Society's 15th Annual Great American Smokeout. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 12th Day of November, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk City of Temecula AWARD OF VALOR The City Council of the City of Temecula takes great pride in recognizing the outstanding achievement of the Andrew Gonzales who displayed exceptional bravery during his recent rescue of a three year old neighbor child from drowning. Andrew showed composure and intellegence far beyond his eight years of age when he acted without hesitation or assistance to prevent this near tragedy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto affixed our hands and official seal this 12th day of November, 1991 Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD OCTOBER 1, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:34 PM in the Main Conference Room, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Acting Deputy City Clerk Susan Jones. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) and 54956.9(c) at 5:35 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 6:07 PM in regular session by Mayor Parks. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Lindemans. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CONSENT BUSINESS 1. Uodate on CFD 88-12 - Ynez Corridor Mello Roos District City Engineer Tim Serlet introduced the staff report outlining the projects in each of the three bond series and listing estimated totals. Mr. Serlet introduced Jim Sims, Project Manager, J.F. Davidson, to answer any technical questions Council may have. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to receive and file report on CFD 88-12. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz Ninutes\lO\01\~l -1- 10/24/91 City Council Minutes October 1, 1991 Review Draft Five-Year Caoital Imorovement Program Mark Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager, stated that staff introduced the draft Capital Improvement Program at the meeting of August 30, 1991, and since that time, meetings have been held with individual Councilmembers to discuss concerns or thoughts they may have. He said it is staff's recommendation that Council review the proposed projects in the draft plan and identify any required amendments. A straw vote was taken on each of the projects on a project-by-project basis to determine whether or not they should remain in the Capital Improvement Program. The following projects were left in the Capital Improvement Program with any changes as noted below. Rancho California Interchange Winchester Road Interchange Ynez Road Corridor Overland Overcrossing Margarita Road (Interim) Parksite Vicinity Margarita/Moraga Pala Road Parksite Butterfield Stage Road was moved to a priority one project, extending it from Nicholas to Rancho California Road. Date Street Overcrossing - undetermined date for development. Diaz Road Extension Rancho California Road Improvements Nicolas Rd to Calle Chapos to Calle Girosol to Walcott Road Paving Pala Road Bridge City Corporate Facilities Councilmember Birdsall excused herself at 7:23 PM, due to illness. Auto Mall Marque Sixth Street Parking - Old Town First Street Parking - Old Town City Attorney Scott Field excused himself at 7:30 PM, and announced that the City Council approved an amendment to the Quimby Fees Standstill Agreement between Bedford Properties and the City of Temecula in closed session. Margarita Canyon Natural Parksite, Commercial Property and School Bus Facility Old Town Master Plan Sam Hicks Monument Park improvements moved to a Number I priority. (Sam Hicks Monument Park Addition (L-shaped property) and Sam Hicks Monument Park Addition (Senior Center) Main Street Program Old Town Streetscape Hinutes\lO\01\~l -2- 10/24/91 City Council Minutes October 1.1991 Santiago/I-15 Interchange Modification Study Museum/Visitors Center was moved to a Number II priority. Town Hall Fire Station Acquisition to Replace Station 12 Senior Housing Margarita/Moraga Road Improvement Project Butterfield Stage Road raised to a Level I priority project. The traffic Signal System (Citywide) Bike Paths (Citywide) Interim - Ynez Road Northbound Extension to Date Street Ynez Road Northbound Extension to Date Street Study Interim Margarita Road Shopping Center/Mall Community Pool Community Recreation Center Sports Park Parking Lot Riverton Park Development Sports Park Improvements Olympic Swim Complex Temecula Valley High School Tennis Court Lights Multi-Trail System Development of Riverton Park Development of Silverwood Park Old Town Building Facades Show Ground/Fair Ground (Baseball Complex) RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:00 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:15 PM. The City Council reviewed the following projects recommended by Councilmembers and agreed to add these to the Capital Improvement Program. Acqdi~ition of Property South of Sports Park Main Street Bridge Replacement Margarita Road (East Side) Between Rancho California Road and La Serena Way Murrieta Creek Improvements From Winchester Road to South of First Street Old Town Street Repairs/Rerouting and Traffic Study (Front and Mercedes) Recreation Center (Rainbow Canyon) Skateboard Facility Solana Way from Ynez Road to Margarita Sports Complex Sports Park Parking Lot (Upper Soccer Field) Tennis Courts - City Parks With regard to the Winchester Road Bridge, Winchester Road from Margarita Road to easterly boundaries and Ynez Road between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road Ninutes\10\01\91 -3- 10/2/./91 City Council Minutes October 1, 1991 Projects, it was agreed that staff should encourage the County to move these projects forward as soon as possible. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to continue this item to the meeting of October 29, 1991 at 5:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmembers Birdsall and Mur~oz absent. CITY MANAGER REPORTS None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 9:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmembers Birdsall and Mu~oz absent. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk Ninutes\10\01\91 -4- 10/24/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD OCTOBER 8, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:02 PM in the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Pro Tern Patricia Birdsall presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, and City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor David Dodd, Calvary Chapel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Moore. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall read the text of a proclamation, proclaiming October 1991 as Special Olympics Month. A proclamation was then read by the Mayor Pro Tern proclaiming the week of October 27, 1991 to November 3, 1991 Pornography Awareness Week. The proclamation was presented to Trudy Thomas, Chairperson of the Southwest Riverside County Care Coalition. PUBLIC FORUM John Dedovesh, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, addressed the Council regarding repairs to his street which he stated was damaged during some work performed by Rancho California Water District. R. Jane Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, spoke regarding the need to set up a drop-off point for Von's and Lucky's cash register receipts. She said a program is in effect which allows these receipts to be used for credit toward purchase of computers for the local schools. Ms. Vernon also spoke in favor of the community sponsoring an antique fair in Old Town Temecula. Minutes\ 10/8/9 1 - 1 - 10/17/9 1 City Council Minutes October 8.1991 Councilmember Moore requested that the agenda be reordered to allow consideration of agenda item number 18 prior to item number 16. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Lindemans requested that item number 11 be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. Councilmember Mu~oz requested the removal of item number 5 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Consent Calendar items 1-4 and 6-10 as follow: 1. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of September 24, 1991 as mailed. Resolution AOOrOvinq LiSt Of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A City Treasurer's Report as of Auaust 31, 1991 4.1 Receive and file report 6. Release of Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 21675-1 6.1 Authorize the release of Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 21675-1 and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Minutes\ 10/8~91 -2- 10/17/91 City Council Minutes October 8.1991 9 10 Release of Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 21675-2 7.1 Authorize the release of Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 21675-2 and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Release of Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 21675-3 8.1 Authorize the release of Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 21675-3 and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Release of Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 21675-4 9.1 Authorize the release of Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 21675-4 and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Contract for Plan Check Services 10.1 Approve the award of contract to the ESGIL Corporation as the primary plan review firm to provide complete plan review services to the LBuilding and Safety Department for an initial one (1) year period. 10.2 Approve the retention of Van Dorpe/Chou and Associates Inc., MGM Associates, Melad and Associates and Willdan Associates to further support the plan review needs of the City's Building and Safety Department. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks 5 Authorization to Transfer Positions to City Staff Councilmember Mur~oz asked if the positions listed are based on a one-for-one replacement. Senior Management Analyst Luci Romero responded that although the actual number of positions is greater, they will provide a better service level at no additional cost. Minutes\ 10/8~91 -3- 1 O/17/91 City Council Minutes October 8.1991 11. Risk Management Claims Administration Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko presented the staff report and explained that the intent of the proposed resolution is to have staff manage the risk liability of the City. He explained that this action will only result in staff dealing with those claims which are considered "minor". He further recommended that all claims be discussed, where possible, in Executive Session due to the fact they represent potential litigation. Councilmember Lindemans stated he is uncomfortable not knowing the nature of all the claims that the City receives, including those under $15,000. He said he would like to have a detailed report on each claim even if they are not large enough to be placed on the agenda for formal Council action. Councilmember Moore suggested that if the City is successful in becoming enrolled in the Joint Powers Insurance Authority (JPIA), a report is required to be directed to them regarding all claims. The Council could be copied on that report rather than preparing a separate one to the Council. City Manager Dixon suggested continuing this item for two weeks to allow staff to amend the resolution to reflect that all claims will be presented to the Council, in closed session, prior to any action being taken by staff. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue consideration for a period of four weeks. The motion was unanimously carried with Mayor Parks absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. Extension of Adult Business Ordinance No. 90-23 Planning Director Gary Thornhill introduced the staff report recommending adoption of an ordinance to extend the existing ordinance relating to adult businesses. Councilmember Mur~oz requested clarification of the term "moratorium" as it is used in the staff report. Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh advised that the correct term should be "Interim Zoning Ordinance". Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall declared the public hearing open at 7:35 PM. There being no requests to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:35 PM It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendations as follows: Minutes\ 10/8/91 -4- 10/17/91 City Council Minutes October 8, 1991 13.1 13.2 Accept the conditions. report describing measures taken to alleviate existing Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-38 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-18 RELATING TO ADULT BUSINESSES AND REQUIRING A PERMIT THEREOF The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks 14. Change of Zone 5631 - Tentative Tract MaD NO. 25320 Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report recommending continuation of the hearing to the meeting of November 12, 1991. Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall opened the public hearing at 7:37 PM. There being no requests to speak, a motion to continue was entertained. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to continue the hearing to the meeting of November 12, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mufioz NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks ABSTAINED: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans 15. Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 24183 Gary Thornhill, Planning Director presented the staff report recommending continuation of the hearing to the meeting of October 22, 1991. Minutes\ 10/8/9 1 -5- 10/17/9 1 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10# 1991 A special meeting of the Temecula City Council and Planning Commission was called to order Thursday, October 9, 1991, 7:10 P.M. Temecula City Hall Conference Room, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ronald J. Parks. Councilmember Moore led the flag salute. PRESENT: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Munoz PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff Also present were David Dixon, City Manager, Mark Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager, June Greek, City Clerk, John Cavanaugh, Assistant City Engineer, Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works, Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, John Meyer, Planner, and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk. PRESENTATION AND PROCLAMATIONS None PUBLIC COMMENT None PUBLIC HEARING8 1. GENERAL PLAN PROCESS 1.1 GENERAL PLAN PROGRESS REPORT GARY THORNHILL briefly reviewed the purpose of the joint meeting and introduced the representatives from the Planning Center who are currently working on the General Plan process. JIM RAGSDALE, The Planning Center, introduced A1 Bell and Karen Gulley, also from the Planning Center and gave a brief overview of the current status of the General Plan. Mr. Ragsdale stated that they are currently in the strategic planning phase, looking at the vision statement and doing extensive research of existing conditions. Mr. Ragsdale requested comments and/or changes to the MEA be submitted to the department heads. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE8 OCTOBER 10, 1991 Mr. Ragsdale introduced individuals reporting on various portions of the General Plan. MAYOR PARKS asked if large utility easements are covered in the MEA. JIM RAGSDALE responded that this should be contained in the land use element and stated that the Planning Center would be developing issue papers on various critical issues concerning the community and the general plan. 1.2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT ECONOMIC CONSULTANT PRESENTATION DENNIS WAMBEM, Vice President, Stanley R. Hoffman & Associates, reviewed the preliminary economic findings and issues report, specifically Rapid Employment Growth; Job Growth Rate; Job's Added To Manufacturing Base; Job's Added to Service Base; Retail Sales within city limits; and, summary of economic issues. Mr. Wambem stated that the company would be preparing a computer fiscal model that will be transferred to the City upon completion of the general plan for it's use. COUNCILMEMBER LINDEMANS expressed concern that the City was creating twice as many retail jobs as manufacturing jobs and needs better balance. COMMISSIONER BLAIR questioned the impact on the City from commuter residents. DENNIS WAMBEM stated that the surrounding communities have grown, along with Temecula, and the City is becoming more self sustaining. GARY THORNHILL advised that the City of Temecula currently has a better job vs. housing ratio than the City of Moreno Valley. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the City would have something to work with to gauge the progress of the City. DENNIS WAMBEM stated that there would be a computer model for the fiscal analysis. GARY THORNHILL added that staff hopes to have the ability to do a economical analysis of every project. CC/PCMIN10/10/91 -2- 10/15/91 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TRAFFIC CONSULTANT PRESENTATION OCTOBER 10o 1991 BOB DAVIS, Wilbur Smith & Associates, provided a overview of the circulation element of the general plan process. Mr. Davis stated that Wilbur Smith & Associates is currently in Study Phase II - Existing Transportation Conditions: existing circulation systems, current traffic volumes, existing operating conditions, and other transportation modes. Mr. Davis reviewed the following map exhibits: study area circulation roadways, existing daily traffic volumes, service levels at intersections and circulation problems areas. MAYOR PARKS questioned if the study was performed during school hours or through the summer session. BOB DAVIS stated that the study was completed during the summer when school was not in session. MAYOR PARKS commented that there are circulation problems at and around the schools and these areas should be re-studied during school session. DAVID DIXON questioned if the Traffic Element would be addressing the Western Corridor. BOB DAVIS advised that the Western Corridor will be a part of the Capitol Improvement Plan as the northern terminus has not yet been confirmed. Mr. Davis added that Wilbur Smith & Associates will continue to with neighboring communities to produce a comprehensive model of Temecula and Murrieta. 1.3 REVISED VISION STATEMENT AND SUMMARY JIM RAGSDALE stated that during the summer the Planning Center issued a Vision Statement; however, after reviewing the Mission Statement of the City and comments from everyone, they have revised the Vision Statement. Mr. Ragsdale summarized the key concepts of the Community Vision Statement as follows: * A balance of business factors * A convenient and effective transportation system , A outstanding open space and park system , A community dedicated to family values, neighborhood conservation and public safety , Preservation of historical and cultural resources * Assurances that adequate public services keep with development Mr. Ragsdale encouraged comments and/or amendments. CC/PCMIN10/10/91 -3- 10/15/91 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1991 COUNCILMEMBER LINDEMANS made reference to the Los Ranchitos specific plan. He stated the south edge of that area has changed from a more commercial character; however, the CC&R's stipulate no commercial. JIM RAGSDALE advised that the purpose of the General Plan was to look at these specific issues. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that CC&R's are agreements between the land owner and the Association and the City does not consider them when making zoning decisions. Zoning overrules the CC&R's on the General Plan element. 1,4 GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES AL BELL requested that any questions, comments or concerns to the draft General Plan Goals and Policies be submitted within two weeks. Mr. Bell proceeded to review each element, specific goals and accompanying policies for discussion as follows: DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES GOALS #1 A complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial industrial, recreational, cultural and public land uses: #2 A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development: #3 A City from which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns: MAYOR PARKS suggested that the airport be addressed under these policies. #4 A land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods: #5 Community gathering areas which provide for the social, civic, cultural and recreational needs of the community: COUNCILMEMBER MOORE suggested encouraging the multi-purpose use of existing buildings for meetings, etc. #6 A development plan that preserves and enhances the environmental resources of the City: CC/PCMINiO/10/91 -4- 10/15/91 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1991 #7 A land use pattern and intensity of development that encourages transit, bicycle, pedestrian and other non-auto mobility options: COUNCILMEMBER MOORE stated the width of streets and existence of sidewalks should be considered in the element for trails. MAYOR PARKS suggested utilizing existing utility easements as part of the trail system. COUNCILMEMBER LINUEMANS emphasized the need for bike paths to the school facilities. DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES GOALS #1 A street network that moves people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the Study Area: #2 A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community: #3 An efficient City circulation system through the use of transportation system management and demand management strategies: #4 An adequate supply of private and public parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City. #5 Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City: #6 A truck circulation system that provides for the safe and efficient transport of commodities and also minimizes noise and traffic impacts to the City: DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES GOALS #1 A diversity of housing opportunities that satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing and future residents of the Study Area: Maintain and enhance existing residential areas: -5- 10/15/91 #2 CC/PCMIN10/10/91 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10o 1991 #3 Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households: #4 Removal of governmental constraints in the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible: #5 Housing development that incorporates energy conservation features or energy efficient design concepts: DRAFT OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT GOAL #1 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the varying recreational needs of residents: #2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources: #3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern: #4 Conservation of energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices: #5 Preservation of open space areas for recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features: #6 Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources: #7 Protection of prime agricultural land from premature conversion to urbanized uses: #8 A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs: COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND and COMMISSIONER BLAIR left the meeting at 9:30 P.M. NOISE ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES GOALS #1 Reduction of noise impacts from transportation noise sources where the noise environment is unacceptable: CC/PCMIN10/10/91 -6- 10/15/91 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 1991 COMMISSIONER FAHEY suggested addressing the airport under this element. #2 Consideration of noise impacts in land use planning and design: MAYOR PARKS suggested an abrogation policy. #3 Control of noise from significant noise generators in the community: DRAFT PUBLIC FACILITY/SERVICE ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES GOALS #1 Effective and cost efficient sheriff, fire and emergency medical service within the City: COMMISSIONER FAHEY suggested pursuing the designation of a trauma center for this area. #2 A quality school system that contains adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula: #3 A range of community services and cultural facilities that meet the needs of the Temecula residents and enhances their quality of life: #4 A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports existing and future development in the Study Area: #5 A solid waste management system that provides for the safe and efficient collection, transportation, recovery and disposal of solid wastes: #6 Adequate electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications systems to meet the demand of new and existing development. COUNCILMEMBER LINDMS left the meeting at 9:45'P.M. ALBELL stated that the Planning Center was open to any and all comments and suggestions and that they should be submitted to Gary Thornhill. JIM RAGSDALE advised that the next General Plan will be held Tuesday, October 29, 1991, 7:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School. CC/PCMIN10/10/91 -7- 10/15/91 JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE8 OCTOBER 10, 1991 CITY MANAGER REPORT None CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None ADJOURNMENT COUNCILMEMBER MOORE moved to adjourn at 9:40 P.M., seconded by COUNCILMEMBER BIRDSALL and carried unanimously. The next meeting of the Temecula City Council will be held Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 7:00, Temporary Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk CC/PCMIN10/10/91 -8- 10/15/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD OCTOBER 22, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:08 PM in the Main Conference Room, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Recording Secretary Susan W. Jones. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) and (c) regarding Potential Litigation. The meeting was reconvened at 7:02 PM in regular session by Mayor Parks. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Jay Beckley, Rancho Community Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Parks introduced Christa Moore, Temecula's First Jr. Miss Rodeo Queen. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mekkia deSanchez, 31410 Corte Sonora, addressed the City Council regarding the need for stop signs or some type of speed control on Via Lomas Vistas, with cross streets of Corte Sonora and De Las Olas. She stated that since the closure of Avenida De La Reina, problems have occurred. Eion McDowell, 42601 Pradera Way, asked for the Council's support in discouraging building on the Western Ridgeline. John J. Fewer, 31381 Paseo Goleta, addressed the Council regarding the closure of Avenida De La Reina, stating that this closure has only shifted the problem to other residential streets. Ninutes\10\22\91 -1- 10/28/91 City Council Minutes October 22, 1991 He requested the City Council immediately look into the effects this had on other nearby streets. David Servetter, 31365 Paseo Goleta, presented a petition with 58 signatures to the City Council, objecting to the closure of Avenida De La Reina, stating traffic has been diverted to other nearby streets. The petition further requests that Avenida De La Reina be immediately opened and other solutions to the problem be sought. Mr. Servetter also suggested the following solutions: speed limit signs, "Children at Play" signs, left turn only leaving high school in the afternoon, speed bumps on Rancho Vista and throughout neighborhood, and increased ticketing of violators. Evelyn Harker, 31130-85 South General Kearny Road, thanked the Temecula Police Department for their efforts in enforcing speed limits in Old Town· CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Lindemans requested the removal of Item No. 4 from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Parks stated he would abstain from Item No. 7 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-3 and 5-8. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A included in the agenda. Resolution ADoroving List of Demands 2.1 Ninutes\10\22\91 -2- 10/28/91 City Council Minutes 3. Citv Treasurer's Reoort as of Seotember 30, 1991 3.1 Receive and file report. October 22, 1991 Ordinance Establishina the City Clerk as Custodian of the City Seal and Insignia 5.1 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-39 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE CITY CLERK AS CUSTODIAN OF THE CITY SEAL AND INSIGNIA Revised Vesting Final Tract Mao No. 23267-1 6.1 Approve Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-1, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Final Parcel Mao No. 21769 7.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 21769, subject to the Conditions of Approval. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks City/State Electrical Agreement for Traffic SienaIs and Safety Lightina 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT REVISING THE EXISTING BILLING SYSTEM FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA Ninutes\10\22\91 -]- 10/28/91 City Council Minutes October 22, 1991 4. Award of Contract for Study of User Fees and Charoes and Develooment Imoact Fees Councilmember Lindemans requested that the Council award the contract for this study to John McTighe & Associates, stating the City has worked with Mr. McTighe in the past and knows the quality of work he performs. City Manager Dixon asked if a firm offer has been received from Mr. McTighe. Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer, stated his proposal is for $45,000. Councilmember Mur~oz stated he will not support this recommendation, since he feels the City spends too much money on consultants, and this work should be performed in-house. Mayor Parks stated he is concerned that Mr. McTighe has not performed this type of study before and feels it would serve the City best to approve staff recommendation and award the contract to David M. Griffith and Associates. Councilmember Moore stated she would support awarding the contract to John McTighe & Associates because the cost differential is too great to justify the higher cost of using David M. Griffith and Associates. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to award a contract to John McTighe & Associates for Study of User Fees and Charges and Development Impact Fees, in an amount not to exceed $45,000. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 24183 Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:35 PM. Karen Ames, representing Mesa Homes, stated the applicant concurs with staff recommendation. Hinutes\10\22\91 -4- 10/28/91 City Council Minutes October 22, 1991 James Marpie, 19150 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, addressed the Council asking that this project be conditioned to require porous pavement, and further asked the Council to set a priority on protecting the drinking water of the community. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 7:41 PM. Councilmember Mur~oz asked if the Non-Point Source Guidelines for Cities approving projects are being enacted at this time. Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, stated staff is coordinating with Riverside County Flood Control District, Santa Ana Regional Quality Board and State EPA regulations. He explained the City is part of a permit program which will impact all development in the City, after the first of the year. Councilmember Murtoz stated he feels this project would not be consistent with the General Plan, if such a plan was in place. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 245183 TO SUBDIVIDE A 48.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 155 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS AND 1 PARK SITE WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 5 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 (THE MEADOWS), AMENDMENT NO. 1, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 923-023-002 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10. Directional Sign Ordinance - "Kiosks" Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks asked if home builders have had an opportunity to review the proposed ordinance. Ms. Ubnoske stated that this public hearing has been advertised, however no special mailing was done. Tony Elmo, Chief Building Officer, stated a number of companies were contacted when the ordinance was being developed, and they were very much in favor. Ninutes\10\22\91 -5- 10/28/91 City Council Minutes October 22. 1991 Mayor Parks asked if the proposed ordinance has the same restrictions as the Kiosk program Coleman Homes has instituted. Debbie Ubnoske answered the new ordinance is designed to be more restrictive than Ordinance 348 from the County which was used in the past. Councilmember Birdsall asked if current signs would be allowed to remain. Ms. Ubnoske stated these signs would be allowed to remain according to the current agreement. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:56 PM. Hearing no requests to speak, Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 7:56 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 9140 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER FOUR TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsell, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks None None RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 7:58 PM to accommodate the previously scheduled Community Services District Meeting. The meeting was reconvened following the CSD Meeting at 8:56 PM. 11. Change of Zone No. 17/First Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Tract MaD NO. 23125 (Sterlina Homes) Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:00 PM. Ninutes\10\22\91 -&- 10/28/91 City Council Minutes October 22.1991 Ron Williams, representing Sterling Builders, the applicant, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, stated the applicant concurs with staff recommendation. Mayor Parks stated a letter of protest has been received from Mr. Alfred L. Sannipoli. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:02 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendations 11.1, 11.2 and 11.4 as follows: 11.1 Accept Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; 11.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 17 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 88.4 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-A-2½ (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - 2½ ACRES MINIMUM) TO Rol AND R-5 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN SPACE COMBINING ZONE-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926-707-020 11.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23125-A 215 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 88.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926- 330-004 AND 926-070-020 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ninutes\10\22\91 -7- 10/28/91 Citv Council Minutes October 22, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-41 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2½ (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - 2½ ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND R-5 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN SPACE COMBINING ZONE-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926- 070-020 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCIL BUSINESS 12. I-15 Overcrossina Traffic Directors Chief of Police, Rick Sayre, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks asked if funds were still being received from the community for this project. Captain Sayre stated that the City is no longer receiving funding from the community. Mayor Parks asked that staff do what ever is possible to speed the installation of the traffic signals in this area. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $63,000 TO TRAFFIC GUARD PROGRAM Ninutes\10\22\91 -8- 10/28/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: October 22.1991 Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks None None CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon gave a progress report on the traffic signals for Rancho California Road, stating staff is making every effort to speed the process. He reported that staff anticipates plans will be signed off by the end of the month and the project will go to bid in December. Mr. Dixon also reported he will be attending a LAFCO meeting in Palm Springs on October 24, 1991 regarding a request from Pulte Homes for reconsideration of inclusion in the City's Sphere of Influence. Mr. Dixon further stated that because the State of California is extracting funds from the Counties and Cities to solve State budgeting problems, cities in the State need to become more pro-active in letting the legislature know this is not an acceptable solution. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS City Attorney Field gave an overview of Brown Act requirements to the City Council. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Parks reported he artended a WRCOG meeting regarding growth management and invited the City Council to attend the next meeting on November 4, 1991 at Moreno Valley City Hall. Mayor Parks requested that a joint meeting with the Planning Commission be scheduled in November. Ninutes\10\22\~1 -f, 10/28/~1 City Council Minutes October 22.1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at 9:20 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk Hinutes\10\22\91 -10- 10/28/91 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD OCTOBER 29, 1991 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:33 PM in the Main Conference Room of City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Pro Tem Patricia H. Birdsall presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks Also present were Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Karel Lindemans. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were offered. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Review Draft Five-Year Capital Imorovement Program Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko gave a brief staff report outlining the changes to the Capital Improvement Program made by staff at Council's direction, during the previous CIP meeting held on October 12, 1991. Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall suggested that the Council discuss the program on a project by project basis as listed in the Project Summary Listing beginning on page 17 of the report. Mayor Parks joined the meeting at 5:40 PM. Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall asked if the priorities listed could be changed at a later date should circumstances warrant a change. Mr. Ochenduszko advised that the Capital Improvement Program is a working document and each year the plan will be adjusted during the budget process. Councilmember Lindemans asked that the Council indicate a consensus on each project individually before considering the resolution. Minutes\ 1 \9\90 - 1 - 10/31/91 City Council Minutes January 9. 1990 Rancho California Interchanqe Winchester Road Interchanae Ynez Road Corridor Overland Overcrossina It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve the first four projects as recommended by staff. The motion was unanimously carried. Rancho California Road Imorovements It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Marqarita Road (Interim) It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. MarcJarita/Moraaa Road Imorovement It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Mayor Pro Tern Birdsall said she would like to see the sidewalk in front of the Temecula Elementary School on Margarita Road completed, past the school property, up to the apartment project on Margarita Road, to allow for an unbroken walkway to the school. Butterfield Sta~Je Road Extension It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Parks to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Old Town Street Reoairs/Reroutinq It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Solana Way - Ynez to Marcjarita Road It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes\l \9\90 -2- 10/31/91 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 Ynez Road - Rancho California Road to Maraarita Road (East Side) Councilmember Birdsall questioned the reason for placing construction of the segment between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road in Future Years when the project is a Priority I. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Parks to change the funding for the Ynez Road between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road portion to FY 1991-93. The motion was unanimously carried. Marc3arita Road Improvement (East Side) Between Rancho California Road and La Serena Way It was moved by Mayor Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Date Street Overcrossing It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Traffic Siqnal System (Citywide) It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Western Transoortation Corridor Study It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Bike Paths (Citywide) Interim Councilmember Lindemans suggested that this should be given a Priority I rating. Mayor Pro Tern Birdsall stated that since this is being considered as a part of the Parks and Recreation element of the General Plan the priority should remain as recommended by staff until the General Plan is completed. Councilmember Mufioz questioned if the assigned priority number has any impact on the development timetable by the Community Services District. Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson advised that the priority assigned would not slow the project down. Minutes\ 1 \9\90 -3- 10/31/91 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: B i r d s a II, M o o r e, M u ~ o z, Parks Lindemans None NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Councilmember Lindemans stated his "no" vote was because he believes it should be a Priority I project. Bike Paths (Citywide) Construction It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Multi-Trail System It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Nicolas Road to Calle Chaoos to Calle Girosol to Walcott Road Pavina Councilmember Mu~oz stated he believes this project should be moved up since it appears to be a possible solution to the traffic problems on Calle Medusa. Mayor Parks suggested that this project be reassigned to a Priority II. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Parks to approve staff recommendation and change the priority to Priority II. The motion was unanimously carried. Ynez Road Northbound Extension to Date Street Study It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Diaz Road Extension It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes\l \9\90 -4- 10/31/91 City Council Minutes January 9. 1990 RedeveloDment Aaencv Projects Auto Mall Maraue Councilmember Moore stated she would like to see the funding for this project reduced to $100,000. Councilmember Lindemans stated he would like to see the funding amount increased to $300,000. Councilmember Mur~oz said he believes this project is contrary to the Council's previous action regarding billboards. He also asked if this has been checked for compliance with the Palomar Lighting District standards. Finally he stated his objections to using City funds for the benefit of the car dealers. Councilmember Moore explained that her objections are to the size and style of the proposed marque. She stated she could agree with a tasteful monument sign for the auto center. Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall advised the Council that she has spoken with other cities who have a similar project and that the City of Norco reports the Auto Center sign in that City has proven to be very successful. Mayor Parks agreed that this will attract business to the community and also pointed out that the marque can be used for community service messages. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Mur~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Sixth Street Parkina - Old Town It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. First Street Parkinq - Old Town Councilmember Moore stated she is opposed to this project because she feels two parking lots are not needed in Old Town and she objects to buying the land and not developing it because that removes it from the tax rolls. Minutes\ 1 \9\90 - 5- 10/31/91 City Council Minutes January 9. 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was carried with Councilmember Moore in opposition. Maraarita Canyon Natural Parksite, Commercial Prooertv and School Bus Facility It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Old Town Soecific Plan It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Sam Hicks Monument Park Addition (L-shaoed orooertv) It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Sam Hicks Monument Park Addition (Senior Center) It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Main Street Bridae Reolacement It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Senior Housing Councilmember Lindemans expressed concern that the project description is too specific to allow for flexibility in design of a senior housing project. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Assistant City Manager Ochenduszko advised that staff will rework the project description to eliminate specific references to number of units and acreage. Main Street Proaram It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes\l \9\90 -6- 10/31/91 City Council Minutes January 9.1990 Old Town Buildina Facades Old Town Streetscaoes It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendations for both projects. The motion was unanimously carried. Santiago/I-15 Interchanqe Modification Study It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Museum and Visitors' Center Councilmember Lindemans questioned whether the settlement of the RDA lawsuit required that the City provide a museum. City Attorney Scott Field stated that this was not a provision of the stipulated judgement. Mayor Parks stated he could support this project if the priority were reassigned to Priority III and the fund allocation reduced to $300,000. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to change the priority of this project to Priority III and reduce the allocation of funds to $300,000. The motion was unanimously carried. Town Hall Councilmember Lindemans outlined the reasons he feels this project should be included in the CIP Program. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to remove this project from the program. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Fire Station Acouisition to RePlace Station 12 Councilmember Lindemans questioned the reason this project is included in the RDA projects. Minutes\ 1 \9 \90 -7- 10/31/91 City Council Minutes January 9.1990 Assistant City Manager Ochenduszko advised that this resulted from a plan to relocate Station 12 through a land trade with the State and add the present site to the Sam Hicks Monument Park in the Redevelopment Area. He recommended that part of the source of funding could be designated from Development Impact Fees. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Parks to approve staff recommendation with the addition of Development Impact Fees to the source of funds. The motion was unanimously carried. Shoooinq Center/Mall It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Community Services District Projects Community Pool Community RecreBtion Center Parksite in Vicinity of Margarita and Moraaa Roads Riverton Park Develooment It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendations for the Community Pool, Community Recreation Center, Parksite in Vicinity of Margarita and Moraga Roads and Riverton Park Development. The motion was unanimously carried. Soorts Park Imorovements Mayor Parks questioned the specific projects to be included in the overall project. Community Services Director Shawn Nelson advised that picnic areas, walking paths, restrooms, parking lots at the Community Recreation Center and at the North fields and grassy open space areas are all included. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Pala Road Parksite Councilmember Mur~oz stated that he would like to see this project moved up due to the lack of facilities in that area of the City. Mayor Parks commented that the timing in FY 1991-92 and 1992-93 reflects the earliest completion that can be expected for this site. Minutes\ 1 \9\90 -8- 10/31/91 City Council Minutes Januarv g, 1 ggO Assistant City Manager Ochenduszko stated that the funding is available for those fiscal years so delays should not be encountered as a result of funding. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Olvmoic Swim Comolex It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Recreation Center - Rainbow Canyon It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Skateboard Facility Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall recommended that this item be removed from the plan based on the experience of other municipalities who have had similar facilities. She stated that the League of California Cities is formulating a recommendation regarding skateboard facilities. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation and move the project to FY 1992-93. The motion was carried with Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall in opposition. SPorts Park Parking (Uooer Field) It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. Tennis Courts - City Parks Property South of Soorts Park Silverwood Park Develooment Temecula Valley High School Tennis Court Liqhts Temecula Middle School Tennis Court Liahts Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall suggested that staff look into joint use agreements with some of the homeowners associations who have private tennis courts. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve staff recommendations on the Tennis Courts - City Parks, the Property South of Sports Park, Silverwood Park Development, Temecula Valley High School Tennis Court Lights and the Temecula Middle School Tennis Court Lights. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes\l \9\90 -9- 10/31/91 CiW Council Minutes January 9.1990 Other Projects City Corporate Facilities Mayor Parks stated he would like to see this project delayed one year. Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall said she favors the recommended timetable which allows flexibility to acquire land should that become a possibility. Councilmember Mur~oz also stated he prefers to leave the various options open. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Birdsall to approve staff recommendation, changing the priority to Priority II and delaying the timetable by one year. The motion was unanimously carried. Murrieta Creek Improvements Showqrounds/Fairqrounds Lake/Dam at Murietta Creek It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to approve staff recommendation. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None CITY MANAGER REPORTS No report given. Minutes\ 1 \9\90 - 10- 10/31/91 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS No report given CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mur~oz requested a report on the status of the Sphere of Influence and also asked staff to investigate how far up the Western Ridgeline the sphere extends. Councilmember Mu~oz also stated that he intends to attend the November 5, 1991 meeting of the Board of Supervisors and request that the Temecula City Council be given the opportunity to comment on the development proposals for the ridgeline. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at 7:50 PM to a meeting to be held at 7:00 PM on November 12, 1991, Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK Minutes\l\9\90 -11- 10/31/91 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $1,180,847.10 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 12th day of November, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resoa 219 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 10/22/91 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $269,727.84 10/25/91 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $3,317.42 11/01/91 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $472,189.97 11/04/91 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $343,587.77 10/24/91 TOTAL PAYROLL: $92.024.10 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR THE 11/12/91 COUNCIL MEETING: $1,180,847.10 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: 001 GENERAL $1,021,681.57 014 CDBG $28,548.68 019 TCSD $101,056.87 029 TCSD (CIP) $29,560.00 TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE I. MAR~Y~~~ENRY, FINAN FFIC $1,180,847,10 ,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. ,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Descriotion Brass Discount Net 1~/18/9! 18/15/91 !~115/?12 CAMERAS FOR ENGINEERING 3aO~825B !~/15i~1MTBUSSYS MOUNTAIN BUSINESS SYSTEMS Z~lS~l 18/!5/9! 18/!5/~1CO~EIN~ ~US, LICENSE 69.95 ~,~8 69.95 ~as.aB:59 10118i91 APPLEONE APPLE ONE Check Totals: 89/25/91TEMP.9/SB-1B/!i;FINANCE DEPT. !8/18/9i ARTESiA Check Totals: ARTESIA IMPLEMENT I~/B7/91 !8~! 18/84/9! RNTL:MOWER:WD CNTRL:RT OF WAY ~9,95 ~.80 ~.95 481.58 8.~ 481.58 4~1.58 ~.~ 48!.38 59e.8! ~.88 598.~1 ~89826! ~/18/91AV~ AVP VISION PLAN Check Totals: INSURANCE FOR OCTOBER 598.BI ~.~ 59S.ei 5!4.68 ~.08 514.60 10/18/91BIOCYCLE BIDCYCLE Check Totals: ~8112/91 I 'YEAR SUB, TO MAGAZINE 5!~.68 8.~B 5~.a8 a8888263 !81~8/?! CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN II~853:8~9 ~9i5~/91 iB718 Check TotMs: 8812B/~I ADS;ASST.&ASSOC.F'LNR;FAC.TECH 42.~ ~.8~ 42.88 451~ Chec~ Totals: CANYON REPROGRAPH!CS =~,c:,~ 18921 i~/~/91MYLARS ~ BLUEPRINTS: FLANNiN~ 98.26 ~.B8 ~8.26 Check Iotais: CONSTRUCTION BOOKSTORE ,aiE· 'ct 1~574 ~9/~Sy~i P:J~LICATIQNS:ARCHiTECTS ~n~.c 98.26 ~ '~ "~ :5~,5~ ~.00 33~.50 ~88285 1~/IS/91DAVL!N DA~LIN S9-23:125 i8/!4/91 1~43 S9-23:12& !~/B7/91 18459 39-%3:!15 i~/~i/9! I~459 89/27/91 1~/!4/91 meeting 07t81i91 TAPE STOC~ Bl/~1/91AUD!O TAPINB/BCT. 7 ~/~I/91 TAPEiNS SUPPLIES 127,9~ e,B8 127,9e 11,54 ~,88 144,28 ~,8~ !44.2~ 45.~8 ~.88 45.~8 Chec~ Totals: ~e~2~7 ,~/,~!o~ FIRST ....... FiRSTIMP IMPRESSIONS ~!~6; ~9/!2/9! i~554 09/12/~I EXTENSION P[ATES:SOFT)ALL 528,82 ~,B8 528,82 JB8~9268 I"/18/9! 3TEBIL[ STE Chec~ Totah: ~E::; 2e/18,'C[ HAFELITH T~!Z=MAS HAFEL: i8/1S,'?! ......~ .....;""'~ Check ~iES.F'EF'A!~ Invoice Date P/O Date Description 8ross Discount Net 18475~ 8g/ll/~l I~682 ~8/21/gi ~!SC.:E~A!R & HAiNT. iTE~2 71.2! 8,88 72.2! I~581 8~119/91 18~82 88/21/~1 ~iSC.REPAZR ~ ~AINT. ITE~S 1~.~5 ~.88 1~,85 I~5691 87/!7!~I i~687 ~8/21/~! MISC.REPAIR & ~A!NT. ITEMS ~.77 ~.88 ~.7~ I8542~ 8g/~4/91 18~S2 ~8/21/~I MISC.REPAIR & ~AINT. iTEmS 2.~ 8.88 lhO~ ~/25/91 18~2 8U21/9! ~iSC.RE~AiR & ~AtNT. ITEMS !.6! 8.8~ 18322? 89i85/~1 18682 8812!!~! ~ISC.REPAIR & ~A!NT. ITE~ ~4.29 8.88 5429 C~ec~ T~tais: 50888271 101!819~ L&~FERTI L & ~ FERT!L!ZE~ 561i5 18/~2/9! i~858 0~/25/~1 SOIL TESTER:GLOVES:TCSD Check Totals: !8988272 18/!8/91 LEAGUE-2 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 18!T9! i~/!7/91 t8/17/9! REGIST./FINANCIAL ~ANAGE. 44.8~ 8.~ 44.89 44.89 8.88 44.89 28~.80 8.~8 Check Totals: 18118/91 LUNCH&ST LUNCH & STUFF CATERING 181191 1~,'11/~I 18111/91 LUNCH FOR CO~. FACiL. DIET 288.88 0.08 -..~.~ ~ ~ Check Tou[s: :~888274 18!18/g! MCSAVRAN LORR! ANN ~COAVRAN ~93~91 ~9/Z0/~! ~9!~U9! ~!LEAGE SEPT i~88~275 10/!8/~I PETTYC ~=~v CASH .~o.~ ~'i~i9i PHOTOWKS PHOTO WORKS Check Totals: i0f11/~I PETTY CASH/CITY Chec~ Tou!s: 18/~9~9! 24 EXPOSURE DEVELOPiNS:S~i~ES 2~.~2 8.~0 25?.25 ~'~7 ~8~i~, P=:'=NT PRESS ENTERPRISE Check Totals: ~, ,' ~.~: :~ *O"E"TISING M ¥ 88/28!gi '~" '" ' ~5,72 8.ae ~.7: Chec~ Touls: ~.~ !~/IS/g! ~RO~E~TY PROPERTY DATA SERVICES = ....:~ ~9/~i9! ~258 8718t!9! ADD~S PROP.SFEC.ASSESSMNT 471.42 0.80 4'~ 4" 24~.~0 0.8~ 24a.~a .~8279 IU!819! ~"-~" 4685 90,a Check Totals: RAN-CAL JANITORIAL SUPPLY !~/14/91 10898 18i81!9! JANI.SUPPL!ES:PARK FAC!L,TCSD I~/I!/91 188~8 I~/81/~! jAM.SUPPLIES:PARK FAC!L.TCSD 92.95 ~.00 ..... :~.:.~ ~0 ,~/~qz~i RANCHWTR RANCHO WATER 11~3842C 89/!8/91 ChecX Totals: 8g/18t9! 8!18505842!81!9-9/!8 ~9/!9/91 89/I9/~I 01i1782502/8120-9/19 ~9/19/91 ii1788~2/8/28-9/Io 19/1i/91 ~10~848151/8/12-9/11 ~:/L2/91 ~!~5272~:/8/14-9/12 ~?/19i~I ~I!1788622/8/264/17 181.57 0.08 1~1.57 244.22 0.06 244.22 392.2~ 42.88 O.BB 42.~ 49.45 2E.54 8.~ 2~,54 2~.~: ~.8~ ::~.~: Check Date Venccr Na~e Invoice Date F'/O Date Descri:tion Cross Discount Net Chec~ Tstals: i,51S.41 aB2B1 18/18/91 RE~CORP REEDCORP ENGINEERING 2152 08/25/91 08/25/9I SPORTS PARX/ELECTR!CAL ENB!N. 480.~ 2151 08/25/9! 08/23/9! ELECTRICAL/SPORTS PAR~ 48~.0~. 0.~ I.~!S.41 0.0~ ~.BB Check Totals: B8088292 !8/18/91 RIVERBiD RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY ieeT?a-e 10/14191 ie922 lg/gl/?i ENVELOPES:NCR PAPER:FOLDERS 100624-B 18/89/~! 13915 B~/~a/91 MICROCASSETTE RECORDER:TAPES 10/18/91S&SARTS 822Z50-8! Check Totals: ARTS AND CRAFTS 18/~4/91 188~7 09/!2/91 rp:o: ;.ApER:c. alNT.TC~ S80.80 ~.80 888.08 459.56 ~,Og 457.5~ 533.17 0.00 555.17 19.1! 0.08 !9.11 Check Totals: 88088284 I~/18/9i SDOFFSUP SAN DIEGO OFFICE SUPPLY Qi!to!9 ~!lBloi i~9!6 ~9/!8'91 ST PLES FOR ...... · ............ ~ A XEROX Chec~ T~tais: ~0eG285 i~,'18/91 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 479B4252C ~?,'25/gl 09/25/91 477~0280~0eli262/SEF'T CHBS 16.16 8.0~ 15.16 176.8~ O.BO 176.00 ......... 21 50 30008286 !0/18/91 SIRSPEED SIR SPEEDY .... 4354 !5/11/91 18954 Check Totals: - 5-Cn, n~ ql Tn=q. ~TTV SEAL 197.50 8.00 I97.50 53.88 B.O~ 53.88 Check Totals: ~0~08287 !0/18/91 SO CAL-2 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CC. ]~5-~4!8C 09/~0/Q! 3~57425: ~9/3~/91 7!4-~45-74!8!SEPT CHGS 71~-349-3439/SEFT "= ...... 714-2~2-4~25/SEPT C!'8S 7~.P e. O8 78.1'~ ~ 8.0~ 7~,89 fill9 g. Og IC5.1~' ~oo '~'18/9! SOUTHCED SOUTHERN ,.,~uo~,., l~, ...i, EDISON 288434541c 89158/91 09/50191 S5a805~3: 09!3~/9! 09138191 3084~455Ic 89/58/91 89/38/9! 28836~2~c 89/30/9! ~9/38/9! ~8~1~.0542c ~9/3~/9I ~9/38/9! ~846542~c 88;85!9! 88i85191 :~84~542c 89183191 89105191 ~797~29c 091~/9! ~91~!9! 3885172!5~ B~/38/91 ~,9/38/9! ~Q902O27e: 09/27/~i eS/lT/91 ~8829~4c 89/18/91 85~845!~.z 89/le/°! g9/!S,'71 N17~1212% 09/27/91 ~?/27/91 %8517E ~9/27/91 89/27/9! 8576854% ~SySU91 ~9/38/91 !5778'T52C 89/3U9! , Check Totals: 5377800140102008i8/38-9/38 57775~5688203080~19/~-I~/4 5577806!81!838887/8/5F9/30 5477828~40482880218/31-!8/1 5577126754384880~/7/5-8/5 557712~7543H0806/8/5-~/5 557712~;7~01850003/9/3-1e/2 54778287M~0288~5/7/3-Ig/I 5177oe58!01~20063/8/28-c:/27 05777~5648203~009/8/I?-'.:','IS 5!T79e590Blozooes/8/28-9/27 557712605o~o2oo04/9/>!~/2 4577'77~2oeo!/9/!-9/.l.8 318.94 0.00 ~!8.94 8.40 0.00 8.4~ 9.30 15.7t ,%88 '=" - ,v,li "" "' 8.7B 0.~0 ~ 7~ 8.7g ~.ao 8.70 27. ~0 57,~ - S.7~ e.~8 E.7~ Invoice Date P/O Date Description Groe~ Discount Net 4'7'8''qr 89/58/91 ~o,~/o, 4377877554282/~/~I-'?/E ~.7C ~.~ ~,7~ 4~7~m7754C 891~817! ~1~171 4577~77554782/8/~!-9/5~ '~" 78 Lee 128.7 2835656C 89/58/91 8~/38/91 45778771585~2i8/51-~/38 ~3.15 0.~ 55.!5 288~54545C ~91581~! 9~'~/ol ~577~77516~2/8./5!-~/~ 35 l~ B.Oe ~5.16 868517% ~/58/~I 89138/~I 4577877527882/B/5i-~/5~ 2~.65 8.8~ 2G.~3 185~8682C 8~/581~ 8~1581~14~77877515702/815!-~/5~ 54.87 B.88 ~4.87 85572155C 89!~8/91 09/38/~1 4577877526~82/8/51-g/58 ~5.7.:: B.Oe 55.7~ 28845a567C B~/SB/gl 89/5U9! 4577877516282/~/3!-~/5~ :~.72 B.8~ 2~8446~88C 8~158191 8~/~8i~I 4~778775!5~82/B/5!-~/58 3&.SB 8.88 ~6.68 8575?854 89/50/~I ~ 8?/58191 4377~7752488!/8/51-~/~0 ~4.51 0.88 ~4.5I 388-46542C 8g/38i~! 89/58/~1 5577!267543848886/9/5-18/2 8.82 e.B8 8.82 82688288C 89!58/91 89i58/9! 55778!5!128868884/8/5i-9/~ 2.~56.98 e.B8 2.536.98 Check To:ais: .B/iS!°! SOUTHCCS SOUTH COAST PROMOTION 6ROUP 4127 Bg/15/gl !~275 Ba/SB/~I BRONZE PLAOUE FOR FLAG POLE 426.88 0.88 ~26.~0 Chec~ Totals: 18!18/91 TERCULAT TEMECULA TOWNE ASSOC I8!89! !8/22/91 ~227 87/8!/91 CLEANING SE?T/OCT RENT 426.88 0.08 426.~8 5!~.~0 8.80 51S.88 ~8888272 i~I18/91 TE~ECREN TEHECULA RENTS 5166~ 1B!~B/9I !8958 Checx Totals: 18/07/91 SOD CUTTER-RENTAL:TCSD !88.0~ 8.08 188.88 !8/18/9! THOMAS Check Totals: THOMAS TEHPOFzAR!ES 89/58/91 185% 87/87/g! TEMP.SERV.7/8-9/27; TCSD !BB.BO 8.80 ,~ ..... 8.08 575.5S THOMPSON .... ~: ~,,~ iBBaa 89/17/?I FAIR LABOR STANDARDS H~ND .% BOOK Check Teta!s: ~O~CS2'?~ ....l~,,,1 -u~:::~ .... T-f, u~ l~,, ..... ~ ....u~ ~_.~,~ THORSSnRNE I~IS91 ~i 1B'~°l°l RE!M~ FOR TUITION/SEMINAR ~8~8296 lB/!S/91 TRANSCOU TRANSCOUNT ~48-I81 09131191 18642 Check Tctals: 87t81/91 APPROACH COUNTS Jl.4~ ~.~ :'~ Check Totals: ~88B~297 !~/i~/9! URBENTCA URGE T CARE N MEDICAL CENTER l~o, IU!B/?I 18/18/91 ~HYS'~A~ ~r'Ae~ Check Tota!i: ~808°~°°*I~/18/~I WINDSOR! WINDSOR PARTNERS-RANCHO IND 4~58 ~c;38/?I 0255 ~7/81.,'~I IYR. RENT; STORABE SPACE Ch -t a~ Totals: u,,,,~;:: =:=NS ~ iHi n , . c ~/~/91 SIGNS & MATERiALS~PUB.~OR~S · 'n=,t- T:.tels: Z.7~,.%~ C.87 ..... invoice Date P/O Date Description Sties Discount .~,-~c.F ..... 4;~' 18'5. , ~ ~;~ ~:~ ~ 8 ~8/8B/9! iNK RiBBONS;TAPE:CASH RESISTR 7~.84- ~,00 78.84- ~758~8 ~?/04/9~ 10~50 88/~8/9! iNK RIBBONS:TAPE:CASH REB!STR 174.76 8.00 174.76 Cbec~ Totals: !93,6! 1~/18/91 REFUND CLASS .......... ,,p^r,p-. ~ ~m 0.80 !93,61 ~,08 28 ~ ~0888Z~5 '~/9~ ...... F'"~ ~'T~=FRLY CRUZ' 181~71 18/1B/91 Chec~ Totals: 28,00 0,08 28,08 18t18/91 REFUND 65,~8 8,88 65,00 Check Totals: 3~88304 !8/22/91Fi~ST!MP ;iRST IMPRESSIONS 9i8E78 ~9/I!/91 10814 ~9/!I/~I ~AINT,&REC,SHiRTS:TCSD 65.08 0.88 65.88 754.25 8.~0 754.25 !0/22/91GASB Check T~ta!s: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING i~/!7/~I i8/17/91 PURCHASE VOLUMES i-15 ~ 754.25 754.~5 0.08 · · 888085~ 18/22/91 GENERALS SENERAL BINDING 1148588 09,!38/91 18571 !1485938-I ~/26/°' '8~9t :3heck Totals: BB/87/91 COMBS FOR BINDERS,BUOBET/STOK 89/26/9! BINDING COMBS:PRESENTATIONS i41.25 ~,~0 141.25 125.~5 0.00 !25.65 12!.57 0.~0 121.57 ..... Check Totals: ~'. =u: .... ~,~,: HOUSING I~21~! 18/2!/91 IB/21/~1 HOTEL RESERVATIONS/CONFERENCE 247.28 ~.08 2t7.28 455.~0 ~.~e 435.6~ 10/18/9I REFUND CLASS CANCELLED/PAF'EF. 1~Y18/91 REFUND ~ONEY iNVESTEMENi 28.08 ~,8~ 28.08 25.80 ~.08 25.~8 Check Totals: ~2~S~1~ 1~/22!?! MAC~ENZ[ MACKENZIE LANDSCAPE ~87851-i ~8/28/9! 02E ~7/81/91 AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT 8161 ~87857 08/28/9i ~27a 87/01/9I LANDSCAPE SERV;AMEND COi~16! Check Totals: HA!JRiCE PRINTERS QUICK PRINT 1~/89/9i 1089~ 89/2~/91 VOLUNTEER BROCHURES:!.D.CARDS i~/L1/~! 18888 ~9/2~19! ENVELOPES & ART 25.88 8.00 2~0,29 0.0~ 200.29 2.5~4 ~' · , ~ ~,80 ? 554,7! 2,755.8~ 0.80 2.7~5.88 ~26.6~ 608.79 ~.00 008.7? 20..z2~ ee/2~,,91 ~270 Check Totals: ....... ',. nor ....QUILTINS 55.08 ~.0C 55.~0 5.0~8.8~ 0.a0 5.000.00 Invoic~ Dot! P/O Date [!e~cri~tion ~ross Discount Nit 18/22/~1 PLANNING THE PLANNIN6 CENTER 15082 g7/51/~1 ~271 87/~1/~I CITY GENERAL PLAN/JULY 5~,7%.!.: B.~ CS.TTC.I~ 1~2~ ~8/3!/~ 8271 ~7/el/?l PRE~ CiTY PLAN/AUGUST SERV. ~5,57~.55 ~.~e .... ~ ~: !~88! ~7/~I/~i 8271 07/~I/~1 PREP. CITY PLAN/JUNE SERVICES ?.~,~7 ~.~ ?,%~.77 Chec~ Totals: 088~8~15 18/22/91R.~.EXPR ~.LEXPRESS MESSENGER SERVICE 4058 ~9"~/91 ~' 07/~I/9! F'iCKUP/r, cilVc:Y"~r CHGS Chec~ Totals: ~0888316 18i22!91 ROBERTBE ROBERT BEIN,'WM. FROST & ASSO 1%051 87/01/9! ~28~ B7/81/9! PRDJ. ADMIN./JUNE SERVICES !-~83~ 87/51/91 ~288 87/01/91PROj. ADM./JULY SERVICES !-G~$2 ~8/51/91 ~288 ~7/8t/91PRDJ. AD~./AUS. SERVICES ~-5017 U/~!/9! 8279 87/0!/91PROJ. ADM./~AY SERVICES !-6058 87/~i/?! 0279 ~7/~!/91PROJ. AD~/JUNE SERVICES 250.~0 ~.80 258.00 1,528.57 0.~8 2.520.57 50~,~0 ~,~ 5~.~ ~Be. BO 0.0B 800.00 3,354.55 ~,0~ .1,354,15 008~S17 i~/22/91 SIMMONS i0149!-2 Chec~ T~tals: BEC[Y ~CLEAN SimMONS ~9,'15191 18978 09/14/91 COMPUTER TRAINING COURSES :hick uu .... : 00Q08518 i8/22/91 SO CAL-2 SO.CALiFOrNIA TELEPHONE CO. 34560~5C 09/30/91 1B/25/~1 714-S~5-60~515EF'T CHBS 2~.71 0,00 2~.71 Chect ~a::. lOS!? I~122/91TNTBESTW TNT BESTWAY TRANSPORTATION 50~4985~ ~'?/~,/g! 09i30i~I 902157.iFREIGHT e7~E ~,.'lC:"9! ~/18/9i GENERAL LEGAL FEEB."AU~UST Chec~ Totals: Ca888..122 11,'12/91 jFDAViE j.F. QAVIEON ASSOCIATES.INC. 33~50 8Wi~xgl 09129191 SERVICES FOPR 9il-9/29 ~5~51 ~9/29/9! ~9/29/91 SERVICES 9/1-W27 ~R02. ~ 5,150.80 0.08 4L025.95 0.00 4~.025.~5 Check Totals: 11/12/~! MICROAGE ~iCRC AGE COMPUTER CENTER F1:64 1Ei~8/gI !~45 ~9/3~i~! REPAIR LASERjET ill PFi!!iTEF: 1137 !~/iL/91 18958 !Oit~i9i BACK-UP CONTROLLS Chec~ Totals: !nvelcs Data P/O Da~s Description Sross Discou~ Ni~ *~ .... II/12,'~! TEMVL~-2 TEMECULA VL! ¥ SCHOOL ~loi+,l~. .... Si-I~5 88/31/91 i~907 ~7/~1/91 FACILIT~ i~cE'~n DAY CAMP ~,7~2.~ ~.~ . ~r ~ Chec~ Tot~Is: ~,762.0~ ~j,~ Reoort Totals: 2~g~727.84 0.88 ~ ^ 7~ ~4 Fiscal Year: 19~2 Check ~egister Station: Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description 8ross Discount Net ~88~29 1~/25/91 AICP AICP 182591 1~/25191 18/24/91SE~INAR ~65.99 8.88 SaS.H '" Check Totals: 19125/91 BIRDSALL PATRICIA BIRDSALL 192291 iB/22/91 19/18/91 PHONE SERVICE 365.89 9.H 365.89 21.37 9.99 21.37 8H98331 18/25/91CAPPOINC CAPPO~ INC. 182591 18125191 999981~2 19125191 DIXON DAVID F. DIXON 182591 19125191 Check Totals: 19125191 REGISTRATION/GRANT YATES Check IotaIs: 19/25/91 CONFERENCE/LEAGUE CA.CITIES 21.~7 9.99 21.37 66.69 9.99 69.89 69.99 9.89 &9.99 i,H1.$2 9.99 1,991.~2 19125191FAI~OUN FAIRROUMT HOTEl. 182591 19/25/91 Check Totals: 19/25/91 RESERVATIONS/SEMINAR 1,961.~2 8,99 1,991.32 482.88 8,89 482.89 Check Totals: 88888334 19/5/91 INLAND-1 INLAND ENPIRE TOURISN COUNCIL 182591 18/25/91 19/5/91 soonsorship grant/idrc conf 482.88 9.19 482.89 598.89 8.99 599.98 89998~5 19125191 JONES SU SUSAN JONES 191791 19/17/91 19125191ROOREPE6 PEG NOORE 191891 18118191 Check Totals: 18/17/91 REI~ EXPENSE/SEmINAR Check Totals: 19/18/91REI~B/PHDNE 589,99 9,99 596,98 69,79 8.H 69.78 66.78 6.99 68,75 52.77 9.99 52.77 H998337 16125191SNART&FI S~ART & FINAL 192191 18/21/91 Check Totals: 19121191 CANDY FOR HAUNTED HOUSE 52.77 9.88 52.77 199.H 9.99 399,88 19125191 TARGET TARGET STORE 192191 18/21/91 Check Totals: 19/1&191 SUPPLIES HAUNTED HOUSE 78.19 9.H 78.89 Check Totals: 19125191TEN~OSE TIEIIECULA VALLEY ROSE SOCIETY 192191 19/21/91 19/2~/91 ROSE SOCIETY AWARDS DINNER 79.99 9.99 78,66 16.95 9.99 16.95 Check Totals: ~9998348 19/25/91TI~NYDPR TINNY D PRODUCTIONS 192591 18125191 19/25191 SOUND/HAUNTED HOUSE I&.95 9.99 16.95 175.96 9,99 175.88 80998141 10/25/91UBNOSKED UBNOS~E. DEBBIE 182891 18/28/91 Check Totals: 19/17/91 ADVANCE/CONFERENCE 175.H 9.H 175,99 !59.89 8.99 159.99 968342 18t25/91YATESGRA YATES. GRANT 181891 18118/91 Check Totals: 18!18/91REI~B/SB!NAR 159.96 9.99 L50.98 61.45 8.89 61.4, Check TotaIs: 61.45 8.89 61.43 Check Date Vendor Invoice Date Name P/O Date City ol Temecui~ Check Register Descri~tiun Discount ~age: Station: Net Report Iotais: 3.Z17.42 3.317.42 Inv.::2~ 2=ate pie 2, al~ '* ....... ~'~== 2:~:oun: Net ,bO.80 3.00 =:.~': 65.80 O.O0 6: ..... ST?.~I.Z.Z I':",(L!,'~: (~7/0;/~! Normal Payroll.T.": ....... '~ ":;' 21.~C ~TRAI.4: 07/18/91- 07/iB/gl Normal Pavro!l.T/!:: i7.q~ 0.00 17.47 ~.~c.~. - 07/18/91 ; ~ ~=~ ~ Normal F'avroil TTgA!,lS 0~/01/~! 5':/:q/~I Normal Pavrol:,S/i 3UNEM.% n~ir,/o, '~8/ri'°~ Normal F'avr~' ':/' ~TRAi,~T OL,'!~'?: ,:'3/15/q'1 Ncrma'. ~a'~roll.~/'.~ 21.~E ~.(~0 ~ ~ f ,-.,,., -,~,=w ,: .' .....~,~ '~.:~.=,o~ Nor~al 5avr~!Z.5'2: ~* E= ...... ~1.~ ~UN5~.:.2 0'%'26./'71 r,o/Z~/~1 Normai Pavroil.~/Zc C,h.=ck T-_..-.a!s: :'('(08-:;L !",'*""';: o .;=:.u,, ;~c . ,.~ , ;ac.. uN '..'~KC'L 5'1 .'..:.~.~/c. "' ........: ~'=:-" Payroll :};)~)<38~i~ :'3..'27.'?: LUN':~.~:~T LUNCH .~ STVF CATERDiG I02~71 lO/Z~,;?l ,n FOR CO'j~;ClL Or,v,: (:. G ;: 9. rj !) ASS!STArT -n~ HA! tO"'E:k F'ROS. .~, ._ ~ _, 34 ~ 4. (' ':~ C.. 5.5 ':. ';_ 4.0 Co' Cr, ec~ Date Vendor NGEe Dat~ P/O Dat~ 00(084[5 11/0!/91RAMTEK RAMTEK 3789 :0,'14/91 ..... 10/14/71 S791 10114191 0282 10/!I19~ ' ' 4/9' 3786 !0114/91 0282 ~0~1 3796 10/14/91 02~2 10/14/91 58[5 ~0125191 0282 [0/14/91 3814 10/25/91 0282 10/!4/91 ~ 10/14191 .~,~ 3805 i0114/91 0282 i0114/91 Description STREET ~AINTiV/17-9/20 STREET MAINT/9116-9/19 STREET MA!NT.9/IO-9/26 STREET ~AtNT/9/17-9/!~ PAVE PALA R(]AD HWY 7~ STREET MAINT/IO/IO-IO/18 STP2ET MAINT/lO/15-10/1a STREET MAINT/!O/l~-!O/!5 STREET MAiNT/lO/1-10/2 00008416 !1/01/91 ROBERTBE ROBERT REIN. WM. i-8046 10/01/9! 0210 1-8046-2 i0/01191 0262 08/07/9! i-B046-3 10/01/9! i0/01/91 !-8005 i0/01/91 10/01/91 1-7010 10/16/91 10/1~/91 1-9035 10i18i91 0186 07/01/9! i-8040 10/01/91 0186 07/01/91 Chec~ Totals: FROST & ASS(] 07101/91 CIVIL ENGINEERING PREP.LGL DESC,RD WK;MARGARITA ENGINEERING COSTS SF. RV. 1-15 RAMPS/MAY 9[-AUG9I SERVICES jUNE/I-15 RAMP ENSINEERSERV, SEPT, ENGINEER FEE/AUGUST r~r)O'37~17 !I/01/01 SHERIFF 08260 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 10/01/9i 10/01/91 Check Totals: LAW ENFORCEMENT/SEPT. Check Totals: Gross 2,5&1.58 6,018.43 13,494.04 1.814.30 !i,!12.00 4,985.82 2,601.85 4,583.5~ 2~955.80 53,107.18 1,700.00 1,900.00 676.71 1,229.00 874.00 I~270.00 11.229.48 2~I.49~.90 25!,495.90 Discount 0.00 0.00 0 .O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 · '1 DFi O.O0 Net 2,561:]L~ ~.01' 114%. , I4~1!2.00 4,988.62 2,601.85. 2,935.80 55.107.18 !,700.00 1.900.00 676.71 1.229.00 874.00 .&.229.~8 251.495.90 25!,493.90 ReDoft Totals: 472,189.97 472,189.97 Check Date Vendor Invoics Date Hale P/O Date Descriotion 531009!7C i0/08/91 308393819C 10/08/9! 208404529C i0/04/91 308426227C 10/05/91 85689458C 10/05/91 708023!36C 10/07/9! 5387957C 10/01/91 10108191 5977779408503000619110-i0/8 10/08/91 5977802542203000/9/I0-[0/8 10/04/91 57775656701020002/9/6-!0/4 10/05/9! 5777780874003000g/9/e-iO/5 10/05/9! 57777802489030007/9/6-!0/5 10/07/91 577756a5324020005/9/6-10/7 10/01/91 4377077146701/B/31-9/30 Check Totals: 00)084)5 11101/9[ SUMMIT SUMMIT GRADING & PAVING i02891 i0/28/9I 10/28/91 REFUND/EXCESS INSPECTION FEES Check Totals: 00008406 11/01/91TEM PIPE TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE 17315 10/08/91 10574 08/20/91 IRRIGATION PARTS:TCSD REPAIRS A92727 I0/02/91 10574 08/?0/~I IRRIGATION PARTE;TCSD REPAIRS 00008407 11/0[/9! THORNH!L GARY THORNHILL i0289! i0/28/91 Check Totals: 10/28/91REIMB FOR CONFERENSE/SACRA~EN C~eck Totals: 00008408 !I/01/91TOMARKEP TOMARK SPORTS. INC. 7706 10/22/91 10955 10/02/9i BASES FOR SOFTBALL FIELDS 7685 10/18/91 10935 !0/02/91 BASES FOE SOFTGALL FIELDS 00008409 1!/01/71W!LLIA~S KAY WILLIAMS 102~91 i0/28/91 Check Totals: 10/28/91 801 ~09ELING CLASS 1087 108>I Check Totals: ALL CITY ~ANAGEXENT 10101191 0275 09101191 traffic controllgiG-g/21 10/01/91 0247 07/01/9! TRAFFIC CONTROL/9/8-9/21 Chsck Totals: 00008411 i!/0!/9! CITY/DiA CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 92-001 10/01/91 0241 07/01/91 PROP.TAX ALLOCATION STUDY 00008412 !UO1/91DAVL!N DAVLIN 8%28:127 10122/9! 10~91 q n-.,., 16/0819t [0~91 89-2~:!14 10/0819! 10~gl 89-23:i~0 I0/2f/91 i0992 89-23:1!8 10/08/9I 10992 Check Totals: I0/08/91 VIDEO ~EETINB/OCT.22 10108/91 VIDEO MEETING/OCT. 8 I0/08/~1 VIDEO MEETING/OCT. I I0/08/91 TAPE SAFETY COrP./OCT 10/08/9[ TAPES FOR TAPE SUPPLY Check Totals: 0000841~ !!/0!/91 DEPHEALT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1001~I 10/01/9! 0199 07/01/91 ANIMAL CONTROL/SEPT. Check Totals: ~o1 NOBELCO~ R ' NOBc~ CO~NY u .... 59009 L0/09/9! OZT~ 10/0919! MATERIAL INSTALL/jUNE Check Totals: Gross 8.40 8.40 8.70 8.70 17.84 ~84.4I vm $4.1g ~5 '5 8~,~8 2~, 00 29.00 45.6~ 495,02 1,360. O0 5.OOO,O0 542,60 5.542.60 6,000.00 ~,000.00 600.00 595.74 229 Q~ I~0.00 i, 567 O' ~ '~' .02 Discount 0.00 O.OO O.O0 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Net 8.40 8.7¢ 8.70 Z9.25 34.!9 34.19 8i.68 29.00 29.00 i47.16 45.66 493.02 1 5.000.00 342.~0 5.T, A2.60 6.000.00 6.000,00 600.00 595,74 229.95 !~0.00 11.54 1,567.03 ~.954.74 606. I i Check Date VenDor Name Invoice Date P,'D Date 00008596 !1/01191RANCHWTR RANCNO WATER 012400752C i0/16/91 10/16/9! 012400600C 10/1~/91 10!16/91 011505010C !01!5/91 !0116/91 012401918C 10/16i91 !0115/91 012402500C I0/16/91 10/1~/91 012446001C 10115191 10/!5/91 012441500C 10/16191 I0116191 0131501!IC I0115/gl I011~/91 012400090C 10/16/9! 10/16/91 0124000~5C I0/Ia/91 10/15/91 01240002C 10/16/9!'- I0/15/9! 011&03543C 10/15/91 I0/15/91 011&03531C I0/Ia/91 10/15/9i 01!50010!C 10t15/9! t0i16i9! 011501500C 10/15/91 10/15/91 013117005C 10115191 L0115191 01-24-007j2-2/8/2~-~,'25 01-2~-00600-2/8/26-9/25 0!-15-050101/8/22-~120 01-24-02500-i/8/2~4/25 0!-24-45000-!18t25-9125 01-24-46500-i!8/2~-9/25 01-$1-5011!-1/8/27-~/~& 0!-24-00090-2/8/2~-9/25 0~-24-000~5-2/81%-~/25 01-24-0002-2/8/26-9/25 01-b-03543-118122-9123 01-16-03551-1/8/22-9/25 0!-[5-00101-2/8/22-g/20 01-15-01500-2/8/22-9/20 01-51-17005-2!8/27-9/26 ,',nnn~-oo , c,c~=nv P~":DY TE~P .......... ~48~75 I0/06191 1082~ 09/15/?I 346055 1010L/91 10739 09/lO/gl Chec~ Totals: TEM~.9/l~-!O/4 APP;'n~ .=~n TE~P.SEC.9/II-!239/18 &l~ 00008S99 11!0~/91 RIVERS!D RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY ~O06~A-O I0/0B/9~ ~0901 Check Totals: INSTA-PLAQUE AWARD PLAQUES 00008400 !I/01/9! SCCCA 102191 Check Totals: SO CALIF CiTY CLERKS ASSOC !0/21/9! I0121/91 GENERAL ~EETING/NOV. 15 00008401 11/01/% SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL 08~4C !0/04/91 !0/04/91 ¢E56C 10/04/91 10i04/71 Check TotaLs: BAN 479802000001085419/23-I0/4 47780200000108561SEPT. III01/?1 ........... SPEEDY i ~.,~ 10/22/~1 t0803 08/!9/~! 428~ 10i22/91 10755 08122191 45~6 10122191 10830 09!10/91 4287 10/22/9! 10829 08/IW9[ 4554-CR 10/17/91 !0/17/91 Check Totals: BUSINESS CARDS:POLICE DEPT. BUS.CARDS:ENGiNEERING DEPT. BUSINESS CARDS BUSINESS CARD ORDERS CREDIT ME~O/ITE~S RETURNED Check Totals: 11/0I/7! SO CAL-2 SO.CALIFOR)iiA TELEPHONE CO. ~v 10/,1 714-345-7421/SEPT SERVICE 545741% lO/lO/g! 10/10!9! 714-545-7419/SEPT CMGS Check Totals: 5777565gg0002000418/7-!0/7 57~566!775010004/?/6-10/7 5977~162Z07020006/9/I0-!0/8 59777992338030005/9ft8-1018 6077~11001i02000/~/!!-!0i9 5~7~05102L030001/9/I0~10/8 220.5! ~75.78 !08.57 455.!0 558.~1 221.75 547.90 4,795.!9 207.~0 121.04 Z0.44 150.75 i50.75 50. O0 424.44 i c~ 575.39 47,4! 53.88- 80.~3 0.88 5~.09 !83.19 !1.00 8.40 8.40 Discount Net O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.~0 0.00 O. 00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 O.O0 0. GO .3.00 O. 0 !? 0.00 O. 00 O. 00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 O .OO O.OO 154.~6 7~ 149.55 220.$! 4tj.39 !55.52 873.78 Z36.BO 108.57 4Z.lO 5.57 358.5! 9H.47 221.75 547.~0 *,985.19 207.40 !23.04 ~.':.0,44 ' 50 50.00 5:1>. !:! 0 424.44 [52 576.74 575.3~ :8.7'.7 28.77 ~7.41 5Z.SS- S0.95 48.88 129.8i 38.'~, 8.~0 Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Oiscount Net 3 10i10/9! i0~99 07108191 ~AINTENANCE/ON SERVICE 402.aa 0.00 402.:: Check Totals: 00008584 1!/0!/91 LEAGUE-1 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 19774 10/0!i9! 10859 0~/19/9! F'LANNERG POCKET GUIDES 402.66 0.00 I02.6~ 116.57 0.00 !16.57 Check Totals: 00008385 11/O!/9I LEAGUE-2 LEAGUE C; CALIFORNIA CITIES i02371 10/25/91 i0/23/9! REGISTRATION/MONTEREY 116.37 0.00 t16.57 140.00 0.00 140.00 Check Totals: 0000858a !1/01/~I LOGOCOMM LOGO COMMUNiCATIONS~ INC 77~5 I0/22/91 I0/22/91 BALANCE ON INVOICE/RULERS 140.00 0.00 1¢0.00 7.84 0.00 7.84 00008387 !I/01/9! MARKHAM I00!91 MARKHA~ & AS80C. 10/28I~1 Check Totals: I0/28/91 REFUND/PLANNING 0, 0.00 7.84 171.00 0.00 171.00 00008588 !I/0!/~1 ~CCANN 0210 Check T:tals: ~CCANN PRINTING SERVICES 10i18t9! 10~32 08/01191 NEIGHBORHOOD WTCH:AUG.-OCT. i~, O0 9.00 .,~. 171.00 350.19 0.00 350.!? Check Tctais: 00008339 !I/01/9! MCTIGHEJ JOHN MCTIGHE & ASSOCIATES 911001 10/07/91 0278 09/01/91 ANAL;CLAR1EMONT McKENNA REPORT -:50.l~ 0.00 ~,', 693.00 0.00 Check Totals: OI"O08~e~ '!/~i~°l NATLFIRE NATIONAL FiRE PROTECTION ASSN 625178 !I/09/91 10912 09/25/91 FIRE PROTECTION HANDSOOKS 693.00 0.00 6?3.00 !34.15 "' '~ ..... 00008391 11/01,'?I PERS 2MEDC.53 2MEOC.5~ i00171 I~2991 Check Tctais: 9ERG {~EALTH [NSUR. PREMIUM) I0110/91 10110/91 Normal Pavrol~lO/!O 10/24/91 I0124/9! Normal Fay, 10124 I0/01/91 I0/01/91 SEPT. PREMIUM 10/29191 10/29/'71 iNSURANCE OCT 164.00 0.00 164.00 164.00 0.00 1~4.00 Chec~ Totals: 11/01/g! PERS~ETI PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT 2PERR.~3 10/10/91 10/10/91 Normal Pay~ol,lO/lO 100!7! 10/01/91 t0/01/9! 8~T RETIREMENT i02~! 10/5/91 10/2~/9! PERIOD END !0/24/91 101091 10/15191 10/15/gl PAYPERIOD ENDING !0/i0 ~!.216.76 0.00 253.!7 0.00 253.17 22,326.27 0.00 22.326.27 12,470.66 0.00 12.470.~6 !1,665.~3 0.00 11,865.35 ;-.v,,~,~,.: 11/01/91 PETROLAN PETROLANE 274385 10/18/91 10977 Check Totals: 10/14/91 CONVERT TRUCKS TO PROPANE 46,715.9~ 0.00 46,715.95 750.00 C).O0 750.00 (i0(!0S39~ 11/01/?I PETTYC PETTY CASH i0/25/9!-1 10/25/91 Check Totals: 10/25/91REIMB :i0098.575 l m1 ,oI RAN-TEC 006¢96 Check Tou~:. RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MFG i0/18/91 10948 i0/03/91 NAMEPLATES:CITY STAFF 750.00 0.00 284.~0 0.00 2=54.50 ~. o~ C:. Ci:i ~', 32.76 0.00 ::.7& Check Totals: '~ ~' :', :x, :2.78 ~,; ,~ ,, .,, Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net Check Totals: 00008370 1!/0!/9i EXECGALL THE EXECUTIVE GALLERY~ INC. 0412054001 !0/15191 10925 09/27/91 PICTURES;BLDG,&SAFETY.OFFICE 15.00 69.95 0.00 0.00 6', Check Totals: 00008371 II/01191 FIRSTIMP FIRST IMPRESSIONS 910585 i0/01/91 10792 09/10/91SWEATSHIRTS;RECREATION:TCSD 69.95 176,98 0,00 0,00 69.?5 176,98 Check Totals: 00008372 i!/01/91 FRANKLIN FRANKLIN SEMINARS 6264453 10/10/91 10952 10/10/9! DAYTIMER REFiLLS:TCGD 6308822 10/21/91 10924 10/07/91 DAY PLANNERS; PUB,WKS DEPT, 176.98 130.27 276.49 0,00 0,00 0,00 176.98 150.27 276.49 00008373 11i01/91 GLOBAL 11095958 Check Totals: GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES i0/18/91 10972 10/05/91 FIRE EXTING.EMERG.L!BHT 406.76 578.45 0,00 0,00 406.76 578.45 Check Totals: 00008374 1!/01/91 GOLDENST GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO. 15488 10/17/91 10953 iO/l~/Ql H .....n'q ...... ron.uC, FOR LASERJET iiisi 578.45 U.Uu 0,00 727,51 Check Totals: 00008375 11/01/91 GOVERNOR GOVERNOR'S OFFICE GF PLAN/RES i02891 10/28/91 10/28/91 PUBLICATIONS I0,00 O. O0 0.00 10.00 Check Totals: 00008376 II/01/9! GOVTFINO GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS A 10257! 10/25/9! !0/25/91 AUDIT MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK !0,00 !3,00 0,00 0,00 10,00 ii2559~3 iC/iS/Si 1626045C 10/16/91 i626C52C 10/Ia/91 Check Totals: 1C/16/91 714-162-5595/SEPT ...... 10/!6!91 714-162-6045/SEPT CHGS 10/16/91 714-1S2-6052/SEPT CHGS 468.44 67.41 An7 0.00 0.00 0. O0 C~.O0 !3,00 00008373 11/01/~ HREHA . · v. JOSEPH HREHA 101771 10/17/91 Check Totais: i0/!7/91 CONFE~£NCE/GAN FRANCISCO 54.02 0.00 0.00 o_.52 54.02 00008379 !I/01/911MS-2 102891 Check Totals: INTERNATIONAL MAILING SYSTEMS i0/23/91 i012B/91 TO REPLENISH POSTAGE MACHINE 54.02 2.000.00 .00 54.02 2.000.00 Check Totals: 0000~580 11/01/9! INLAND-E iNLAND EMPIRE DIViSiON, LCC 102991 10/29/91 !0/29/91 CITY AWARDS DINNER 2,000 nr, 22.00 .O0 .00 2.000.00 22.00 Check Totals: 00008381 1!/0!/9! !NLANDA! INLAND AIR CONDITIONING/~EFRI i02~91 10/23/91 10985 10/!!/91 SAFETY ~ iNSTALL:PUSL!CATiONS 22.00 55.50 0.00 0.00 22.00 55.50 00(4~82 !!/01/91 iNLANDEM INLAND E~PiRE DIVISION ~02571 .,~/~-i ..... , ...... · ~,,~~ 7~ ~:.','~:~: AWARDS DiNNER/CATHEE'F:AL , ,,iLY 55.50 22.00 O. 00 0,00 55.50 c)0008333 11/01/9I KANAGAK KAWASAKI OF TEMECUL:~ Check Totals: O,C,O 22.00 C~eck Date Venoor Invoice Date Name P/O Date Descriotion 8ross Discount Net 00008350 10131/~1PETTYC PETTY CASH 103091 10/30/91 Check Totals: 10/30/91REIMB PETTYCASH 84.00 183.95 0,00 O. 00 00008358 11101/91 ALLIED I18386-00 !1721~-DR ALLIED BARRICADE 10/24/91 10788 10/24/9! 10788 Check Totals: 09/50/91 SIGNS & MATERIALS:PUB.WORKS 09/30/91 SIGNS & MATERIALS:PUB.WORKS 185,95 !9,83 !22,01 0.00 0.00 0.00 18:.95 122,0! 00008359 11/01/9I AMERITQN AMERITONE PAINT 102991 10129/91 10919 Check Totals: 09/30/91 CRAFT PAINTING S:'-~°~ I¢S'T~Sn 141.84 t59.05 0.00 O.OO 141,84 159,05 00008160 'I/n~:, APPLEONE APPLE ONE 1381973 I0/16/91 10851 Check Totals: 09/25/91TEMP.9/lO-!O/II:FINANCE DEPT. 159.05 368.15 0.00 0.00 ~68.13 00008~61 11/01/9! ASCE Check Totals: AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENG I0/28/9! i0/21/9i ANNUAL DUES i0/28/9! 10/28/9! ANNUAL DUES !40,00 140,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 140.00 140.00 00008562 ~I/01/91B & E LT B & E LIGHTING 101891 10/18/91 10781 Check Totals: 08/26191 SODIUM POST TOP FIXTURE:TCSD 280,00 0.00 280,00 OOnna,~ l'/O'/ol CALED CALED i0~°~ i0/28/91 Check Totals: i0/28/91 REBtST. COMMUNITY REINVEST. 180.00 0.00 0.00 !80,00 000083,:: !i/01/9! r:: ......... N CALIFORNIAN 17142901 10/01/91 10767 {!8317 10/15/9! !0~26 Ch~c~ Tctais: 09/03/91 DISPLAY ADoCOrM.VACANCiES:9/8 07/0!/91PUBL.LGL NTC~F'LAN.COMM:COUNCL !80.00 104,85 ~3.30 0.00 0.00 i B -l. iT:. (, 104.85 .5:. Check Totals: .......... n CITICORP NORTH AMERICA 0128697 11/01/91 0288 07/01/9! SERV.CHARBE;PHONE EYSTEM 138.15 1,427.57 0.00 0.00 Check Totals: 00008366 11/01/91PnMMcrLM COMMONNEALTH FILMS. INC. 27096 i0/15/91 10887 09126191 VIDEO TAPE:BURIED AL!VE:RENTL ~, 50 O.O0 0'.00 !.427.57 16,50 Check Totals: 0C!008~67 !i/01/9! -~fio .... RICHARD ~n.~n~ CROBARSER, 10239! 10/29/71 i0/29/9! 80 % CONTRACT CLASS S&.50 252.00 0.00 0.00 SO.50 252,00 00008388 !i/01/9! DAVL!N DAVLIN SS-25:12S I¢12!/91 10942 '~>2~:11c 10108/9!/C°gl 5~-2T:1!22 10/08/91 10991 00c)08.2.69 II,.'0!19~, EITELKAT E!TEL. KATHERINE 10/25/01 Check Totals: !i!9/27/91 3 MONTH:AUDIO TAPING:PLANNING !0/08/91 VIDEO MEETING/9/24/91 I0i08/9! VIDEO MEETINS/DEBiT MEMO/SEPT Check Totais: i0/25/9! REFUND/SELF ESTEEm. 252.00 !34.20 600.00 258,58 992.78 15.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 252.00 600.0( 992.78 !5.00 110191 !II01/9! !i/01/71 .".EMBERSillF' Chec~ Totals: 000(:8422 ~/(14/~ MARGARIT ~ARGARITA ....... n~ ~:u~. '}O0!S I¢/5119! 02~: , .... U~=:: i7C2 ADULT i/~ 'iA~i.i O-IC~./oI ...... "E c ~ 4 i': (:. 0 (: ' = ' ~. 0 C Check Totals: 00008423 !i/04/9! WESTONR WESTON. RETA !O~Q! I~/~I/~1 ir',/ll/gI MILEAGE 2.5?2.00 0.00 2.592.00 ~= ':" !).0¢ '= ~"' Check TotaLs: 0000842: "~ ...... .,~ . , ~i,~;,:i *"'.PUB ANDERSON. JOLE~iE PUG. CONSULT i~2!91 !~.,'21/~I 10,'21/?! ADVERTISi,~,3 QAnn842~ 11/12/91 MAMRCONS ~MR CONSTRUCTION CO 1028~! i:)..!28/91 (i2S~ 10,'0!/?i SPC,;:T.? c'~,K.uu.,~c::.?,,~. .... i. 3 ? 5. O 5 :':...;j i'2 i. (i 27 .... ¢ '2! C'. !)(~ 28. ~!}. Chec~ Totals: 00008426 11/12/91 RIVERFIR RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPART 040191 06/~0/g1 06/~0/9! SER'2. ~ULY 90- SEPT. JAN-2UNE 0~/30/9! 0~.'~0/9! 8ERV.jAN-jU~.91:EXPEXSEE CCT~O-~EC 0~!50/91 0!/30/9! SERV. OCT 90-DEC. 95 1::)19: !:)/01/?! I0/~!/9! APRIL-JUNE !5~.15~.57 0 "" =' 57 ~7..~$. ~7 (;. <:C! i 7. 687. ¢ 7 i;. 0~3. i: ':2'.. O.Z> %. {46. I: ~';,/,~_C,i ' ' ' ! 'I/{~/Q4 ., w . IU/UG/?I .U .....~ PATIO/FLAG POLE/H.V.A.2. UNIT T. 11 ~. 0'; i}. 00 ,.; ! 5. c;r:, ;4:.5~7.T' .G; "',%7.77 ITEM NO. 4 CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Risk Management Claims Administration PREPARED BY: Grant M. Yates, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 91- authorize a Claims Administration Procedure. tO DISCUSSION: During fiscal year 1990-91 and 1991-92, the City of Temecula received a number of claims that were placed on the consent calendar for City Council action. In many instances, these claims were of a confidential nature with every claim having the potential for litigation. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 91- authorizing a claims procedure that allows the City Council to review and take action on claims in closed session. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: Resolution No. 91__ Authorizing Claims Administration Procedures RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS SUCH AND AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF CITY OF TEMECULA TO HEAR AND TAKE ACTION ON CLMM IN CLOSED SESSION WHEREAS, from time to time claims for money or damages are presented to the City or to the City of Temecula pursuant to Section 905 of the California Government Code or Section 3.16.010 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, each such claim is reviewed by City and staff and consultants and then considered acted upon by the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to have such claims reviewed and acted upon in closed session; and WHEREAS, this procedure will promote efficient review and disposition of such claims. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS SUCH AND AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council will review and take action on claims in closed session. SECTION 2. The City Manager will provide the City Council with a monthly listings of claims activity. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the office of the City Clerk. APPROVF~D AND ADOFrED, this 12th day of November 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor A~"FEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk 3/Resos 191 -1- ITEM NO. 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER" CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works November 12, 1991 Approve Resolution 91- Accepting Offer of Dedication of a Portion of Via Las Colinas and Accepting into City-Maintained Street System PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RESOLUTION NO. 91- Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES AND ACCEPTING INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM, A PORTION OF VIA LAS COLINA$ BACKGROUND: On March 18, 1980, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Parcel Map 13466, but did not accept offers of dedication to public use for street and public utility purposes over Lots "A" through "E", inclusive. Under provisions of Section 66477.2 of the Government Code, these offers remain open. The dedication of abutters' rights of access along the Rancho California Road frontage was accepted by the Board of Supervisors, and limits vehicular access to Via Las Colinas only. Improvements along the Via Las Colinas frontage of Parcel 1 of said Parcel Map 13466 were completed under conditions of approval for Plot Plan 8208. The County approved these improvements and issued Certificates of Occupancy in 1986-87. Neither the acceptance of the dedication nor the accept. ance into the road- maintained system was pursued at that time. The owner of Parcel 1, in seeking new financing in a difficult market, is being required by his lender to provide publicly-maintained, public street access to his parcel. The portion of Via Las Colinas fronting Parcel 1 is constructed to public standards. The fronting parcel on the opposite side of Via Las Colinas was previously accepted into the -1- pwOl~aZdq~t\lll2\colinas 110191 County-Maintained Road System. The remainder of this street lacks full street improvements and would not be acceptable as a publicly maintained street at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 91- -2- pwOl\qdrpt\lll2\collnas 110191 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES AND ACCEPTING INTO THE CITY MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM, A PORTION OF VIA LAS COLINAS WHEREAS, that portion of Via Las Colinas as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, has been offered for dedication of the City; WHEREAS, the legal description of that portion of Via Las Colinas is set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto; WHEREAS, that portion of Via Las Colinas has been constructed to City standards and the associated warranty and maintenance periods have expired; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of Temecula accepts the offer of dedication of that portion of Via Las Colinas. SECTION 2. That the portion of Via Las Colinas is accepted into the City maintained street system. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this of , 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk 5/reso218 -1- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. __ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City ~' Temecula on the __ day of , 1991, by the following roll call vote. AYES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 5/reso2 18 -2- Z=X/.t/EIT -~ ., EXHIBIT "B" That parcel of land within the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows: Lot C in Parcel Map No. 13466, as recorded in Book 76 of Parcel Maps, at pages 68 and 69, in the office of the County Recorder, County of Riverside (Portion of Via Las Colinas) EXHIBIT "B" pwOl\agdrpt\l 112\colinas 110491 ITEM 6 APPROVAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works November 12, 1991 Award of Design Contract for Street and Drainage Improvements Along Margarita Road, from Winchester Road to North General Kearney Road, to Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award the attached design contract for street and drainage improvements for Margarita Road from Winchester Road to North General Kearney Road to Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for an amount not to exceed $62,950.00, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. BACKGROUND: As evidenced in the recently approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City Council is desirous of expediting the extension of Margarita Road from Winchester Road southerly to North General Kearney Road. This project is listed as a Priority 1 Project in the CIP. Staff has held discussions with Bedford Properties, the only property owner along this alignment, about how to best expedite the construction of this street prior to Bedford's development of the adjoining property. Bedford has agreed to cooperate with the City, as evidenced by the attached letter from Greg Erickson of Bedford. In addition, a formal reimbursement agreement will be prepared providing that Bedford will reimburse the City for all City expenses, should CFD financing prove unavailable for any reason. Staff and Bedford are proposing to design and construct Margarita Road to full width improvements (86/110), including ultimate drainage facilities within the right-of-way. This would produce a street with two (2) travel lanes in each direction with raised or striped medians in the center. -1- pwOl~dr~t\lll2Xmm=m'~dmp H079! Bedford has agreed to accept financing of these improvements through CFD88-12 as a Series 1-A bond improvement. These improvements would be added to the current list of Phase I CFD88-12 improvements in a separate sub-zone created just for these improvements. The special tax would be borne solely by Bedford Properties. Modification of the sales tax agreement would not be necessary since the sales tax agreement would not be applied to this sub-zone. All of the County requirements for bond indebtedness would apply to this sub-zone (4:1 equity to debt ratio). Staff anticipates that bonds for these improvements could be authorized and sold by April or May 1992. Bidding and award of the contract for construction of the improvements could occur as early as June 1992. Sale of these bonds would not be directly tied to the sale of Phase I bonds anticipated in January 1992. Staff is also proposing an alternate plan whereby Measure A and CFD 88-12 Phase I bond funds, as outlined in the CIP, will be used to expedite construction of the street. Design and plan check can be completed by February 1, 1992 and construction can commence by March 1, 1992. Staff will prepare an acquisition agreement with the CFD which will reimburse the City for these funds upon sale of the bonds. A sole source contract with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF) is being proposed. Bedford Properties has previously contracted with RBF to design these improvements in conjunction with proposed development of the surrounding property. Work was stopped on the design approximately one-half way through the design when Bedford decided to temporarily halt work on the project due to a slow-down in the economy. To have another design firm start from ground zero on the design of these improvements would cost the CFD additional unnecessary funds. Bedford and the City Staff have reviewed the partially complete improvement plans and find the cost estimate from RBF for completion of these plans reasonable. These plans will be coordinated with the installation of the traffic signal at Winchester and Margarita Road. Upon completion of this section of Margarita Road and the AD159 improvements north of Winchester Road (currently under construction), Margarita Road will extend the entire length of the City as a major north/south urban arterial road. FISCAL IMPACT: RBF has consented to complete the design of the improvements and wait for payment of the work until either a) the bonds for Phase I-A are sold or, b) the contract is complete, or c) June 1, 1992, whichever occurs first. The cost of the design will be included in the sale of the bonds for the improvements. This contract will include contract documents, cost estimates, and a construction schedule for the project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Design contract for street and drainage improvements 2. Letter from Greg Erickson, Bedford Properties 3. Diagram showing limits of construction and a typical section. -2- pwOl~tBdrpt\lll2~ri&rit.imp 110791 MARGARITA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS HYPOTHETICAL TOWNSHIP 7 S., RANGE 3 W., SECTION 24 & 28 SAN BERNARDINO BASE & MERIDIAN Location Map R/~ I10 ' MARG'ARITA ROAD VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE 2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE SUITE ~ CAMARiLL0, CALIFORNIA 93010 (805) 987-3468 TELECOPiER: (805) 482-9834 LAW OFFICES BURKe, WZLLIAHS 8c SORENS~EN' 3;~OO BRISTOL STREET SUITE 640 CO STA MESA, CALIFORNIA 9;>626 (714i 545-5S59 LOS ANGELES OFFICE 611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 25C0 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA (213} 236-0600 TELEC0PlER: (2r3) 236-2700 October 30, 1991 Timothy J. Davis, Esq. Deputy County Counsel COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 3535 Tenth Street, Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 Robert Whalen, Esq. STRADLING, YOCCA, CARLSON & RAUTH 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 John Doyle, Esq. STONE & YOUNGBERG 15260 Ventura Blvd. Suite 900 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Re: CFD 88-12 Gentlemen: It is my understanding from Greg Erickson that Bedford Properties and Kemper Insurance will sign the guaranty necessary so that the Surety Agreement may be executed. Bedford and Kemper also have requested that City enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the property owners to the effect that additional series of bonds beyond Series i will not be sold without the consent of 51% of the property owners. I expect that Memorandum of Understanding to be considered at the November 26, 1991 Council Meeting. With that, we should be able to proceed with the sale of bonds. In addition, City and Bedford would like to finance the construction of Margarita Road to a full width as part of the 88- 12. Payment for this obligation will be the sole responsibility of Bedford, so we would like to form a sub-zone of the 88-12 so that the obligation would be limited to Bedford's properties adjacent to Margarita Road. Our tentative discussions with Bob Whalen and John Doyle have indicated that this could be financed Messrs. Davis, Whalen, & Doyle October 30, 1991 Page 2 as part of Series 1A or Series 2, as we would prefer not to delay any longer than necessary the issuance of Series I bonds. However, Bedford does not want to create a substantial additional cost of issuance with a Series 1A. We would appreciate your advice on this matter. Further, we would appreciate a schedule being prepared to indicate what additional steps must be taken to issue Series 1 bonds and when they may be sold. Please feel free to call me if you have any further questions or if I can of additional assistance. Sincerely, Scott F. Field City Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA CC: David Dixon, City Manager Mark Ochenduszko, Asst. City Manager Tim Serlet, City Engineer Max Gilliss Greg Erickson Lisa D. Peterson ,ffX114064.LTR BEDFORD PROPERTIES October 30, 1991 Mr. Tim Serlet Director of Public Works CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 NOV O1 1997 RE: MARGARITA ROAD, CFD 88-12 Dear Tim: Please incorporate full width construction of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to existing N. General Kearney as we discussed. The funding would be from series "A" or "iA" bonds of CFD 88-12, pursuant to Scott Field. The cost of these improvements would be spread only to Bedford's properties that front Margarita Road, and no further properties within the District. Our consent is subject to the review and approval of the following: - Engineer's cost estimate. - Review and approval of design and alignment. - Bond issuance cost. City will waive plan check and inspection fees for Margarita Road. I would also recommend that the City complete the design at this time. Both Bedford and the City will be reimbursed for the design cost at the time the bonds sell. If for some reason no bonds are sold, Bedford and the City will enter into a reimbursement agreement for the City's engineering cost paid to RBF. The reimbursement to the City will be made at the time Bedford is conditioned to construct Margarita Road and the construction is accepted by the City. Sincerely, ~~ A. EricksoRD~DEVELOPMENT Area Manager COMPANY GAE/dh CC: Lisa Peterson, Bedford Properties Csaba Ko, Mesa Homes ', ,!',,r~i ~"<,u~r-~:~·- l~lc. ~,Liihx~c, \ddrc-- Scott Field, City Attorney, City of Temecula [v.rI'k'', I. da, L'a'.irori;hi BEDFORD PROPERTIES November 4, 1991 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Tim Serlet Director of Public Works/City Engineer CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: MARGARITA ROAD, CFD 88-12 Dear Tim: I recently sent you a letter in which Bedford consented to the inclusion of Margarita Road in the Mello-Roos. I neglected to include one additional item that will require our consent before the bonds can be issued. We have two specific plans in process that front Margarita Road: the Temecula Regional Center and Campos Verdes. Should these projects be denied or modified as to density or use, the construction of Margarita Road might not be economically feasible. Therefore, before the bonds are sold, we will want to satisfy ourselves that these two specific plans will be approved by the City. I believe the timing of these two events is similar and should not hold up the bond sales. However, should the public hearing process be long and extensive, it would delay our consent for the bond sale. Tim, we support Margarita Road. However, we need entitlements for our properties that front Margarita Road in order to proceed. Let's stay in touch on this so that we can work out a process that will work for both the City and Bedford. Sincerely, BEDFORD PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ':7--, - ' - '- Gregory A. Erickson Area Manager GAE/dh cc: Scott Field Lisa Peterson Csaba Ko B~'j!,:rj i'r,.}.,crt~,..- Inc %ld.,liu~ Addrc-~ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 6th day of November, 1991, by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, a California corporation CConsultant"). The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 2. Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein. 3. Payment. The City agrees to pay the consultant one lump sum upon 100% submittal of the engineering plans and specifications excluding field grading observations and testing as recited in Exhibit A-11. This amount will not exceed $55,800 for the total term of the agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the agreement; but in no event more than $10,000.00. The City agrees to pay the remaining $7,150.00 for final grading observations and testing upon completion of this task during construction of the proposed improvements. In the event the improvement plans are not complete prior issuance of bonds funding this project or by June 1, 1992, the City agrees to pay consultant based on a time and materials basis not to exceed $62,950.00 as described in Exhibit "B". Consultant will submit invoices monthly subsequent to June 1, 1992 for actual services performed.' Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. 4. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. 5. Ownership of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed 2/forms/ARG-05 Rev. 8/23/91 1 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services performed. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultants acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 8. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on , 19 , and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than August 1, 1992. 10. Subcontracts. The Consultant shall not enter into any subcontracts for services to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of this Agreement without the consent of the City. At all times, Mr. Michael Tylman shall be primarily responsible for the performance of the tasks described herein. Consultant shall provide City with fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Mike Tylman from Consultant's employ. Upon such notice, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be for the value of service rendered to the City. 11. Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work 2/forms/ARG-05 Rev. 8/23/91 2 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final. Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. 12. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: a. City: b. Attention: City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Consultant: Attention: William L. Green Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates 28765 Single Oak Dr., Ste. 250 Temecula, CA 92590 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, Agreement and any such document or instrument, Agreement shall prevail. conditions, or provisions of this the terms and conditions of this 14. Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant. 2/forms/ARC-05 Rev. 8/23/91 3 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 Consultant shall secure workman's compensation insurance. Upon request of Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workman's compensation policy and the Consultant shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSLILT By: 'SU~t~iam~ Senior Vice President CITY OF TEMECULA By: David F. Dixon, City Manager 2/forms/ARG-05 Rev. 8/23/91 4 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 EXHIBIT "A" J.N. 400297, Revision No. 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant agrees to perform the following Scope of Services: EXHIBIT A-1 EARTHWORK OUANTITY ESTIMATE Consultant shall prepare an Estimate of Earthwork Quantities based upon the Final Grading Plan approved by the Client. Allowances for shrinkage and subsidence and quantities for corrective grading work shall be accounted for based upon the Client's Soils Engineer's Report, unless otherwise specified. EXHIBIT A-2 STREET IMPROVEMENT/GRADING PLANS Consultant shall prepare one set of Street Improvement Plans in accordance with the standard requirements of the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency for Margarita Road from Highway 79 (Winchester) south to existing North General Kearny Road. The alignment, grade and street cross-sections shall conform to the alignment, grade and sections on the circulation element of the General Plan, the existing road easement alignment recorded April 7, 1988, and the design criteria set forth by the appropriate jurisdictional agency. The street improvement plans will also include the grading required for the proposed improvement. Grading plans shall be in accordance with the soils and grading report provided by Consultant and th, e City of Temecula's Grading Ordinance. The Rough Grading Plans shall indicate elevations, banks, berms, drainage devices, rough street grades, possible corrective grading area as outlined in the Preliminary Soils Report provided by Consultant, and erosion control measures necessary for obtaining a rough grading permit, and construction of the rough grading portion of the project. EXHIBIT A-3 TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS Consultant shall provide engineering services to prepare one set of traffic signing and 2/forms/ARC-05 Rev. 8/23/91 5 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 striping plans in accordance with the standards implemented by the City of Temecula. The traffic signing and striping plans shall cover the proposed improvements for Margarita Road. EXHIBIT A4 HYDROLOGY AND STORM DRAIN HYDRAULICS REPORT Consultant shall prepare a Hydrology and Storm Drain Hydraulics Report for the Project Site in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency, based on the Final Grading Plan prepared by Consultant, for submittal to the jurisdictional agency along with the completed Storm Drain Plans for the Project Site. EXHIBIT A-5 STORM DRAIN PLANS Consultant shall design and prepare interim Storm Drain Improvement Plans as required to perpetuate the existing drainage patterns along the proposed alignment of Margarita Road in accordance with the requirements and criteria of the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency. Storm drain improvement plans will be incorporated into the street improvement and grading plan set. Any engineering services related to preparation of improvement plans for offsite storm drain extensions, pump stations, or other major facilities required by the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency, will be completed under separate contract for an additional fee. EXHIBIT A--6 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND EXHIBITS Consultant shall prepare Legal Descriptions and Exhibit to be used for the dedication of Margarita Road and drainage easements to the City of Temecula, based upon the requirement. s of the appropriate governmental jurisdictional agency. EXHIBIT A-7 UTILITY COORDINATION Consultant shall consult with the appropriate utility service agency to determine the relocation requirements of the existing telephone poles adjacent to North General Kearny Road due to the realignment of North General Kearny Road and Margarita Road. EXHIBIT A-8 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Consultant shall prepare Specifications and Contract Documents for bidding, awarding the 2/forms/ARG-05 Rev. 8/23/91 6 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 contracts, and supervision of the improvements to be constructed within the Project. Included are to be Instructions to Bidders, General Conditions, Special Provisions applicable to the specific job, Proposal Forms, Special Grading Specifications supplied by the soils engineer, the Grading Plan, a Cut and Fill Map, and the Improvement Plans. Consultant will be available during the Client's bidding phase of the Project to answer questions and provide guidance to the bidders; however, the Client shall schedule a meeting for this purpose with all of the prospective bidders and shall give Consultant five (5) days advance notice of the meeting. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS) INVESTIGATION (CONVERSE Consultant shall provide the necessary personnel, equipment and materials to explore the site, perform laboratory testing, and provide site grading and pavement design recommendations. The following scope of work is proposed: Subsurface Exploration: A program of subsurface exploration will be conducted to determine general soil profiles at the site, and to obtain representative soil samples for laboratory testing. Six to seven test pits are planned to explore subsurface conditions. Test pits will be excavated with a backhoe to maximum depths of about 5 feet below ground surface. Laboratory Testing: Soil samples obtained during the exploratory field work will be tested in the laboratory to determine their engineering properties. Laboratory testing may include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: R-value, and compaction tests. Engineering Analyses and Report: Data obtained from the exploratory excavations and the laboratory testing program will be evaluated. Engineering analyses will be performed to present pavement design and site grading recommendations in a report. The report will address the following items: · A description of the field and laboratory procedures used in the investigation. A discussion of the materials encountered in the test pits and their engineering properties. Logs of the exploratory excavations summarizing the soil conditions encountered and the results of laboratory testing, and a plan indicating the location of subsurface excavations. 2/forms/ARG-05 Rev. 8/23/91 7 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 Recommendations for general site grading, including excavations, fill placement, and utility backfill and site drainage. Recommended structural pavement section and guidelines for preparation of subgrade soils. EXHIBIT A-IO GRADING OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING (CONVERSE CONSULTANTS) Our technicians will be on site during grading to observe and test the earthwork. We anticipate full-time observations will be required. Laboratory tests, consisting of confirmatory R-value vesting on the exposed subgrade soils and maximum density tests, will be performed. EXHIBIT A-11 BLUEPRINTS AND REPRODUCTION (Client Request) Consultant has included an allowance for blueline and reproduction work specifically requested by the Client. All reproduction work required by Consultant for performance of the various work tasks described above is included in the fee amounts as shown on Exhibit 2/forms/ARG-05 Rev. 8/23/91 8 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 EXHIBIT "B" J.N. 400297, Revision No. 3 COMPENSATION Client agrees to compensate Consultant for such services as follows: Consultant shall complete the work outlined above in accordance with the fee schedule identified below and shall invoice Client on a monthly basis based on the percentage of completion. ITEM A-1 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 WORK TASK Earthwork Quantity Estimate Street Improvement/Grading Plans Traffic Signing and Striping Plans Hydrology and Storm Drain Hydraulics Report Storm Drain Plans Legal Descriptions and Exhibits Utility Coordination Specifications and Contract Documents Geotechnical Investigation (Converse Consultants) Grading Observations & Testing (Converse Consultants) Blueprints and Reproductions FEE $1,000 21,500 2,000 8,000 8,000 800 700 5,500 4,800 7,150 SUBTOTAL $59,450 3.500 TOTAL $62,950 2/forms/ARG-05 Rev. 8/23/91 9 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 The fees proposed herein shall apply until August t, 1992. Due to ever-changing costs, Consultant may increase those portions of the contract fee for which work must still be completed after August 1, 1992 by ten percent (10%). Any work relating to, but not limited to, governmental processing, retaining walls, topographic mapping, traffic signal, environmental documentation, sound studies or acoustical engineering, underground utility planning, design or coordination, design for relocation of underground irrigation facilities, detour plan, property title services, preparation of legal descriptions and exhibits (except as provided herein), staking of joint trench utilities, construction surveying for grading cross-sections or removal of unsuitable material and any additional staking (except as provided herein), if required, shall be covered under a separate agreement. ..... 2/forms/ARG-05 Rev. 8/23/91 10 pw01/agr/master/ps-tenK 091791 ITEM 7 APPROVAL~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works November 12, 1991 TRAFFIC SIGNAL AGREEMENT FOR WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROAD BETWEEN BEDFORD PROPERTIES AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached Agreement for the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads, between the City of Temecula and Bedford Properties, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Agreement. BACKGROUND: The County of Riverside, through Assessment DiStrict 161, has designed a traffic signal for the intersection of Winchester and Margarita and is processing this design through Caltrans for approval. The City and Bedford (property owner on all four (4) corners of said intersection) wish to expedite the construction of this traffic signal. Currently, funding for the signal is included in the proposed supplemental bond sale for AD 161, placing construction of the signal over a year away. Additionally, Costco, which is located on the northwest corner of the intersection, is conditioned to enter into an agreement with the City to construct this signal prior to reopening Margarita road north of Winchester Road. This agreement between the City and Bedford satisfies that condition. This Agreement details a plan by which: 1. The City will: a. Advance signal mitigation fees for the construction of the signal; b. Seek reimbursement of these costs from AD 161 supplemental bond sales; -1- pwOl\agd~pt\lll2\win-mar.agt 102591 Advertise, award, and administer a public works contract for the construction of the project; Maintain the signals until the Agreement for traffic signal maintenance with Caltrans is modified to include this signal. 2. Bedford will: Provide all temporary and permanent easements necessary to construct the signal; Modify existing signal plans, at no cost to the City, the signal plans to match interim street conditions; Provide consulting services to expedite Caltrans approval of signal plans for construction. In conjunction with the installation of this traffic signal, the City and Bedford are discussing a separate agreement for the extension of Margarita Road south to North General Kearney Road. This separate agreement will be presented to the Council for approval at a future meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: When the construction contract is approved by Council, the cost of the traffic signal will be advanced from Development Impact Fund Balance. -2- pwOl~agdrpt\lll2\wln-mar.agt 102591 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of ,1991 is by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Bedford Development Company, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "BEDFORD". RECITALS WHEREAS, CITY desires to install traffic control signals at the intersection of Winchester Road and Margarita Road in the City of Temecula, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, the County of Riverside through Assessment District No. 1 61 has designed the PROJECT and is processing plans for same with Caltrans for approval; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT shall be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained; and WHEREAS, BEDFORD, for the purpose of enhancing adjacent properties, desires CITY to design and construct PROJECT; and WHEREAS, CITY is willing to design and construct PROJECT, provided CITY shall be entitled to seek reimbursement for the cost of PROJECT from the proceeds of supplemental bond sales, if any, of Assessment District No. 1 61 in the County of Riverside; and ~VHEREAS, City is willing to utilize signal mitigation fees paid by BEDFORD to construct the signal prior to scheduled construction by Assessment District No. 1 61; and - 1 - pw01 \agmts\006 101691 WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of CITY to proceed with construction of PROJECT at the earliest possible date, however, in no event later than the completion of Margarita Road improvements from Winchester to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: BEDFORD shall: 1. Convey to CITY SECTION I all necessary temporary encroachment easements for purposes of construction within property owned by BEDFORD for installation of PROJECT. 2. Convey to CITY, upon completion of construction of PROJECT, all necessary permanent easements for ingress and egress for purposes of operating and maintaining the traffic signal equipment. 3. Pay CITY, at contract unit prices bid or at negotiated change order prices, for any agreed upon work requested by BEDFORD to be done by change order, at the time of request by BEDFORD. 4. Modify, at no cost to the CITY, the signal plans if required by Caltrans. 5. Provide, at no cost to CITY, consultant services for the purpose of coordinating on CITY'S behalf the design, plan modification, approval/permits, and contract preparation for PROJECT. SECTION II CITY shall: 1. conflict with construction of the PROJECT. -2- Order the relocation of all utilities installed by permit or franchise which pwOl\agmts\O06 101691 2. Advertise, award and administer a public works contract for the construction of PROJECT. 3. Not charge BEDFORD any plan checking or permit fees. 4. Construct, or cause to be constructed, PROJECT pursuant to a public works contract, administered and inspected by CITY. 5. To extent feasible, prepare and process a reimbursement or acquisition agreement with Assessment District 1 61 for the sole purpose of reimbursing the City for the cost of PROJECT. 6. Upon completion of the PROJECT under this Agreement, accept control and maintain, at CITY cost and expense, the traffic signal equipment constructed under the PROJECT until such time as maintenance may be assumed by Caltrans. SECTION III It is further mutually agreed: 1. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the parties to this Agreement shall be mailed to the following addresses: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Attn: Douglas M. Stewart BEDFORD PROPERTIES P. O. Box 9016 Temecula, CA 92589 Attn: Greg Erickson 2. Award of a public works contract for PROJECT shall be made at the sole discretion of CITY, subject to availability of necessary funds. 3. BEDFORD agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands and actions in connection with the negligent acts or omissions of BEDFORD, -3- pw01 \agrnts\O06 101691 their officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers in the performance of-- this Agreement. 4. CITY agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless BEDFORD, their officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands and actions in connection with the negligent acts or omissions of CITY, its officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers in the performance of this Agreement. 5. This Agreement is the result of the negotiations among the parties hereto, and the advice and assistance of their respective counsel. This Agreement is intended by the parties as their final expression with respect to the matters herein, and is a complete and exclusive statement of the terms and conditions thereof. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the '- parties hereto and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 6. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which together shall represent but one document. BEDFOR~ EV~/tO MENT COMPANY ----_ By: ~r~e~g.L~'ricks~~r~ger CITY OF TEMECULA By: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney -4'- pw01 \agmts\006 101691 ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 20130-2 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 20130-2, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the maintenance bond, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On February 25, 1986, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with Kulberg Ltd. 27710 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 301 Temecula, CA 92590 for the improvements of streets and installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Developers Insurance Company as follows: 2. 3. 4. Bond No. 919257S in the amount of $147,500.00 to cover street improvements. Bond No. 919258S in the amount of $35,500.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 919259S in the amount of $44,500.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bond Nos. 919257S, 919258S, and 919259S in the amounts of $73,750.00, $17,750.00, and $22,250.00 respectively, to cover materials and labor. Page 1 of 2 pwO1\agdrpt\1112\21030-2 103191 The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: 1. Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected streets are Quail Creek Court, and a portion of Oak Cliff Drive, Springtime Drive, and Rainbow Creek Drive. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff agrees with the recommendation to reduce the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce/release these bond amounts as follows: Streets: $132,750.00 Water: $31,950.00 Sewer: ~40,050.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one (1) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $14,750.00 Water: $3,550.00 Sewer: $4,450.00 TOTAL $22,750.00 The developer has submitted Maintenance Bond No. 919257S designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of this bond will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance bonds for these items of work. The Material and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:clh Attachments: Location Map Maintenance Bond Subdivision Agreement Page 2 of 2 pw01\agdrpt\1112\21030-2 103191 LOCATION MAP ITEM NO. 9 ORDINANCE NO. 91-39 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE CITY CLERK AS CUSTODIAN OF THE CITY SEAL AND INSIGNIA WHEREAS, the City of Temecula is a duly incorporated City under the laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula designates official documents through the fixation of the adopted Seal and/or other authorized insignia on the document; and WHEREAS, unauthorized use of the adopted City Seal and other adopted insignia may cause confusion among persons residing and/or doing business with and within the City of Temecula. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Municipal Code of the City of Temecula shall be amended as follows: "Section: 1.04.010 ADOPTION The corporate seal of the City shall be as follows: Section: 1.04.020 SEAL; INSIGNIA; CUSTODY AND USE OF The City Clerk shall have custody and charge of the City Seal and such other insignia that may from time to time be adopted pursuant to this Code. Except as provided by this Code, any seal, insignia or other symbol officially adopted for use by the City of Temecula shall not be affixed to any instrument without the special warrant of the City Clerk therefor." 2/Ord~/91-39 I Section 2. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 3. Resolution No. 89-8, adopted December 12, 1989, is hereby repealed. Section 4 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, a summary shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 2/Orals/91-39 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-39 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of October, 1991, and thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: June S. Greek, City Clerk Scott F. Field, City Attorney 2/Ords/91-39 3 ITEM NO. 10 ORDINANCE NO. 91-40 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER FOUR TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to the Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (a) general plan. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is a little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: 5/o rd s91-40 - 1 - (a) general plan. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 91-__ will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. There is an unsightly and confusing proliferation of off-site directional signs, relating to new residential development projects, including new rental projects (hereinafter referred to as "development projects"), and other business. Development projects by their very nature are most frequently located in areas where streets and highways are newly constructed. Such thoroughfares are seldom shown on maps available to persons seeking to purchase new homes; and, consequently, developers use signs, to aid such persons in locating their subdivisions. The result is a proliferation of signs which are: (1) unsightly and damaging to the appearance of areas such as that which is the subject of this ordinance; (2) confusing to individuals; and, (3) unsafe in that drivers of motor vehicles while searching for subdivisions or signs giving direction thereto, are distracted from the operation of their vehicles. Directional signs are needed by developers to a greater degree than other businesses because development project sales are ordinarily conducted for a relatively limited period of time for any particular location, that is, only until all units in the subdivision are sold. Thus, listings in such conventional media as telephone yellow pages are impractical. While other media such as broadcast media and newspapers are available, and maps could be disseminated in only some of such media, the most efficient method of directing prospective purchasers to development projects is the use of directional signs posted at intersections and other critical locations. Businesses with more permanent sales locations do not share these problems and, thus, have less need of directional signs. SECTION 2. Chapter 4 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal code, which shall read as follows: Chapter 4 "Directional Signs". PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a uniform, coordinated method of offering developers a means of providing directiona signs to their 5/ords91-40 -2- projects, while minimizing confusion among prospective purchasers who wish to inspect development projects, while promoting traffic safety and reducing the visual blight of the present proliferation of signs. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning law, Business and Professions Code, Section 52301 and Streets and Highways Code, Section 1460. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. When consistent with the context, words used in the present these singular include the plural. (1) "City" shall mean the City of Temecula. (2) "Contractor" shall mean a person, persons, firm or corporation authorized by a license agreement to design, erect and maintain directional and kiosk signs within the City. (3) "Directional Sign" shall mean any off-site free standing, non- flashing sign which is designed, erected, and maintained to serve as a public convenience in directing pedestrian and vehicular traffic, but not used for the purpose of advertising uses and activities on site. (4) "Kiosk" shall mean a free standing, multiple sided, structure whose main purpose is to display signs or information. (5) "Off-site Sign" shall mean any sign which is not located on the business or activity site it identifies. (6) association, corporation, other group acting as an "Person" shall mean an individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, estate, trust, syndicate, district or other political subdivision, or any independent unit. (7) cross at the same grade. "Street Intersection" shall mean where two or more streets or roads (8) "Street or Road" shall mean the following: (a) Arterial (Urban) Highway ~ A Six land divided highway with a 134 foot Right-of-Way. (b) Arterial Highway - A six lane divided highway with a 110 foot Right-of-Way. 5/ords91-40 -3- (c) Major Highway - A highway with a 100 foot Right-of-Way. Way. (d) Secondary Highway - A highway with an 88 foot Right-of- REQUIREMENTS FOR DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND KIOSK STRUCTURES. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, directional signs shall be permitted in all zone classifications subject to the following limitations: (1) Directional signs shall not obstruct the use of sidewalks, walkways, bike and hiking trails; shall not obstruct the visibility of vehicles, pedestrians or traffic control signs,; shall, where feasible, be combined with advance street name signs; shall not be installed in the immediate vicinity of street intersection; and shall be limited to not more than three (3) structures between street intersections. (2) sign structures shall be ladder type with individual sign panels of uniform design and color throughout the City limits. (3) Sign structures shall not exceed 12 feet in height. (4) The width of sign structures and sign panels shall not exceed 5 feet. (5) Sign panels shall not be illuminated. (6) Sign structure installations shall include "break away" design features where required in right-of-way areas. (7) No signs, pennants, flags, other devices for visual attention or other appurtenances shall be placed on the directional signs. (8) The sign panel lettering for tract identification shall be uniform. (9) All signs erected on private property must have written consent from the property owner with the City to have a right to enter property to remove any signs not in conformance. (10) The City, and its officers and employees, shall be held free and harmless of all costs, claims, and damages levied against them. (11) Department permits. All signs must have applicable Building and Safety and Planning specifications. (12) Placement of signs must be in accordance with permit 5/ords91-40 -4- (13) All signs within a public right-of-way must have an encroachment permit. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS PROHIBITED. Directional and kiosk signs, including travel direction signs, other than those on-site, are prohibited except as provided in this ordinance. AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENSE. The City Council may, by duly executed license agreement, grant to a qualified person the exclusive right to design, erect and maintain directional and kiosk signs within the entire City, or any designated portion thereof. Licensees shall be selected by soliciting request for proposals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person erecting or placing directional signs or kiosk signs on-site shall not be required to obtain a license. TERM. The term of each license shall be set forth in the license agreement. DIRECTIONAL SIGNS STRUCTURES: OPERATION. Licensee(s) shall make directional sign panels available to all persons or entities selling subdivisions (hereinafter referred to as "Subdivides") on a first-come, first-service basis. No sign panels shall be granted to any subdivider for a period of excess of two years. However, a subdivider who is soliciting sales of more than two subdivisions within a single planned community or a specific plan area shall not be subject to the two-year limitation during such solicitation. Licensee(s) shall maintain a separate waiting list for each sign structure. Alternatively, a subdivider may apply to licensee for a sign panel program consisting of a single sign panel on each of a series of sign structures as needed to guide prospective purchasers to his subdivision. A subdivider whose time of use for a sign panel or sign space program has expired, may reapply and shall be placed on the waiting list in the same manner as a new applicant. EXISTING SIGN PERMITS. No sign permit, use permit, or other permit authorizing placement of a directional sign issued on or before the date of adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council shall be invalidated hereby, but shall remain valid for the period for which it was issued. Any such permit issued after the date of adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council, which would not be permitted under this Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Ordinance. Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, continued, or permitted. 5/ords91-40 -5- SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-40 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22nd day of October, 1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November, 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 5/ords91-40 -6- ITEM NO. 11 Notice of Continued Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Change of Zone 5631/Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 Bedford Properties Pauba Road, East of Ynet Road Change of zoning designation of the subject property from R-R (Rural Residential 20,000 Sq. Ft. minimum) to R-1 (One-family dwellings-7,200 Sq. Ft. minimum). Subdivide 56.6 acres into 102 residential lots and 4 open space lots. Environmental Action: None Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43174 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Charly Ray, City of Temecula Planning Department (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula Tuesday. November 12. 1991 7:00 PM '7'6.' ( / 7'7' CLE~z~,s' tiFFleg C/72' oF T~H6cu c// From the desk of... DAGMAR KING /,/?qi /"~cr ,'~//f AIo .25'3,20 '7'EN ECu~-/q / ORDINANCE NO. 91-41 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 17, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - 2 1/2 ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND R-5 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN SPACE COMBINING ZONE-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 92{5-330-004 AND 92{5-070-020. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 17 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance. 5/ords91-41 -1- PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 91-41 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 22 day of October, 1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November, 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 5/ords9 1-4 1 -2- CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO: CHANGE OF ZONE NO: 17 ORDINANCE NO: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: STERLr, IG RANCH CHAN~ OF zo~ NO. I ,'~ ,,,~. , SEC8,9,17,16, Z'.85.,~.2W., ,9.88 '~ ~ '""' SO 8~ING ~ PORTION OF ~ L~ DE~TOLA RD ONE-FAMILY DWELLINGS OPEN AREA COMBINING ZONE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS R-5 FARCE L "A" ,\ R-5 PARCEL"B" R-I R-5 PARCEL"E" PARCEL'C' SEE DETAIL "B" R-5 PARCEL"D" ~_,c+_ DE PO~T6L~ .D ATTACHMENT 1 RESO'UT ON NO. 9 1- / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 17 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 88.4 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-A-2~ (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL- 2 ~ ACRES MINIMUM) TO R-1 AND R-5 (ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OPEN SPACE COMBINING ZONE-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) ALONG THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926-707-020. WHEREAS, Sterling Builders, Inc. filed Change of Zone No. 17 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on October 7, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Change of Zone; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Change of Zone on October 22, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Change of Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the Gener-31 Plan. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17, CC 5 The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP and does meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 17 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 6.5, no Change of Zone may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Zone Change approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The City Council in approving the proposed Change of Zone,makes the following findings to wit: (1) The proposed zone change will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Environmental Impact Report for this project. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17.CC 6 (2) There is a reasonable probability that the Zone Change from R-A-2 ~ to R-1 and R-5 will be consistent with the future General Plan. Further, densities and uses proposed are similar to existing densities and uses in the vicinity of the project site. (3) There is not a reasonable probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposal is consistent with surrounding land uses. (4) The proposed change in district classification is reasonable and beneficial at this time as it is a logical expansion of residential uses which exist adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the project site. (5) The proposed change in district classification will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the General Plan when it is ultimately adopted. The density and land use proposed are consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and approved and proposed adjacent specific plans. (6) The site of the proposed change in district classification is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district as it is of adequate size and shape for the proposed residential use. Possible land use conflicts are not likely to arise as the project proposes residential uses similar to those existing in the general vicinity of the subject site. (7) Adequate access exists for the proposed residential land use from De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road. Additional internal access and required road improvements to proposed lots will be designed and constructed in conformance with Riverside County standards. (8) Said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance The Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby recommends approval of Zone Change No. 17 to change the zoning on 88.4 acres of land from R-A-2~ to R-1 and R-5 along the northeast corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926- 330-004 and 926-070-020. S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 7 SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of October, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK S\STAFFRPT\23125-17. CC 8 ITEM NO. 12 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Change of Zone No. 5631, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25320 The applicant requests the City Council continue the public hearing for Change of Zone No. 5631, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25320 from the City Council meeting of November 12, 1991 to the Council meeting of December 1 O, 1991. November 4,1991 To: Temecula City Council Re: Change of Zone 5631/Vesting Tentative Tract Map #25320 This is to inform you of our strong opposition to the proposal to change the zone designation of this property at Pauba and Ynez Roads from R-R to R-1. The proposed 102 homes would have a negative impact on traffic in this area and the construc- tion would pollute the Lake Village lake adjacent to this proposed tract. The esthetic visual appeal of these beautiful hills in conjunction with the Sports Park is one that should be preserved. What is not needed is another sea of rooftops to cover what is a natural extension of an already much used and enjoyed park. Once this area of natural beauty is defiled it can never be reclaimed. In speaking with neighboring residents of this area we hear no one express approval of this project, only opposition to it. We strongly urge you to reject this proposed zoning change, and consider instead how this area might fit in with Temecula's great need for more parks and open spaces for the residents to use and enjoy. Sincerely, Joan Brutus John Brutus 30399 Calle Sonora Temecula, Ca. 92592 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY (" "~ f FINANCE OFFICER"""'~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department November 12, 1991 Change of Zone No. 5631 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25320 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SWAP DESIGNATION: Charles D. Ray ADOPT Resolution No. Zone No. 5631; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- Tract Map No. 25320 91-__ denying Change of denying Vesting Tentative Bedford Properties Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling); and subdivide approximately 56.6 acres into 102 single family residential lots and 4 open space lots. North side of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. R-R (Rural Residential) 2-5 DU/AC S\STAFFRPT\25320,CC 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-R R-1 R-R R-R R-1 (Rural Residential) (One-Family Dwelling) and (Rural Residential) (Rural Residential) (One-Family Dwelling) PROPOSED ZONING: R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Sports Park Single Family Residential Sports Park Single Family Residential PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Land Area: No. of Proposed Lots: Min. Residential Lot Size: SWAP Designation: 56.6 acres 102 residential 4 open space 7,200 sq.ft. 2-5 DU/AC BACKGROUND: The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 16, 1991 conducted a Public Hearing for Proposed Change of Zone No. 5631 (CZ 5631) and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 (VTM 25320). After closing the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0, recommending the City Council deny the requested zone change, and the associated vesting tentative map. In their recommendation concerns/considerations: for denial, the Commission cited the following Grading impacts of the proposal and the elimination of significant terrain necessary to achieve the map design and residential density proposed. Visual impacts of the proposed increase in residential density as it affects the prominent east-west ridgeline traversing the subject property. m Traffic impacts of the proposed residential development as it affects adjacent Pauba Road. Short term generation of off-site drainage pollutants and turbidity resulting from project construction activities, and long term pollutant drainage discharge resulting from eventual project buildout and occupancy. S\STAFFRFT\25320,CC 2 Potential effects of off-site light pollution as it may impact the project site, i.e. light- spillover from the adjacent Sports Park field lighting. Items #1 through #5 above, indicate the proposal's probable inconsistency with the City's Future General Plan. Ten to fifteen persons, representing a larger group of neighboring property owners, expressed concerns similar to those voiced by the Commission; and spoke in opposition to the project. The Planning Commission also noted that the recommendation to deny this particular proposal did not exclude possible future consideration of an alternative, lower-density residential map design respecting the Commission's concerns enumerated above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution 91- Zone No. 5631; and Denying Change of ADOPT Resolution 91 - Denying Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 Based on the analysis and findings contained in this City Council staff report, incorporating the Planning Commissions September 16, 1991 findings for denial. vgw Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 91 - _ denying Change of Zone No. 5631 -page 4 Resolution denying Vesting Tentative Map 25320 - page 8 Planning Commission minutes dated 9/16/91 - page 14 Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 16, 1991 - page 15 S\STAFFRPT~25320.CC 3 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.:Chanqe of Zone 5631-Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 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. 23 Condition No. 27 Condition No. 80 Condition No. 60 Condition No. 21 .b Condition No. 38 Condition No. 77 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- S\STAFFRPT\25320.CC 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5631 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to speak in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission Hearing the Commission recommended denial of said Change of Zone; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Change of Zone on November 12, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council denied said Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: S\STAFFRFT\25320,CC 5 The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. e The City Council in denying the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 5631 will be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Although the subject request is consistent with the site's SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC, the SWAP designation itself will likely be inconsistent with the General Plan designation of the subject property given its specific physical site limitations. The property cannot adequately accommodate all the uses allowed under the requested zoning designation. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Approval of such a change from Rural Residential to One-Family Dwellings will likely be inconsistent with the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan for the subject property as referenced above. The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses. Physical relationship with adjoining properties is incompatible, due to the fact that the predominance of adjoining developments are considerably less intensely developed in terms of residential densities. S\STAFFRPT\25320. CC 6 The proposal may have an adverse effect on surrounding property. It represents a significant change to the present and planned land use of the area. The proposed density is incompatible with adjacent development patterns and associated rural residential densities. The Change of Zone is not compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Reference Section C, above. SECTION 2. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Change of Zone No. 5631 to change the zoning designation from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) for the subject property located on Pauba Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 12th day of November, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK S\STAFFRPT\25320. CC 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91- S\STAFFRPT\25320,CC 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 TO SUBDIVIDE A 56.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 102 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Vesting Tentative Tract Map on September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to speak in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission Hearing the Commission recommended denial of said Vesting Tentative Tract Map; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 12, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council denied said Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: S\STAFFRPT\25320.CC 9 The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP recommendation for the subject site. However, the SWAP designation for the property in question, together with the requested Change of Zone and proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), is likely inconsistent with the City's future General Plan, to wit: A. The City Council finds, in denying the application that: (1) There is reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The map does not respect physical site limitations, nor is it sensitive to adjacent rural development patterns. (2) There is reasonable 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. If approved, the Vesting Tentative Map will set precedent in allowable densities and map designs in the area. (3) The proposed tentative tract map is not reasonable and beneficial at this time as it does not provide a logical transition to adjacent residential development and may result in significant adverse impacts as delineated in section 5. below. S\STAFFRPT\25320. CC 10 Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, a subdivision may be denied if any of the following findings are made: That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development. That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The City Council in denying the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that this project will be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. (1) The project proposes mass grading and elimination of existing significant topographic features to achieve the map design and residential density proposed. The proposed increase in density is incongruous with existing physical site limitations. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. S\STAFFRPT\25320.CC 11 (1) Approval of the project will set precedent in residential densities allowed in the immediate vicinity. If approved, the map design also encourages like subdivision designs incorporating mass grading of significant topographic features. C. The proposed use does not comply with State planning and zoning law. (1) The project is inconsistent with current zoning for the site. The tract map as proposed requires approval of the attendant change of zone request (CZ 5631 ), changing the subject zoning from R-R to R-l. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. (1) The project, as designed, requires mass grading of the site and destruction of significant natural ridgeline features traversing the proposal site. (2) The project does not conform to the current rural-residential zoning for the site, which specifies minimum 20,000 square foot lot sizes. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 for the subdivision of a 56.6 acres into 102 single family residential lots and 4 open space lots located generally between Ynez and Margarita Roads, on the North side of Pauba Road, also known as Assessor Parcel No. 945-050-004. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November, 1991 RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR S\STAFFRPT~25320.CC 12 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 12th day of November, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES COUNCILMEMBERS NOES COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK S\STAFFRPT\25320,CC 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ~3. Tentative Tract 25277 end Bone Change 5724 13.1 Proposal to change the zone from R-R, Rural Residential, to R-l, single family residential and to create 102 residential lots and 7 open space lots. Located on the southwesterly side of Pethangs Creek abutting ~he easterly side of Temecula Creek Inn Golf Course. CHAIRMAN BOaGLAND opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M. COMMISSIONSBLaIR moved to continue Tentative Tract 25277 and Zone Change 5724 ~othe regularly scheduled meeting of October 21, 1991, seconded by COtfiaSSXOB~ PORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 14. 1Change of Bone No. 5631; and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, ~S3-20 14.1 Proposal ~o change to zoning designation of the subject property from R-R (Rural Residential 20,000 square feet minimum) to R-1 (one-family residential - 7,200 square foot minimum); and, subdivide approximately 56.6 acres in~o 102 single family rssiden~ial lots and 4 open space lots. Located on the northside of Pauba Road, West of Margarita Road. CHaRLBS RAY provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAOLAND opened the public hearing at 9:50 P.M. ROBERT IEMBLB, Robert Bien, William Frost & Associates, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Tamsouls, representing the applicant, stated that they concurred with the staff's findings and recommendations. Mr. Kemble stated that =hey felt they had adeguately addressed the issues and concerns raised by staff and the Commission during the last meeting. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: K-~d=~9/16~91 KN RUDOLPH, 43082 Corte Villa, Tomsouls GARY P~TCH, 43065 Vista De1 Rancho, Temecula K~VIN PRUC!!~TTI, 30559 Paube Road, Temecula BTEVB NELSON, 43015 Showalter Road, Temecula AUDRBY MaDARIS, 30601 Moontide Court, Temecula 17 9-18-91 pT.3~lqTNTNG COMXIBBION MT]iUT~-B BmepTw~fs-rB. 1 t, 19 t I HICBA~L MaDARIa, 30601 Moontide Court, Temecula BRIAIINANTAIB, 42635 Remota Street, Temecula MARCIA SLAVIN, 30110 La Primavers, Temecula C1~S~T~DqTI LFJLTH~J, 42623 Ramors Street, Temecula MARIa D~tFM, 30156 La Primavers Street, Temecula FATI DIBIASX, 30445 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula BOB BIN, 30353 Verfonda, Temecula PHILIP 8AUM, 43209 Vista De1 Rancho, Temecula MAICXI3 EM)JB8, 42808 Sots Suzanne, Temecula The individuals listed.above strongly disagreed with the recommendations by ~he staff for the following reasons: grading, higher density, increased traffic flow, contamination of the small lake area, etc. Marcia Slavin, president of the Lakeview Homeowners Association brought in water samples from the lake which shows past and present water contamination. ROBERT KEMBL! stated that the applicant came back to the commission after addressing issues and concerns raised by the Commission in the January meeting; however, consideration of alternative uses was not a concern the applicant was requested to address. Mr. Kemble added that the problem with the lake were not as a result of the Acacia development up stream. COMMXBBXOMBR F3HEY stated that she had expressed concerns at the January hearing that she feels have not been adequately addressed and added that she felt there was a probable inconsistency with the future General Plan due to the proposed change in density on a prominent ridgeling and that the requested increase in density vs. the existing zoning of the project site has the potential of a negative environmental impact that cannot be mitigated. Commissioner Fahey indicated that project Conditions of Approval relating to drainage to the Lake Village area and increased traffic flow on Pauba Road were inadequate to mitigate potential project impacts, and concluded that she could not support this project. COMMISSIONER CHINXA~PF stated that this site has been designated residential since the early 1980'8. Commissioner Chiniaeff also stated that he thought the proposed lot pattern on the east side of the project appeared strained. PCMINg(]6/91 18 COXalSSlONZlt BLAIR stated that she had expressed a number of concerns regarding the project in January and feels They still exist. She added thaC she felt The lights at The Sports Park are of major concern and a health consideration. COMMIBBIONFa FANEY moved to Denv Change of Zone No. 5631 and Da/3X Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 based on the proposals being inconsistent with the future General Plan due to the increased density along a prominent ridgeling, the significant grading required, and recommend Z~ adoption of The Negative Declaration due to the potential negative impact The increased denstry may have on traffic and drainage into the'Lake Village area, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAZR~ COMMISSIONer CBZNIA~FF stated that he would support the motion based on the Roj:ential grading impacts of this project. COMMISSIONER FAHBY advised that this was not a denial for development of The property; however, the requested zoning should respect site limitations including topography of the area. AYES:' 5 NOES: 0 COM]%ISSIONERS: COM}~ISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland None CNAIRMAN BOAGLaND advised the public that this would be a recommendation to the CitV Council and was not a final action. 16. Variance No. 6 16.1 Proposal for variance in order to allow an additional freestanding sign display in lieu of the maximum allowed freestanding signs per Ordinance 348. aXC!L~RDaYaLAprovided the staff report. CHAIRMaN HOAGLaNDopened the public hearing at 10:45 P.M. LaltRY ~, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing ~he applicant, indicated their concurrence with the staff report. W3.GNg/XS/~ 19 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 S\STAFFRPT\25320.CC 15 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director September 16, 1991 Change of Zone No. 5631; and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BACKGROUND: RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. Change of Zone No. 5631 is a request to change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-R (Rural Residential- 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) to R-1 (One- Family Residential - 7,200 square foot minimum lot size). Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposes to subdivide the subject 56.6 acre parcel into 102 single family residential lots and 4 open space lot. On January 28, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal for Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission continued this item in order to allow the Planning Staff the opportunity to address the following issues: S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 1 ANALYSIS: Potential environmental impacts to the lake within the Lake Village Community; 2. Site distance requirements on Pauba Road; Effects of lighting from the Sports Park on proposed project; Existing easements on the southside of Pauba Road; and The quality of water that will flow into the storm drain system. In response to the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 28, 1991, the Planning Department Staff has analyzed the following issues. Potential Environmental Impacts - The Lake Village Community Association (LVCA) identified a concern regarding the potential environmental impacts, to the existing habitat of their lake, caused by the surface run-off from the proposed subdivision. The LVCA indicated the this concern was due to the types of chemicals (i.e. motor oil, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) that may run-off into their lake. Based on this input by the LVCA, the Planning Commission directed the Planning Staff to forward a copy of the project information to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Pursuant to this direction, staff transmitted the following material to the ACOE: 1 ) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320; 2) Vicinity Map; 3) Aerial Photograph; 4) Drainage/Hydrology Study; and 5) An Exhibit Identifying the "Ordinary Highwater Mark"/20-year Floodplain. In a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers (Dated August 14, 1991 ), it was determined that the proposed project does not discharge dredged or fill material into a water of the United States or adjacent wetland. Therefore the project as designed is not S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 2 CONCLUSION: subject to their jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and no Section 404 permit is required from their office. Run-off Water Quality Based on the concerns regarding the quality of water that would flow from the proposed project, staff transmitted the following material to the California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB): 1 ) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320; 2) Vicinity Map; and 3) Drainage/Hydrology Study. It was determined by the CWQCB that the proposed project would not impact the adjacent and/or surrounding areas, nor will it impact the existing storm drainage system. Lighting from the Sports Park - The Community Services Department has indicated that the lighting from the Sports Park should not impact the subject development due to the type of lighting installed, which is designed to minimize to glare and complies with the Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655. Sight Distance on Pauba Road The Traffic Engineering Department has reviewed the traffic study submitted with the proposal and has determined that adequate sight distances are provided. Existing Easements on Southside of Pauba Road - After reviewing the properties along the southside of Pauba Road, across from the subject property, Staff has determined that the proposed subdivision does not interfere with any existing easements on the southside of Pauba Road. Based on our additional review of the project and those issues identified, the Planning Department Staff supports this project as designed. S\STAFFRPT\25320-A,VTM 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 25320; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. OM:vgw Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Resolution (Change of Zone No. 5631) Resolution (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320) Conditions of Approval (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320) Exhibits: A. Tentative Tract Map Planning Commission Staff Report (Dated January 28, 1991 ) Planning Commission Minutes (Dated January 28, 1991) Large Scale Plans S\STAFFRPT\25320-A,VTM 4 RESOLUTION NO, 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5631 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (ONE-FAMILY DWELLING) FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004. accordance Ordinances, WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 5631 in with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; January 28, opportunity WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on 1991 and September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 5 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 Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 5631 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the subject request is consistent with The SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that an approval of such a change from Rural Residential to One-Family Dwellings may be consistent with the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan. S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 6 c) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the adjoining developments are also single family in nature and the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. d) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed density is consistent with the zoning ordinance. D. The Change of Zone 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 recommended for adoption. SECTION 3._=. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Change of Zone No. 5631 to change the zoning designation from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) for the subject property located on Pauba Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050o004. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991. JOHN HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN S\STAFFRPT\25320-A,VTM 7 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 8 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 TO SUBDIVIDE A 56.6 ACRE PARCEL INTO 102 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED ON PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945-050-004. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 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 January 28, 1991 and September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 9 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 10 (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 11 alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Tract Map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) c) d) e) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential development. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density, due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a design manual will be implemented with this project. S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 12 f) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. g) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. h) All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Pauba Road. i) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. S\STAFFRP'P, 25320-A.VTM 13 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 recommended for adoption. SECTION 3._,. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 for the subdivision of a 56.6 acre parcel into 102 single family residential lots and 4 open space lots located on Pauba Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-050-004 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4.~. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991. JOHN HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRPT\25320-A,VTM 14 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No: 25320 Project Description: Subdivide 56.6 Acres into 102 Residential Lots and 4 Open Space Lots Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-050-004 Planning Deoartment elm · The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date by the City Council, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. 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. 5 The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer 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 City maintained road. S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 15 e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 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. A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 103 through 106. Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: a. Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. An erosion control landscaping plan demonstrating methods of erosion protection for these slopes shall be prepared by a qualified professional; and shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated December 4, 1990, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 16 15. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 16. 17. 18. 19. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone as provided in the tract's approved Development Design Manual. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: If the project is to be phased, prior to the issuance of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: 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. S",STAFFRP"I'~25320-A.VTM 17 20. 21. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations, 4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. 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: S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 18 Prior to the issuance of building permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Pauba Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance 8ccess. 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. S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 19 ee 10. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars (9100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall comply with the tract's approved Design Manual. All street side yard setbacks shall comply with the tract's approved design manual. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and a manually operated permanent underground irrigation system. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the Riverside County Planning S~,STAFFRPT~25320-A,VTM 20 Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site development with the tract's approved Design manual, and shall contain the following elements: A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setback, and floor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots. One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 x 13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and material swatches or photographs (which may be from suppliers' brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone numbers of both the sample board preparer and the project applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers where possible (trade names also acceptable). One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color and materials board. The written color and material descriptions shall be located on the elevation. Six (6) copies of each of glossy photographic color prints (size 8 x 10 inches) of both color and materials board and colored architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review and agency distribution. All writing must be legible. Said plot plan shall require the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any building permits for lots included within the plot plan. The submittal of plot plans prior to the issuance of building permits may be phased provided: 1. A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing fees. Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included within that plot plan. S\STAFFRPT\25320-A,VTM 2 1 22. 23. 24. 25. 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. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract Map No. 25320, 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 developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. S\STAFFRPT'~25320-A.VTM 2 2 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CC&R's. S\STAFFRPT~25320-A.VTM 23 33. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). Riverside County Fire Department 34. Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x 4"x 2 1/2") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. 35. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature, 36. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 37. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 38. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 24 Riverside County Department of Public Health 39. A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the County surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 25320 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract Map." 40. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. 41. This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. 42. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 2 5 A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 25320 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract map." 43. The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO RECORDATION: 44. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Pauba Road along the project frontage including any transitions. Signing plans only shall be required for internal Streets A through G. These plans shall be included with the street improvement plans. 45. Advanced intersectional warning signs shall be included in the signing and striping plan for both approach directions on Pauba Road for the Street E intersection. 46. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 47. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 48. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. S~STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 2 6 Engineering Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 49. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; Parks and Recreation Department; and California Water Quality Control Board. 50. 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. 51. Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 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. 102 (64'/88'). 52. Street "A" from Pauba Road to Street "B", Streets "B", "E", and "F" shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (40'/60'). 53. Street "A" east of Street "B", Streets "C", "D", and "G" shall be improved with 36 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. 105, Section A (36'/60'). S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 2 7 54. 55. 56. 57. Curb return radii of 35' feet shall be installed at the intersection of Street "F"' and Street "G". Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road and so noted on the final map with the exception of street intersections as approved by the City Engineer. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The 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 CC&R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. 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. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all slope areas within the subdivision. All slopes exceeding 5' in height shall be maintained by the homeowners association. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. 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 S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 2 8 58. 59. 60. 61. 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. All parkways, open areas, onsite drainage facilities, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by homeowner's association or other means ac'ceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. 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, 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. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. 62. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. S\STAFFRP'I~25320-A.VTM 29 63. 64. 65. 66, 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." If required after approval of the final drainage report, a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release or concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. If a drainage easement cannot be obtained from the property owners adjacent to Lot 20, then the storm drain system shall be designed to outlet north of Lot 30 into the existing drainage basin. All lots containing storm drains for public use shall contain a dedicated easement for storm drain purposes and provide for an access road to the storm drain outlet. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns and erosion; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including, but not limited to, enlarging existing facilities, desilting basins or by securing drainage easements. S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 30 73. 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: 74. During all stages of grading, the subdivider shall provide an updated and current erosion control and interim drainage plan to the Department of Public Works. This plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and shall show the methods of erosion control and slope protection being employed. 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. 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: 78. 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. 79. Gradi.ng 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. 80. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, copy of which has been provided S\STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 3 1 to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 81. 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. 82. 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. S",STAFFRPT\25320-A.VTM 3 2 Case No.: Recommendation: 1. STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1991 Change of Zone No. 5631 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320; e ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Bedford Properties REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates PROPOSAL: Change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-R (Rural Residential) to R-1 (One-Family Dwelling); and subdivide approximately 56.6 acres into 102 single family residential lots and 4 open space lots. LOCATION: North side of Pauba Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. EXISTING ZONING: R-R (Rural Residential) STAFFRPT~VTM25320 1 2-5 DU/AC SWAP DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: R-R South: R-1 R-R East: R-R West: (Rural Residential) (One-Family Dwelling) and (Rural Residential) (Rural Residential) R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) Vacant North: South: East: West: Sports Park Single Family Residential Sports Park Single Family Residential Total Land Area: No. of Proposed Lots: Min. Residential Lot Size: Proposed Density: SWAP Designation: 56,6 acres 102 residential 4 open space 7,200 sq.ft. 1.8 DU/AC 2-5 DU/AC On November 14, 1989, the applicant filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to the Riverside County Planning Department, which proposed to subdivide the subject 56.6 acre site into 103 residential lots and 4 open space lots; and Change of Zone No. 5631. The project was reviewed by the Riverside County Land Division Committee (LDC) on December 14, 1989; February 1, 1990; and March 29, 1990. During these meetings the LDC requested and reviewed the following items: 2. 3. 4. 5. Paleontological Survey Biological Survey Slope Stability Report Traffic Study Design Manual STAFFRPT~VTM25320 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Archaeological Survey Slope Analysis Subsequently, this project was transferred to the City of Temecula on April 24, 1990. On September 13, 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. Park Site Considerations 2. Maintenance of Slope Areas 3. Grading 4. Drainage 5. Slope Stability 6. Design Manual 7. Traffic 8. Density Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss the required supplemental material in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns. On January 3, 1991, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 was reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee; and, it was determined that the project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. The DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to conditions. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 proposes to subdivide the subject 56.6 acre parcel into 102 single family residential lots, as follows: Minimum Lot Size: 7,200 sq.ft. Average Lot Size: 13,233 sq.ft. Minimum Pad Size: 6,000 sq.ft. Average Pad Size: 7,822 sq.ft. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 3 ANALYSIS: In addition, the following open space lots are provided: Lot 103: Lot 104: Lot 105 (Slope) Lot 106 (Accessway) 0.6 acres 0.4 acres 12.6 acres 0.3 acres The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the proposed R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone, as well as Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460. Traffic Impacts The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed this project; and has determined that the proposed project will have a minimal impact to the existing road system and there will be no adverse unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project. Land Use and Zoning The subject site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include single family residential homes to the west (approximately 10,000 sq.ft. average lot size) and south (1/2 and 1 acre lots) and the City sports park along the north and east. The proposed zoning (Change of Zone No. 5631 ) is R-1 as are the adjacent properties to the west (Lake Village Community). The properties to the south of the subject site are zoned R-R and R-1. Design Considerations As noted above, the proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R- 1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone. Due to the tracts "vesting" status, a Development Design Manual was submitted with this project. The design manual will be implemented through the Conditions of Approval. STA FFR PT~VTM 25320 4 Design Manual As noted above, a development design manual will be implemented with Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. These guidelines have been created to specifically address the development of this subdivision, in order to ensure appropriate sizing and massing of the homes in relation to the size of the proposed lots. For example, the building height will not exceed two-stories, with a maximum height of 35 feet; building will consist of one and two-story elevations with staggering provided to create visual interest and a varied street scene; and placement of one story elements at front setbacks and corner lots. Access and Circulation Pauba Road will be improved along the subject site with a half width street. Access from Pauba Road will be provided by Streets "A" and "B" (Lots 1-65); Street "E" (Lots 66-84); and Street "F" (Lots 85-102). Internal circulation will be provided by Street "A" (Lots 14-57); Street "B" (Lots 1-13); Street "C" (Lots 58-65); Street "D" (Lots 66-84); and Street "G" (Lots 85-102). Grading and Landform Alteration The project site is located within a fairly prominent natural ridgeline and hillside 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 540,000 c.y. of excavation and 540,000 c.y. of fill will occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote preservation of site topography. The terraced landform creates view lots for a majority of the lots within the proposed subdivision, in which the slopes range from 25 to 85 feet in height. It should be noted that a recommended Condition of STAFFRPT~VTM25320 5 Approval has been included to require that all slopes over five (5') feet in height shall be landscaped immediately upon the completion of grading and shall be maintained by the homeowner's association. Slopes Planting shall commence as soon as slopes are completed on any portion of the site and shall provide for rapid short term coverage of the slope as well as long-term establishment cover per City of Temecula standards. Cut slopes equal to or greater than five (5') feet in vertical height and fill slopes equal to or greater than three (3') feet in vertical height will be planted with a ground cover to provide stability and protect the slope from erosion. Slopes exceeding fifteen (15') feet in vertical height will be planted with shrubs, spaced not more than ten (10') feet on center or trees spaced not to exceed twenty (20') feet on center or a combination of shrubs and trees at equivalent spacings, in addition to the ground cover. Special consideration will be given to the slopes along the northern side of the tract where a variety of plant types and sizes will be provided for visual and aesthetic purposes. The plants selected and planting methods shall be suitable for the soil and climatic conditions. All areas required to be landscaped shall be planted with turf, ground cover, shrub or tree materials selected from the plant palette contained in the guidelines. Drainage The existing surface run-off currently flows towards the west, along Pauba Road, and drains into the lake of the Lake Village Community; and towards the north onto the sports park and into the existing desalination basin to the northwest of the subject property. STAFFRPT~VTM25320 6 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed drainage plan has been designed to maintain the existing flows through the use of terrace drains that will drain onto the sports park; and a storm drain structure will be constructed from Pauba Road along the westerly property line and into the desalination basin, which in turn will flow into the Lake Village Lake. The Planning Department Staff has been contacted by the Lake Village Community Association (letter dated January 16, 1991 ) regarding their concerns with potential affects of drainage and run-off from the proposed project; and the potential impact on the wildlife and migratory bird population residents in Lake Village. In response to these concerns, Staff has contacted the US Department of Fish and Wildlife and has learned that the Lake Village Lake is within their jurisdiction and all developments that may impact this lake must be reviewed and approved by their agency. Therefor, Staff has included a Condition of Approval that requires the clearance from the US Department of Fish and Wildlife, prior to the recordation of the final map. The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP Land Use Designation of 2-5 DU/AC. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. An Initial Study was performed for this project which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 7 In order to ensure the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, which in this case is the Negative Declaration per the Environmental Assessment, the Planning Department Staff has included the following Condition (See Condition No. 25) within the recommended Conditions of Approval: "Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program to the Planning Department for approval, which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation." In addition, pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) which authorizes the charging of certain fees for the filing of Negative Declarations which provide funding for the Department of Fish and Game, the Planning Department Staff has included the following Condition (See Condition No. 28) within the recommended Conditions of Approval: "Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such STAFFRP~VTM 25320 8 FINDINGS: forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)." Change of Zone No. 5631 There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 5631 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the subject request is consistent with the SWAP designation of 2-5 DU/AC. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 5631 is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that an.approval of such a change from Rural Residential to One-Family Dwellings may be consistent with the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the adjoining developments are also single family in nature and the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed density is consistent with the zoning ordinance. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 9 Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 25320 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. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding current residential develop-ment. m There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law, due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A. e The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density, due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and a design manual will be implemented with this project. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 10 10. 11. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Pauba Road. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT~VTM25320 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending adoption of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320; m ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5631; and e ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. OM:ks Attach me nts: Resolution (Change of Zone No. 5631) Resolution (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320) Conditions of Approval (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320) Environmental Assessment Lake Village Community Association Letter Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. SWAP Map D. Tract Map E. Building Envelope Plan F. Cross Sections Base Map G. Cross Sections H. Design Manual Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\VTM25320 12 II CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Background 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Bedford Properties 28765 Single Oak Drive Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-5641 Date of Environmental Assessment: January 7, 1991 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: Name of Proposal, if applicable: CITY OF TEMECULA Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 6. Location of Proposal: North Side of Pauba Road, between Ynez and Margarita Roads Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.) Yes 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? __ b. Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Maybe X No STAFFRP'I~VTM25320 42 Ce ee Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X X X ft 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? X ge 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? 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 Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water Yes Maybe X X X X No STAFFRPT~VTM25320 43 be Ce de fe 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? X Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? ge Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? he Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X X Yes X Maybe X X X X X X No STAFFRPT~VTM25320 44 be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? __ Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (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? Ce Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X X X X X 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 Yes X Maybe NO X X STAFFRPT~VTM25320 45 planned land use of an area? _ _ X 10. 11. 12. 13. 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 Upset. Will the proposal involve: as A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ae Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X be Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Yes Maybe NO X STAFFRPT~VTM25320 46 14, 15. 16. 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, 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? e9 Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: 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: X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\VTM25320 47 a. Power or natural gas? _ _ X 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? X Cultural Resources. ae Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a Yes Maybe X X X X X X X X X No STAFFRPT\VTM25320 48 21. de 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? 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? bg 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.) __ 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 Yes X Maybe X X X NO STAFFRPT~VTM25320 49 is significant.) __ X __ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X STAFFRPT~VTM25320 50 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1.8, 1.b. 1 .c-d. 1,e, No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort. There will be substantial grading for this project, which includes 540,000 cubic yards of excavation and 540,000 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. The proposed development disrupts the soil profile and results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However, a slope stability report was prepared for this project, in which specific recommendation were made in order to develop the project. Therefore, 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 and hillside 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 540,000 c.y. of excavation and 540,000 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. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant, due to the fact that appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the STAFFRPT~VTM25320 51 1.f. 1.g. Air 2.a. 2.b,c. Water 3.a,d. 3.b. project. Yes. Although the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed, the lake for Lake Village is located to the west 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 Water Conservation District has indicated that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 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 102 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 northern property line. However, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets through drainage facilities STAFFRPT~VTM25320 52 3.c. 3.e. 3.f. 3.g. 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. 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. The lake within the Lake Village Community 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 feei, which has been included as a Condition of Approval. In addition, the Department of Fish and Game has indicated that the project must be reviewed by their Staff. 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 City's 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 STAFFRPT\VTM25320 53 appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. ... Vegetation 4.a,c. 4.b. 4.d. 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 measures have been implemented with the project. No. No sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified on- site. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site. Wildlife 5 .a,C. No. 5.b. 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. STAFFRP'I'~VTM25320 54 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. Light 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 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 lO.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 STAFFRPT\VTM25320 55 11. Housing 12. Yes. Although the project proposes to increase the density to 102 lots, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use Designation which allows a maximum of 283 lots (according to SWAP). Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. No. Since the proposed project creates housing, the proposed land use will not create a demand for additional housing. Transportation/Circulation 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. 14.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 mitigatioq measures have been implemented through the Conditioris of Approval. Energv 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 STAFFRPT\VTM25320 56 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 Findings of Significance 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. STAFFRPT\VTM25320 57 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- ticant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ticant 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 January 7, 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\VTM 25320 58 LAKE VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 907 / Temecula, California 92390 January 16, 1991 Planning Commission City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Oliver Mujica Dear Sirs, Please be advised that myself and other homeowners wish to address the Commission regarding the Tentative Tract Map No. 25320. Our concer~s are: Affects of drainage and runoff from this development into the Lake Village lakes. The environmental impact on the wildlife and migratory bird population resident in Lake Village. Our increasing liability due to unauthorized entrance to Association property by surrounding neighbors. Recommendation: Deny request to change zone from R-R to R-1. Strongly recommend to the City to purchase this land for additional park facilities to allow additional activity for families along with the sports program. I would like to request an opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission on January 28, 1991 at their meeting to be held at 6:00 PM. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. On behalf of the Marcia Slaven Secretary/2zeasurer CITY OF TEMECULA Project Site t,4 z 5A /-/ILgH~/X Y ~9 CASE NO.TH~5~O VICINITY MAP ) P.C. DATE ,,eemeee CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ~ R-I c R-I CZ 911 -2 I/2 2200 I I I AI CASE NO.'rkf ( ZONE MAP ) P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA C/' :GARITA SP SP 180 COMMUNITY PARK it /. · 1 AC / SWAP MAP CASE NO."T/,,f~=j~2 --. p.c. oAT. I- I/ Z~ 0 n-On= I I I I I I I I J I ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY MANAGER ',~ ~_ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department November 12, 1991 Change of Zone 5740 (CZ 5740) PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Charly Ray Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740; APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Change of Zone 5740 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 91 - , read by title only adopting the proposed Change of Zone contained in Change of Zone No. 5740. John F. Firestone Change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural-20 acre minimum lot size) to I-P (Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone). West side of Ridgepark Drive, south of Rancho California Road. R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural-20 acre minimum parcel size) S\STAFFRPT\5740CZ.CC 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: I-P South: I-P East: I-P West: R-A-20 (Industrial Park) (Industrial Park) (Industrial Park) (Residential Agricultural-20 acre minimum lot size) PROPOSED ZONING: I-P (Industrial Park); and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Office/Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant SWAP DESIGNATION: RLI (Restricted Light Industrial); and Mountainous (10 Acre Minimum) DISCUSSION: The City Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing for proposed Change of Zone No. 5740 on September 16, 1991. In their deliberation of the project's merits, and in consideration of public testimony addressing the proposed change of zone, the Commission voted 5-0 recommending approval of Change of Zone 5740. Significant project issues considered at the September 16 public hearing were as follows: The proposed change of zone respects existing terrain limitations of the site. The industrial use zoning designation (I-P) is requested on the relatively level portions of the site fronting on Kathleen Way; while the steep, hilly terrain at the southeasterly portion of the subject property will be designated as an R-5 zone (open space uses). In this regard, the proposal also conforms with the land uses recommended for the site by the property's SWAP designations of Restricted Light Industrial and Mountainous. 2. The change of zone is a logical continuation of the existing Industrial Park zoning to the north, east and south. Specific development plans for the subject property, accompanying the requested change in zoning designations, were not considered necessary in the case of this zone change request. Infrastructure (roads, sewer, water, gas, electricity, telephone) adequate to support the range of uses allowed by the proposed I-P zone currently exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site. As such, a determination of plan-specific development infrastructure impacts was not considered critical in evaluation of the zone change request. Further, the proposed I-P portion of the project site presents no identified physical/environmental constraints which would significantly limit the scope of plans which may eventually be developed for the project site· S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC 2 Potential impacts of the requested zone change on the City's development of the future "Western Bypass Corridor" vis-a-vis zoning and development of the subject property was discussed at length. The Commission concluded that there was enough flexibility in the tentative alignment of the Corridor that the proposed change of zone should not significantly affect ultimate design and construction of the roadway. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent to closing the Public Hearing for Change of Zone No. 5740, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 recommending approval of the proposed change in zoning designations. It was the Commission's determination that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment, and that the proposal was also consistent with SWAP land uses recommended for the subject property. Staff forwards the Commission's approval recommendation to the City Council for their consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740; and Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Change of Zone No. 5740 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 91 - read by title only adopting the proposed change of zone contained in Change of Zone 5740. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving Change of Zone No. 5740 - page 4 2. Ordinance for Change of Zone No. 5740 - page 8 3. September 16, 1991, Planning Commission Minutes; Public Hearing for Proposed Change of Zone No. 5740 - page 11 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 1, 1991 -page 12 S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ S\STAFFRP'~5740CZ.CC 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-20 TO I-P AND R-5 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE AND SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-020 AND 021. WHEREAS, Mr. John Firestone filed Change of Zone No. 5740 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on September 16, 1991 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to speak in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission Hearing the Commission recommended approval of said Change of Zone; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Change of Zone on November 12, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC 5 The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. 3. The City Council in approving of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: The proposed Change of Zone 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. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding development and SWAP. Cm 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. The project is compatible with surrounding developments and improvements. The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists in the area including commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. 4. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. The Initial Study performed for this project determined that Change of Zone No. 5740 would not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC 6 SECTION III. Approval. The City of Temecula City Council hereby approves of Zone Change No. 5740 to change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural-20 acre minimum lot size) to I-P (Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone) on the property located on the west side of Ridgepark Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 940-310- 020 and 021. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November, 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 12th day of November, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 91- S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 91 '__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R- A-20 to I-P and R-5 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-020 AND 021. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. 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 "A" 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 effect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 5740 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION II. 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 III. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. SECTION IV. 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. S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC 9 SECTION V. -_ 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 ,1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] S\STAFFRPT%S740CZ,CC 10 EXHIBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHANGE OF ZONE 5740 PARCELS OF LAND BEING A PART OF PARCELS 20 AND 21, PARCEL MAP 18254, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 116, PAGES 69 THROUGH 78, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: R-5 ZONING BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 47"36'58" EAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 617.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51"47'51" EAST DEPARTING SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 1073.56 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3500.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°26'51", AN ARC LENGTH OF 516.03 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 21; THENCE SOUTH 11"06'14" WEST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 525.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 66"42'29" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1331..05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20; THENCE NORTH 31°23'58'' WEST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 684.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 28.39 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. IP ZONIN~ COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 20, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 47°36'58'' EAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20 A DISTANCE OF 617.95 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE SOUTH 51°47'51'' EAST A DISTANCE OF 130.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 20, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 82°01'31'' EAST A DISTANCE OF 679.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KATHLEEN WAY, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 64°46'46'' EAST A DISTANCE OF 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID KATHLEEN WAY, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET AND A RADIAL WHICH BEARS NORTH 64°46'46'' EAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID LINE AND ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 65°12'23'', AN ARC LENGTH OF 455.23 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°34'23'' EAST A DISTANCE OF 162.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°25'37'' EAST A DISTANCE OF 33.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID KATHLEEN WAY; THENCE SOUTH 07°51'31'' WEST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 21 A DISTANCE OF 765.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11°06'14'' WEST ALONG SAID LINE A DISTANCE OF 19.57 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3500.00 FEET AND A RADIAL WHICH BEARS SOUTH 46°39'00" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°26'51'', AN ARC LENGTH OF 516.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51°47'51'' WEST A DISTANCE OF 942.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 12.73 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO: CHANGE OF ZONE NO: ORDINANCE NO: 91- 5740 ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: ~-~/ 4so i'f'f' 9 ~ 0'S' ~-'~, ).C ..:.'. ( S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5740 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 S\STAFFRP'~5740CZ.CC 11 COMMISSIONER CHINIXEFF clarified that crepe myrtle trees would not be used in the interior of the parking lot landscaping. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Change of Sone No. 5740 el Proposal to change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-A-20 (residential agriculture) to I-P (industrial park) and R-5 (open area combining zone). Located on the westside of Ridgepark Drive, south of Rancho California Road. CHARLES RAY provided the staff report. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that the property is abutted by other properties currently zoned for I-P uses and that the SWAP designations of the subject site are O.C. (office/commercial) and MTN (mountainous ten acre minimum parcels), corresponding to the requested zoning of the property in question. The Commission expressed a concern for the Western Corridor road going through this property. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. TONY TERICB, To-Mac Engineering, 41934 Main Street, Temecula, representing the applicant, advised the Commission that prior to any development a second, site specific plot plan application must be filed and approved. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for approving the zoning without a development plan. COMMISSIONER BLAIR questioned how far along the applicant was on the plans for development. JOHN FIRESTONE, applicant, indicated that the plans may be complete within the next six months. PCMIIq9/16/91 4 9-18-91 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. and recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740; and Adopt Resolution 91-[next) recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5740, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland None S. Tentative Tract Map No. 24183 5.1 Proposal to subdivide 48.8 acres into 151 single family residential lots; 3 open space parcels; and I park (2.0) acres), within planning area No. 5 of the Meadows Specific Plan. Located north of Highway 79, between Margarita and Butterfield Stage Roads. CHARLES RAY provided the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if TCSD was satisfied with what they were getting from the applicant as park site. GARY KING stated that TCSD was satisfied with park land dedication and added that they would like to see the park fully developed and ready for dedication at 30% of Tract 24183 occupancy. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if the dedication of the park should be completed upon recordation of the final and the improvements and acceptance could occur at a later date. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned why there was no specific improvements to the park site stated in the Conditions of Approval. CHAIRMAN BOAGLAND asked the assistant city attorney, without specific improvements determined, and if the map is approved, how does the City secure these improvements from the developer. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that staff could condition the dedication prior to the final map being recorded and also condition that prior to final map recordation that applicant and the TCSD enter into an agreement specifying necessary park improvements. PCMIN9/16/91 5 9-18-91 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5740 SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 S\STAFFRPT~5740CZ.CC 12 Recommendation: 1. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 16, 1991 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 5740 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740; and 2. ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5740. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: John F. Firestone PROPOSAL: Change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural) to I-P (Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone). LOCATION: Westside of Ridgepark Drive, south of Rancho California Road. EXISTING ZONING: R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: I-P South: I-P East: I-P West: (Industrial Park) (Industrial Park) (Industrial Park) R-A-20 ( R e s i d e n t i a I Agricultural) PROPOSED ZONING: lop (Industrial Park); and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant A:CZ16 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: SWAP DESIGNATION: BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: North: Office South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant RLI (Restricted Light Industrial); and Mountainous (10 Acre Minimum) Change of Zone No. 5740 was submitted to the County of Riverside Planning Department on March 1, 1990. Subsequently, this application was transferred to the City of Temecula on April 24, 1990. Upon receipt of the transferred application, the Planning Staff informed the applicant that zone changes were processed on a case-by-case basis with the majority of these cases being processed with a concurrent Plot Plan application. Pursuant to staff's recommendation, the applicant filed Plot Plan No. 237. However, it was identified by the City's Public Works Department that the proposed Western Transportation Corridor is proposed to pass through the subject property; and that it will be some time before this issue is resolved by the City. Therefore, staff indicated that they would support this particular request without a development application because 1) of the existing developments with similar zoning to the north and east; 2) due to the fact that the property immediately adjacent to the south has been previously mass graded; 3) infrastructure is available; and 4) any future development of the subject property will require an approval by the City. The applicant was also cautioned that the Change of Zone application was a discretionary application and that the Planning Commission and/or City Council could require a development permit (plot plan) prior to approval of the Zone Change. Change of Zone No. 5740 is a request to change the zoning designation of the subject 41.12 acre property from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural) to I-P (Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open Space Combining Zone), as follows: A:CZ16 2 I-P 12.73 acres R-5 28.39 acres The I-P portion of the subject property will be along Ridgepark Drive, and the R-5 portion will be the area within the existing hillside in order to preserve the existing natural topography. It should be noted that the boundary line between the proposed zoning areas is the tentative alignment for the proposed Western Transportation Corridor. ANALYSIS: FUTURE GENERAL PLAN, SWAP AND ZONING CONSISTENCY: A:CZ16 Change of Zone No. 5740 proposes to change the zoning designation of the subject property to be consistent with the current Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designation. The Southwest Area Plan, which has been adopted as a General Plan guideline by the City, designates this site as Restricted Light Industrial along Ridgepark Drive and Mountainous on the hillside. The Planning Commission has adopted the policy of processing Change of Zone requests on a case-by- case basis, but generally preferring that plot plans be submitted in conjunction with the Zone Change application. Upon review of the area, with the existing improvements and development, Staff recommended to the applicant processing of the case without a development proposal. The proposed zoning, in staff's opinion, appears to be a logical land use with the development of compatible uses in the vicinity. In addition, any potential right-of-way dedications required for the Western Transportation Corridor will be handled at the time of a development proposal for the subject property. This project is consistent with the SWAP designation of Restricted Light Industrial and Mountainous. The proposed zoning is also compatible with the current and proposed surrounding zoning. It is anticipated 3 that the proposed zoning will be consistent with the ultimate City General Plan when it is adopted, since the proposed project is compatible with surrounding developments and improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: An Initial Study has been completed for the project and a Negative Declaration is being recommended for adoption. It has been determined that the proposed Zone Change from R-A-20 to I-P and R-5 will not have any significant impacts on the environment. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed Change of Zone 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. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding development, zoning, and SWAP. 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. The project is compatible with surrounding developments and improvements. The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists in the area including commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of Restricted Light Industrial and Mountainous. The proposed zoning provides a support area for the employment based developments recently A:CZ16 4 approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. RECOMMEND ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5740; and ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5740. SJ:ks Attachments: Resolution Initial Study Exhibits A. Boundary Map B. Legal Description Large Scale Plan A:CZ16 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5740 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-20 TO I-P AND R-5 ON PROPERTY LOCA TED ON THE WESTSIDE OF RIDGEPARK DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-310-020 AND 021. accordance Ordinances, WHEREAS, John F. Firestone filed Change of Zone No. 5740 in with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on September 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1_,.. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: 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:CZ16 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 Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding development, zoning, and SWAP. 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. The A:CZ16 2 d) project is compatible with surrounding developments and improvements. The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists in the area including commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. e) The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of Restricted Light Industrial and Mountainous. The proposed zoning provides a support area for the employment based developments recently approved. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2_=. Environmental Compliance. environment adoption. The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the and a Negative Declaration therefore is hereby recommended for SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Change of Zone No. 5740 to change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural) to I-P (Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone) on the property located on the westside of Ridgepark Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 940-310-020 and 021. SECTION 4_=. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1991. A:CZ16 3 JOHN HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of September, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: A:CZ16 4 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Background 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: John F. Firestone 10392 Ladera Senda Santa Ana. CA 92705 (714) 832-8429 Date of Environmental Assessment: August 5.1991 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA e Name of Proposal, if applicable: Change of Zone No. 5740 Location of Proposal: Westside of RidgeDark Drive, south of Rancho California Road Temecula. California Project Description: Change of Zone from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural) to I-P (Industrial Park) and R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone) Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe NQ 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 A:CZ16 5 C® Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ ge 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? be 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 mover~ents, in either marine or fresh ,,vaters? YeS Maybe X X X X X X X No A:CZ16 6 Ce dm ee 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? __ fe Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground Waters? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addio 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: as 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? c, Introduction of new species of Yes X Mavbe X X X X X X X N_9o A:CZ16 7 A:CZ16 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 existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non- 8 X X X X X Ye~ Maybe No X X X X X .-. renewable natural resource? X 10. 11. 12. 13. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, 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: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X b$ 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? Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Yes Maybe X X X X No A:CZ16 9 14. 15, 16. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? de Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: 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 A:CZ16 b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? 10 Yes Maybe X X X No 17. 18. 19. 20. e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: as 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. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Ce Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? dt Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X A:CZ16 11 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? bm 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. ) 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 A:CZ16 12 III. Discussion of Evaluation for Initial Environmental Study Item Change of Zone No. 5740 1. through 21. No, The current proposal only involves a Change of Zoning classification from R-A-20 to I-P and R-5. The proposed I-P and R-5 zoning is consistent with the SWAP designation of Restricted Light Industrial and Mountainous. Since this application is a request to provide a consistency with SWAP, Change of Zone No. 5740 does not pose any potential significant environmental impacts, at this time. However, it sould be noted that any future development of the subject property will require the preparation of an environmental assessment to review any potential impacts associated with a project. A:CZ16 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- ticant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ticant 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 August 5, 1991 Date Oliver Mujica, Senior Planner For CITY OF TEMECULA A:CZ16 14 ITEM NO. 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY _ ' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning November 12, 1991 Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: e Richard Ayala APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: ACCEPT Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; ADOPT Resolution No. 91 -_ approving Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Sterling Builders, Inc. Ranpac Engineering Corporation Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes a two hundred twelve (212) lot residential subdivision with 13 open space lots on 88.4 acres. LOCATION: Northeast Corner of De Portola and Butterfield Stage Road. EXISTING ZONING: R-A-2 ¼ (Residential Agricultural 2 ~ acre minimum) S\STAFFRPT\23125-2.CC 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-1 R-R R-R SP (One-Family Dwelling) (Rural Residential) (Rural Residential) (Specific Plan) PROPOSED ZONING: R-1 R-5 (One-Family Dwellings) and (Open Area Combining Zone-Residential Developments) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS: Project Area: Proposed No. of Lots: Proposed Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Density: SWAP Density: Acreage Designated By Zones: R-1 (One-Family Dwellings): R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone- Residential Development): 88.4 acres 212 residential, 13 open space 7,200 sq.ft. 2.3 DU/AC 2-4 DU/AC 61.61 acres 22 acres BACKGROUND On October 21, 1991, the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 was approved by the Planning Commission based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 were approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1991. On October 22, 1991, the City Council reviewed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 for a First Extension of Time along with Change of Zone No. 17 which both were adopted that evening. The City Council's approval of the First Extension of Time, extends the subject tract map (VTM 23125) to October 20, 1991. Due to the unique circumstances surrounding this tract map, a second extension of time is necessary to continue the life of the subject tract map an additional year, in order for the applicant to process the map. Therefore, the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 was submitted to the City of Temecula on September 20, 1991 and was processed immediately after the approval of Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. S\STAFFRPT~23125-2.CC 2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As previously mentioned in the Background section of the staff report, the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 was approved by the City Council on October 22, 1991, which extended the life of the subject tract map to October 20, 1991. Therefore, a second extension of time for the subject tract map is necessary in order to extend the subject tract map an additional year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: ACCEPT Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Resolution - page 4 Conditions of Approval - page 10 Staff Report (October 21, 1991) - page 15 Planning Commission Minutes (October 21, 1991) - page 21 Development Fee Checklist - page 22 S\STAFFRPT~23125-2,CC 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-_ S\STAFFRPT\23125-2. CC 4 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23125, A 212 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH 13 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON 88.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-330-004 AND 926- 070-020. WHEREAS, Sterling Builders, Inc. filed the Time Extension in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on October 21, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Time Extension. WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Time Extension on November 12, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Time Extension; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Time Extension; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. S\STAFFRPT\23125-2. CC 5 The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following findings can be made: The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Time Extension, makes the following findings, to wit: S\STAFFRPT~23125-2.CC 6 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the proposed zone of the subject site, and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Environmental Impact Report adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. S\STAFFRPT~,23125-2. CC 7 (9) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes two independent access points from De Portola Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. (10) The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. (11) Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance That the City of Temecula City Council hereby determines that the previous environmental determination (Adoption of Environmental Impact Report No. 263) still applies to said Tract Map No. 23125 (Extension of Time). SECTION 3. Conditions That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves The Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 for a 225 residential subdivision on 88.4 acres located on the northeast corner of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-330-004 and 926-070-020 subject to the following conditions: Attachment 2 attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of November 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR S\STAFFRPT~23125-2.CC 8 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 12th day of November 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK S\STAFFRFT\23125-2.CC 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRPT~23125-2.CC 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Second Extension of Time Commission Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planning Department Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No, 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The park land dedication requirement shall be a predetermined amount based on the use and number of units proposed. If the Park land requirement cannot be met, the applicant shall be required to pay a predetermined Quimby Act Fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of the required park land acreage (Plus 20% for offsite improvements). No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. This conditionally approved Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 will expire one (1) year after the original expiration date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is October 20, 1992· The subdivider shall comply with the original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 (see attached) except as amended her·in. e Prior to recordation of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23125, Change of Zone No. 17 shall be effective. The applicant shall comply with the California Department of (Streambed Alteration Agreement 5-381-90) recommendations transmittal dated August 18, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Fish and Game outlined in the The applicant shall comply with the Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers recommendations outlined in the transmittal dated February 8, 1991, a copy of which is attached. S\STAFFRFT\23125-2.CC 11 Engineering Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. The developer shall comply with all previous Conditions of Approval except as amended by the following conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; Parks and Recreation Department; and Temecula Community Services District. 10. 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. 11. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any Subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS 12. 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. 13. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 14. 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. 15. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. S\STAFFRPT\23125-2.CC 12 16. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY 17. If construction of improvements are phased and completed prior to development occurring on adjacent properties, a 28' wide secondary access road shall be provided within a recorded private road easement as approved by the City Engineer. 18. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Transportation Engineering PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP 19. A signing plan shall be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with 66' of right-of-way or less and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. 20. Condition No. 32 of the Riverside County Road letter dated June 28, 1988, shall be deleted. Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) Department 21. The exterior (perimeter) slopes proposed in the Tract Map No. 23125 (lots 213 and 214) may be dedicated to the TCSD by way of an irrevocable offer to dedicate for landscape maintenance purposes, upon compliance to existing standards as approved by the TCSD, and upon completion of the application process. 22. The Parkland Dedication Requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres of improved parkland to be dedicated to the TCSD prior to issuance of 63rd Building Permit. 23. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall offer for dedication 2.75 acres of land (lot 218) and execute with the TCSD and agreement to improve the proposed 2.75 acre park in accordance with TCSD standards at the time of execution for park purposes within the area currently designated as a wetland. In the event that it is determined to be infeasible to provide parkland within the wetland area, applicant shall S',,STAFFRPT\23125-2.CC 13 provide the required amount of land dedication and improvements at an alternate location within the project site. The responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of the remaining open space area (lot 217) shall be borne by the applicant and/or homeowners association until such time that improvements as required by State and Federal law are satisfied. 24. Approximately 11.1 acres of undeveloped open space contiguous with the proposed park site identified as Lot 215 and approximately 2.6 acres of wetland identified as Lot 217 shall be dedicated to the TCSD upon completion and acceptance of required improvements, and prior to the issuance of the 63rd Building Permit. 25. All interior slopes (lots 219 through 225) including Lot 216 shall be maintained by an HOA. 26. The exterior slope maintenance areas (lots 213 and 214) proposed to be maintained by the TCSD shall be properly identified on the final map. 27. Riverside County Condition Nos. 18, d and e shall be replaced by the following condition: All non-arterial slopes shall be maintained by the established homeowners association for the subject tract (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125). 28. Prior to recordation of the final map, a grading plan for the project shall be approved by the City Engineer. S\STAFFRPT~23125-2. CC 14 iT;;~ En~arpr:~e ,Z'ircle Te~ec~is. ,2~lif~rnzs ~2~90 En::.z'.ed '_r-. ,.vo ,:.~p~tf ,:.f Streambed Alteratzon Agreement 5-381-90, :,-:.u -.gre: v~.'..h t. he ,:..~ndxt~,:n,...'m--:::u'eo- :.-t. f:rr.h '-:~ r.!:., i:l:'-:e ;:;~ 'r..:th ,::pie*..-_n,~ re".'.:rr. :.he :.:. :'.:r :f.;i:--. :jr~:t.-n :.; :,'TUr ::~'..enr~ ~O c:;mence '-:.-:.j:.:--. -,cr.-;-,'z.-.:e-, :~eed,- :.:. be i:r--vz.jed T'r.e ': -. l ~ .;:.rr.:'~ Fi '.h -.rid ,.'--_me ,:.:.-:e :'~.qu:res Zep. artment in vritin.~ 'J~,-..hzn !'- ~'-y,'..:f r.-c. elpt :~ '..>,is Proposal if you -~ .-.--.t --gr---. vzth tke r,-.rm-,/,::nd'.'.:.:.ns .:.f ;o vxll '/,.-zd your r;.~h~ ,'...~ srk~c.r.~r..zcn. I~ '-s recc~mer, ded ch~.~ you ,:cn~,ac: the ~-,part. men~ as -,.ocn ~s ,~osssble t.o discuss ,oc-,s~ble changes vt.:hzn r..h-, tsr,~p,~sed A~reemen~, _'.~ not :o .--.he r-r~p~sed Agreement, vzr, hou,, firs,, rece:v~n~ Depsrt:,en-.~i ::nc~-'--rence. ,:.cherv~ee. chan~e~ ~.hml I vo~.~ ,,-,,r prop~-.ml. ..' f ':'..~,~ hive .~ue-.t icns r.M..wr..H:n.) the .r.r~.pos.~d c.:.nd t t. ;:.ns ::.lem--e ..'ontact ,'!r,mnk you For your cooper.mr, ion tn this ma~ter, .~GRrrMENT EEGAEDIN8 P~.OPOSED .~TRF_~M Ct~ LAKE ~ f:L::~: ~.=,nT~--rAS. :,he _'ep~r:.---en~ <re~r-,-,en',e-] ky :~V.'.D ?. :E~F-_'} :'..--. =.~.:..-,;;=_:e.t ft,.mn)[ hereby ;:r~.r,o~.~.~, ~e~-.ur-.-. t.~ r-r,:.'-tc: f:-.h and :." -.~.e Opers,~.sr'-. york ch~n,;es frC:S ,~har, -.~.a,,e,t in :~.-y~r~fi=..j shove, ~..his A~re-.men~ t-, no L:.n~er v.=.[i,] and :-rail ::e ~.,~,m~r,.~e,~ ',.~ t)'4 Depar,,menr, .sf Fish .tnd ~3:me, :.~..:~'.::'.-., :nciud~n.) but: n~,, [:11r, ed .'.s Fi-.h Ind .}:me ,:.~c;e .-'e,:'-: ::.-. 1:..51, ~=.,.13, Z!O3,5, 5650, 16Sn, ~937 .tnd i.~ may resul~ ~n pro-.e:u~.l:n. ':::~.In) ;n this A~)re~.men~ aur, b:.r::'.t t. he C'r. erl...sr :.~ :re--F.--.s'- :n -_ny L=-nd :r Fr.-.perr, y, nor ~oe.~ ~,, r-.~leve -,he Ope. r.st. or .:.f re-.pon-.:b~l:'-:,' · :~m.ci::nc-. v~ch .-_ppli,:.ab[e fe,]er.s[, '-..a,,e, .:r [.:,c.~[ i:vs cr .:rdln:n.:e.-. :cn-.,.:-~:-...e,t A,)reemen~ doe.-, no~, .:on-,r,~..ur, e Dep~r..menr, ,:.f Fish end.sr'-~.t'.ns .sf th~ propsl-,,] ,:,r~rltton, .:r .=--,-.ure the ::n,zv:-rence vxt. h r-ermt~-~ requxred ere: .:-..her r~CNc, ;per Ca/t f~rn,.m Deparr~men~ Fish and Game ( ei,'Jnat, ure) ( datse ) 2. .'.~.e 0perat. or prcpo-.e-- ~..D -- [ter --~.e -.'.r-..-mi'~,5 f.~r placemen~ of fill vL~h:n a r~parLan and sandy wash habitat.. f'-1: :f .-- smaL~ .-'p-'-r:'-:~ "-re'- Ind :."e'-:;,~n .:f '-n '-,$~itl,_-.n.a~ .Z..,mere-, :f :;F.-ar",-_r~ l':_*blr,.tr,. =,,~j,s.:~,nt. :,'. fr-.;e:~ -.pea '-s 1,;~r..e.~ apprc:.:::--.te~:' .;.. (, t) l) * ~;NN .1.~ Hvy ?~ L.r::f,;:t :'.'er '.e-_ec':~-a .:.:.vet :n P.~vers~ie C,sunr.'!. 2r, ec:.~'~.: v.-_.rk ~reas '-:'e '-:.~::'-'.,e,~ :.r :i-.ic.-:r.e.d .:n/ :n r. he ~ian_- .-.nd/.-..r :!r'-vzn,;~-. -.uh.m~r..t. ed !:.y .the ,.' F-,er? '. :.- , hab'-:'-~ {hall be created v~h~n Ls~ ! near zts southern ~,.~ndry '-djacen~ t~ the '.~dis~uz'bed ripar:.an habltlt.. 6. ~-,e Cpe-ra~or s.ha[l ~ubm~ ~,~ .~he ~e~r~en~ f.~r rev~ev ~nd ~pprcval. prs:r to ~n~ia~lon of projec.~ ac~v&tse~, a deca%led planttng f, a ler..~e for :P.e =:;~a~on ~rea vt:hxn LG~ l. ,-ndt.:a~.xn) -.pec;ea, ,tuan~ty, and .:f srl-.nt:ngs. Included vx~h ~e pl.ant~n~ pale~.~e shall i:e a :a~n:tnance pl.)tl f.:r .'.he m~:.ia~;.:n ares ~F,~ v~[1 :n:,-re · m~n:=,.:. in :r!t~ ~s .determine ie ~ha reve)er. at~cn ~e. chni.~ei u~ed have h. ten ~uc,:tssful the plsn~s lhall ichxeve ~he m~nxmum 9rQv~h a~ the ~nd .:,f t. hree · nd f:ve ~esr~, I ~ ~ha m~n~mum 9r~v~h ~i no~ lch~eved ~hen r~he ~hal2 ke ret~nszble for ~aking ~he approprxate ,:orrectxve mea~tre~ at ~.:r !~y ,::~ o,:curr~ during the reve~eCat;.z,n cr in lubse.q,.:en¢ ::~r,,::,;'.'e ..... :: aI:g ~T FLANTING HEIGHT PLANTING CDITEE8 i ye.ar~ ~ year~ (GALLiZNG) Arrcl,'~ Nill,~v PB .~ ft [O F~ 15 f~ 1 ,)al1,~n ,3 f~ 10 f~ 15 f~ -~ycllcre I gal Ion 20 f~ 5 ~all,:n nn ~ f~ 15 gallon Z5 f~ 5 f~, 9 f~ 7 f~s 13 f~ 10 f~ 18 f~ gallon gallon 7 f~, 12 ft; ) ft; 15 13 ?~, 20 ft -' 11 :_~T,.;~ ,`-r-e.: ,;;t j. 1 ,sn · = .-'Z',n~ ;.'s ;'.~.r..ur:i;:.'~ ,:!~...-np: The ,.'~.er~or .-h~ll .*ubm~ r.o ~he Dep~rcmen~ f,-..- r.-v:ev -_rid --pF-,rcvai v~ch~n ~0 ~-_y: :feet :::pler.~.zn cf the -.nn';-_:17 there-.x'~..er :.hr:,u:un >'e)r five. $. .::e Oper.~t..:,r -,haLl msLnc. axn(,.:*.e ,.-f !:mn.t t...~..nl-. ~nd sppr.~ved herb~cLde-.) an ex,~c:c pi.mn~ :'eraoval program d,~r,n~..'.he mm~n.senmnce isrcgr'-m. g. .'b.e ,3perar, or :hall comply v~th all litter and pollutzon l~.vl. .All .:~n-.r-_ct.~r~. -.ubc~n..r~c~.or-. ~nd employee*. -.in~ll ~1-.o :sbey the*.e l!vs lnfj l~. shall ke the res~n*.xbl~tv ..-f ~he Ope. rstor t,~ ln*~ure r. he~r :,~mpilance. 10. X,~ .~3ux:men~ =gznten~nce shall ke a~ne ,J1thin or negr ~nv itre~m ,:h~nnel ,~r lmke mar~n where oe.~roleum =roduc~s .gr ~=her co llu~ants from the e~u~ument =av enter ~hese are~i under any flov. II. ~'.e ~e$~rt. men~ reserves th~ rloht ~.~ enter the to e~,re tha~ %here :s c=m~i~ance v~th ter=~,/,:,:n,~c:.~n~ .if tn:~ Aareemen~. 12. ~e De~ar. cmen: reserves ~he rioht to subtend and/or revoke thss Aaree~en~ ~f the ~emartmen~ determines th, s: sh4 c:rc'~stance~ warrant. c~rcu=s'cances ~ha= .:~ult require a reevaluat~,Dn ~nclu.~e. but are lr=;:ed to. ~he foll.:vzna: 5. ~e xnf.~rmat~on orovx.~ bY the O~r)~or ~n luo~r~ ,:,f the ~,~ree=en~/No~tf~.:at:.:n ~z teterm:nea bv the ~e~rt=en~ to k.e :ncczulete..~r ~nacc,ra~e. :. ~n new ~nf.~rma~.~n P~cmes available t.s the =e~rtmen~ representative(e) th.a~ was not known when creNrinQ ~he terz~.'czndzt~.:ns .}f ~his Aareemen~. ~. ~e Qro.lec~ ~ ,~e~crx~d ~n the Not~fica~cn/Aoreemen~ .:han:ed..st c~nd~t~,sns affec~n~ fi~h ~nd w~ldlife re~o,rces I3. i-.e ,Dne. rator ~hall provide a com~ of this AoreemenC co all contractors. subcontrac=ors. and the O~erabor's pro.jec: stmervisors. Co=ies of the aoreemen~ shell be readtly available a~ work sites sb all times d~inq i~ertods of active york ~,~J mu=c be ~reeenced to any ~eoarcmenc ~er~onnel. or entcrcemen~ oersonnel [rom another auencv u~on demand, :=. T!-..- '..:~,,~-,:.~r shall ::,.-tl~'/.--?.~. ".~;:-,,--.=en,,, in vr~n~, a~ lea~ ~ive<S) ~av~ ~r:or ~ ini~Xa~iOn o~' con:~ruc~on(~rO.)ec~) a~iv~ie~ an~ a~ lea=~ ~ive( ~ ) dav~ ~rior ~o com~le~ion o~ construction( ~ro.~ec~, ) ac~iv~cze~. 7;c.~.:fi:--:.i,.-n -.hslZ be ,*end, t.o the i,:n.: _'-.~-,ch,C.m,, '90~'~0~,, ~,r,n: -'nvir.:n.-..enr,.al ~erv~:ee, and ~}ame .~uqus~ ~8, ',990 4TT[NTtQN OiI Office of the Chief Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS &NGILES O~tTnlCT. C:Ol~S OF fNGIN{[IqS · O 10t. 21 t I LOS ANGELES CAL|FOt.INI& IQ053.132S February 8, 1991 Sterling Builders c/oRANPAC Corp. ATTN: John R. Easton 27447 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, California 92390 RE: File Number 91-201-MJ Gentlemen: This is in reply to your application dated June 29, 1991 for a Department of the Army Permit to place 20,000 c.y. of fill material in 0.56 acre of waters of the United States, of which 0.15 acre of wetland habitat. As mitigation, 0.3 acre of wetland habitat will be created on-site. The project is located in the streambed of an unnamed tributary of Temecula Creek, approximately 6000' west-northwest of State Highway 79 bridge crossing over Temecula Creek, in the city and county of Riverside, California. Regulations for our permit program, published in the Federal Register, include Part 330 - Nationwide Permits (see the enclosure). The Corps of Engineers has determined that your proposed activity complies with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit at Part 330.5(a)(26) for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, that are located above the headwaters or are isolated waters and which would cause loss or substantial adverse modification of less than one acre of such waters. As long as you comply with the nationwide permit conditions described in Part 330.5(b) and submit mitigation site reports to the Corps every year for the next three years after mitigation has been completed, an individual permit is not required. This letter of verification is valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. All the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued or revoked prior to 13 January 1992. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public notice announcing the changes when they occur. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the '- nationwide permit is modified or r~voked, you will have twelve monnhs from the date of the modification or revocation to -2- complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. A nationwide permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. Also, it does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others or authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. Furthermore, it does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. If you have any questions please contact Mike Jewell of my staff at (213) 894-5606. Sincerely, Diane K. Noda ~ o f' Acting Chief, Southern Section Enclosure RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23125 DATE: AHENDED NO. 2 EXPIRES: STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of .- Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or ~ >roceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or nployees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body m ,J :oncerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23125, which action is brought a, Ibout within the time period provided for in Cal ifornia Government Code ~ ~ection 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the h ~ ;ubdivider of any suc claim, action, or proceeding against the County of iverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to )romptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or m 'ails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, >-~hereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the c~ County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. e This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and Ordinance 460. Se 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. 6. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. VF. STZNG TEXTA~[YE TRACT NO. 23125,/lid. Camditions of Approval Page 2 7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the DeparVnent of Building and Safety prior to cu,.,encement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. 8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. mlcm The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement r~commendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Departrnent's letter dated 6-2B-B8, a copy of which is attached. 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 Road Cormnissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. A11 offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Su rv eyo r. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Depart=ent's letter dated 6-23-88° a copy of which is attached. ~'14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations ',.('- ~ outljz~d by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated ,':7' ,': ,/~'6-2B-88~ a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an ,,~ ~,/~~o~8'irlood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance ~ ,,.' 460, appro riate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be co~lectod by t e Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Harshal's letter dated 6-22-B8, a copy of which is attached. 6e Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Depart=ent approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase. and shall substantially confom to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. 17. Lots,created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Y£STZll TENTAlIVE TRACT Conditions of Approval Page 3 ~3Z2S,',ead. ~2 a. ~1 lots shall have a minimum size of 7ZOO square feet net. b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in confonnance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. Graded but undeveloped land shall condition and shall be either planted provided with other erosion control Director of Building and Safety. be maintained in a weed-free with interim landscaping or measures as approved by the Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County Rood Control County Health Department County Planning Department Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5122 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with th. develorrnent standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. C.-_PriOr to-r~rdation of the · nnexcd into final rap, the projeet-rftn~)Ti~be' d. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee simple title, to all common or common open space areas, free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which in the sole discretion Df the County are acceptable. As a conditions precedent to the County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Oeparb~ent for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individtral lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. YE~"TIIE TEXTATIVE ~ NO. 23125, M:d. #2 Conditions of Approval Page 4 The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provide for a term of 60 years, (b) provide for the establis~ent of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provisions verbatim: · Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall, if don~ant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners' association shall unconditionally accept from the County of Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit'A' attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the property owners' association and the decision to require that the association unconditionally accept title to the 'connon area' shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside. In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is conveyed to the ~roperty owners' association, the association, thereafter shal own such 'conznon area', shall manage and continuously maintain such 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners Of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be consider~ 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area'. In the event of any convict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control." Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded. VESTING TE]rrATIVE TRACT NO. 23125, Mad. Conditions of Approval Page 5 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 recorder,on of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (EC$} shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be -permanentl filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shal~ be tranmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved EC$ shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: 'County Environmental Impact Report No. 263 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERNITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. ~l mitigation for seismic and liquefaction hazard shall be that which iS found in Environmental Impact Report No. 263. " The following tree preservation guidelines shall the projects approved grading, building and appropriate: be incorporated in landscaping plans as 1. Every effort shall be made to prevent encroachnent of structures, grading or trenching within the dr,plane or twenty-five (25) feet of the trunk of any trees, whichever is greater. If encroacl~nent within the dr,plane is unavoidable, no more than one tht~ of the root area shall be disturbed, grading or covered with impervious materials. The root area is considered to extend beyond the dripline a distance equal to one half the radius. 3. Building, grading or improvements shall not occur within ten (10) feet of any tree trunk. Retaining walls shall be constructed where necessary to preserve footing rather than a continuous footing to minimize root damage. VESTIll; TERTATIYEllACTR0. rm125, ~md. f2 Conditions of Al~roval ' Page 6 5. Alteration of natural drainage shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 6. Runoff channelled near trees shall not substantially change normal Soil moisture characteristics on a seasonal basis. Runoff shall not be directed towards the base of trees so that the base of the trees remain in wet soil for an extended period. I~here natural topography has been altered, drainage away fro~ trunks shall be provided where necessary to ensure that water will not stand at the crown. $edimentation and siltation in the drainage ways shall be controlled where necessary to avoid filling around the base of the trees. Land uses that would cause excessive soil compaction within the dripline of trees shall be avoided. If the areas are planned for recreation, provide trails to restrict compaction to a small area. Heavy use under trees shall be avoided unless measures to minimize compaction are undertaken. Landscaping or irrigation shall not be installed within ten (10} feet of any trees. All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. If any archaeological resources are uncovered during grading or trenchin o all activities shall cease and an archaeologist shall be consulted. Any recommendations of the archaeologist shall be adhered to~ All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: 1) The angle of the raded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. VESTING TIgITATIVE TRACT g0. 23125, Conditions of Approval Page 7 4) krnere 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 pemits, 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 PERNITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility fi ' measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/uni~a~:~l be deposited with the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Buildin anti.Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustica? engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be ap lied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce a~ient interior noise levels to45 Ldn. c. All street lights an other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed park site and riparian area development lens shall be submitted to the Planning Oepar~ent for approval. l~ese plans shall conform with guidelines found in the approved design manual (Exhibit H). ll~e park shall include active VEb'FZNG TERTATZYE TRACT gO. 23125, Conditions of Approval Page 8 recreational features such as picnic tables, barbecue areas, tot lots, etc. For the security and safety of future residents, the following crime a. Proper lighting in open areas; b. Visibility of doors and windows from the street and between buildings; c. Fencing heights and materials; d. Mequate off-street parking; and ·. A cl early understood method of emergency response. street numbering to facilitate Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. h 1 address all areas and aspects the tract requiring The plans s al landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping, and shall confom to the standards set forth i'n the tract's approved Design Panual (Exhibit M). The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation, and shall incorporate drip irrigation wherever possible. 2. 'Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth banning, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenaries where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department. 3. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. 4. Where street trees cannot be planted within ri ht-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insuf)icient road right-of-way, they shall be 1 p anted outside of the road right-of-way. VESTZIG TEXTATZVE TRACT NO. 23125, ADd. Conditions of Approval Page 9 he 5. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 7. Front and rear yard landscaping shall incorporate the use of shade trees· Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Depari=nent approval. All front yards shall irrigation. be provided with landscaping and automatic A plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Oeparb~ent pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and is not transmitted to any governmental agency other than the Riverside County Planning Department. The plot plan shall ensure the conformance of the final site develo~ent w~th the tract's approved Design Hanual (Exhibit H), and shall contain the following elements: A final site plan showing the lots, building footprints, all setbacks, fences and/or walls, and ~oor plan and elevation assignments to individual lots· One (1) color and materials sample board (maximum size of 8 X 13 inches by 3/8 inch thick) containing precise color, texture and h (which may be from suppliers; material swatches or p otographs brochures). Indicate on the board the name, address and phone numbers of both the sample board prepafar and the project a pltcant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers wKere possible (trade names also acceptable). One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent the selected color combinations, with symbols keyed to the color and materials board. The written color and material descriptions shall be located on the elevation. X 10 i ) of both color and materials board and colored architectural elevations for permanent filing, hearing body review and agency distribution. All writing must be legible. VESTIRQ TEXTATIYE TRACT RO, 2:3125,/rod. #2 Condjtimu of Approval Page 10 Said plot plan shall r~quire the approval of the Planing Director su)ittal of o prior to the issuance of ~ilding ~mi~ Ny ) phas~ provided: A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planing Depart=ent for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing fees, , Each individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits for lots included within that plot plan. 21. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. W~ll and/or fence locations shall conform to approved site plan. b, All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approve<) plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control reasures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety· c. Prior to occupancy, bike paths shall be installed along De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection. e. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required mlls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable, f. Prior to occupancy, the park site and riparian enhancenent area shall be developed in accordance with approved plans· GN:sc 9/02/88 INTeR-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM CCI3NTY OF RIVERSIDE Road and Survey Department May 11, 1988 MAY 16 1988 ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT lee Johnson, Principal Engineering Technician FROel: Edwin Studor, Transportation Planner Tentative Tract 23125 (Sterling Ranch) - Traffic Study We have reviewed the Traffic Study for Tentative Tract 23125, and generally agree with the analysis relative to traffic and circulation. Based upon our review of this proposal, it is recommended that the following considerations be given in developing conditions of approval for this project. The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic Signal Mitigation Program as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road, adjacent to the project, should be improved to an arterial highway (110' foot right-of-way)· A 150 foot left turn lane pocket should be provided for traffic on Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola desiring to turn left into each project entrance. ES:AE:lg cc: Planning Department Subdivision f~le --1 March 8, 1988 I!AR 0 9 988 RIVERS;DE COUNTY PLANNING DE~ARTMr'NT Officers: Seas T. Mills Gene~ PbjIUp L. Forbe~ Di~t.c~or ~ France - Nomln L. ThomM D~r d ~omM R. D~r of ~rlU~m B~bm J. M D~mr ~ Ad~s~ - Dm~ ~ RuJ ~d Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Vesting Tract 23125 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Sites for additional water production facilities may be required within the proposed development depending upon the level of increased demand created by the proposal. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RA~CHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doherty Engineering Services Representative F011/dptS4 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRIC 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA. CA 92390~174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0{ ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT FOR OCTOBER 21, 1991 S\STAFFRFq'~23125-2,CC 15 Case No.: RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 21, 1991 Second Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 Prepared By: Richard Ayala Forward the following recommendations to the City Council: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: ACCEPT Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; EXISTING LAND USE: ADOPT Resolution No. 91 - approving Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Sterling Builders, Inc. Ranpac Engineering Corporation Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes a two hundred twenty-five (225) lot residential subdivision on 88.4 acres. Northeast Corner of R-A-2 ~ (Residential North: South: East: West: R-1 R-5 De Portola and Butterfield Stage Road. Agricultural - 2 ~ acre minimum) R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) R-R (Rural Residential) R-R (Rural Residential) SP (Specific Plan) (One-Family Dwellings) and (Open Area Combining Zone - Residential Developments) Vacant S\STAFFRPT~23125-2.CC 16 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Project Area: Proposed No. of Lots: 88.4 acres 212 residential and 13 open space Proposed Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Density: SWAP Density: 7,200 square feet 2.3 DU/AC 2-4 DU/AC Acreage Designated by Proposed Zones: R-1 (One-Family Dwellings): R-5 (Open Area Combining Zone-Residential Development): 61.61 acres 22 acres BACKGROUND Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 were presented before the Planning Commission on July 15, 1991. Both applications were unanimously motioned to be continued to the following Planning Commission in order for both Staff and applicant to address slopes, homeowners association (HOA) and acceptability of the proposed park site for the subject project. On October 7, 1991, both Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 were presented once again to the Planning Commission in order to address the dedication of the proposed parkland and the maintenance of open spaces by the Homeowners Association. Both applications were approved by the Planning Commission that evening. The Planning Commission's approval of the First Extension of Time, extends the subject Tract Map (VTM 23125) to October 20, 1991. Due to the unique circumstances surrounding this tract map, a Second Extension of Time is necessary to continue the life of the subject tract map an additional year, in order for the applicant to process the map. Therefore, Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 was submitted to the City of Temecula on September 20, 1991 and was processed immediately after the approval of Change of Zone No. 17 and First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 proposes to subdivide the subject 88.4 acre site into a residential development consisting of 212 residential lots and 13 open space lots, with an overall density of 2.3 units per acre. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-1 and R-5 zone. The project site is located at the Northeast corner of De Portola Road and Butterfield Stage Road, At present, the site is vacant. S\STAFFRPT%23125-2.CC 17 ANALYSIS Design Considerations The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-1 and R-5 (One-Family Dwellings and Open Space Combining Zone-Residential Development) zones and Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460. The main access to the project is provided by De Portola Road. Open Space/Slopes The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) has reviewed the subject tract and has concluded that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 parkland dedication requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres of improved parkland identified on VTM 23125 as lot "A" which will be dedicated to the TCSD prior to recordation of the final map and be improved to TCSD standards prior to issuance of the 63rd building permit. Approximately 12 acres of undeveloped open space contiguous with the proposed parksite identified as lot "C" and approximately 2.6 acres of wetland identified as lot "B" will be dedicated to the TCSD upon completion of required improvements and prior to the issuance of the 63rd building permit. In addition, all interior slopes including lot "D" will be maintained by a homeowners association (see VTM 23125). The exterior slope maintenance areas are proposed to be maintained by the TCSD and will be properly identified on the final map. Density The proposed subdivision (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125) has a density of 2.3 DU/AC. The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) calls for 2-4 DU/AC, therefore the Tract meets the SWAP residential density requirement. Quimby Act The proposed tract consists of 21 2 single family residential homes, The parkland dedication requirement (Quimby) is 2.75 acres or payment of the equivalent fair market value plus 20% for off-site improvements. The proposed tract has identified a proposed 2.75 acre park. With the required parkland dedication of 2.75 acres, the applicant meets the parkland dedication per TCSD standards. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The proposed density of 2.3 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-4 units per acre. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Environmental Impact Report No. 263 was prepared in connection with the proposed project. All significant effects of the project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effects were evaluated in accordance with the Riverside County Rules to implement CEQA. S\STAFFRPT~3125-2.CC 18 Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 263, was approved by the Riverside Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As previously mentioned in the background section of the staff report, the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1991, which extended the tract map to October 20, 1991. Therefore, a second extension of time for the subject tract map is necessary in order to extend the subject tract map an additional year. FINDINGS There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the project site's existing land use designation. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the proposed zoning of the subject site, and also consistent with the adopted Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation. S\STAFFRPT\23125-2.CC 19 The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Environmental Impact Report adopted by the County for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes two independent access points from De Portola Road which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. 10. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis. 11. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applicants and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, Environmental Assessment, and Conditions of Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the' Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the following recommendations to the City Council: ACCEPTANCE of Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125; ADOPTION of Resolution No. 91 - recommending approval of Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125. vgw Attachments: Resolution - page 6 Conditions of Approval - page 11 Exhibits - 16 A. Location Map B. SWAP Map C. Zone Map D. Surrounding Land Use E. Site Plan S\STAFFRPT~23125-2. CC 20 CITY OF TEMECULA ,,~ / / % / LOCATION 'MAP CASE NO./,/7"/"~ zs/'~"' P.C. DATE/~,//2///'~/J CITY OF TEMECULA ) THE MEADOWS -' i, ,"' ~, , . l" ";"~;" ' "/'~" ..:-' ~ - ,:. VAI~F~R A N CH SP SWAP MAP CASE NO. P.C. DATE/~//',~/~9'/ CITY OF TEMECULA '~ ZONE ~l~.O POI .C. DATE' CITY OF TEMECULA ) Z. AA/LD CASE ~P. C. D AT E/a/z///~ ~ z~ ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 S\STAFFRPT~23125-2. CC 2 1 ,LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21. 1991 COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearinc xt 8:00 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. P.C. 91-(! recommending adoption of the Adult Business ce. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that a recent case requires that all C.U.P.s must have a time limitatio for being :ted upon. Mr. Cavanaugh suggested following ,rding be added to the ordinance under t limitation " application for a C.U.P. shall reviewed and ~ed upon within 60 days from the the .pplication was !emed complete." COMMISSIONER suggested it 90 days and seconded 5 .' Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: COMMIS ONERS: None COMMISSIONER copy of the map asked the Commissioners receive a the sensitive areas. JOHN CAVANAUGH advi~ d that the plotting of these areas will have to be do ~re the ordinance is adopted by the City Council CONDITIONAL USE (CUP 1 8.1 Proposal of ant improvem nt of an existing structure with' the M-SC Zone fo use as an indoor shooting ~ran with accompanying etail sales of firearms ~----an ammunition. CHAI HOAGLAND advised that a 1 ~ter was received by the applicant to continue CUP 13 of calendar. OMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue onditional Use Permit 13 off calendar, seconded by COMM SIONER FAHEY. 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, hey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland SECOND EXT ON O TIME el Proposal to subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single family residential lots. Located at the northeast corner of DePortola and Butterfield Stage Road. RICHARD AYALA presented the staff report. PCMNiO/21/91 -8- 10/23/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 1991 COMMISSIONER FORD made the following clarification to the Conditions of Approval for the TCSD: Condition 20 should reference Lots 213 and 214; Condition 22 should read Lot 218 instead of Lot "A"; Condition 22 should read Lot 217 instead of Lot "B"; Condition 23 should reflect 11.1 acres instead of 12 acres, Lot 215 for Lot "C" and Lot 217 for Lot "B", and amended to read " .upon completion and acceptance by the TCSD "- Condition 24 should read Lot 216 instead of Lot "D"; and the interior slopes are Lots 219 consecutively through Lots 225. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. RON WILLIAMS, Ranpac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, representing the applicant, concurred with staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. and recommend forward the following recommendation to the City Council: Accept Environmental Impact Report No. 263 for Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 and Adopt Resolution No. 91-[next) approving Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125, subject to the modifications to the Conditions of Approval as noted above, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he felt it was inappropriate to approve these zone changes prior to completion of the General Plan. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland CHAI OAGLANDrequested staff present Items No. 10, . 11, No. 12 and No. together. . COMMISSIONER CHINIAE epped down du a conflict of interest. DEBBIE UBNOSKE and~M~K Pw~ esented the staff report. DEBBIE UBNOSKE ad~' ed that staff had eived a letter from the City of Murri requesting a continuance these four items to allow thei taff time to work with the City on nerating traffic studies o deal with circulation problems relative the City of ATTACHMENT NO. 5 DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST S\STAFFRPT\23125-2. CC 2 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23125 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Hsbitat Conservstion Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 1 Condition No. 2 Condition No. 16 Condition No. 16 Condition No. 3 County Condition No. 15 County Condition No. 14 S\STAFFRPT~3 12 5-2. CC 2 3 ITEM NO. 15 APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works November 12, 1991 MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN/RANCHO ROAD REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached Agreement with the developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan (Bedford Development Corporation, Marlborough Development Corporation, Margarita Village Development Company, Tayco) to reimburse the City for the construction of certain improvements to the I-15/Rancho California Road Freeway Ramps and Rancho California Road from Margarita Road to westerly of Moraga Road; through the imposition of an additional building permit fee of approximately $2,600 per residential unit; and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement. BACKGROUND: The Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 was adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986 through Resolution 86-355 and amended through Resolution 88-471 on September 6, 1988. The Specific Plan conditions require that, prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling units in excess of 1,800, the following improvements shall be constructed: An interim four-lane section providing for the widening of Rancho California Road from Margarita Road to Ynez Road; Rancho California Road be widened/re-striped/reconstructed to provide six approach lanes at 1-15 with auxiliary lanes as may deemed necessary from Ynez Road to Front Street, carrying four through-lanes across I-15; 3. The on and off ramps at I-15/Rancho California Road interchange be widened. During early 1990, discussions occurred between the City and representatives of Bedford Development Company regarding the formation of a Reimbursement District. The proposed -1- pwOl\agdrpt\lll2~ma~vill.spl 103191 District would allow Bedford to construct the ultimate (76/11 O) roadway improvements along Rancho California Road to meet the requirements of the specific plan and receive reimbursement for their engineering and construction costs from the adjoining property owners at the time of development. The City would have the Rancho California Road widening constructed as one project and would not have to endure piecemeal widening. In return, the City would condition each undeveloped parcel adjacent to the required road widening to reimburse the construction costs to the District as a condition of development. In May of 1990, the City entered into the Reimbursement Agreement with Bedford. However, because of the lack of concurrence form the other property owners, Bedford was unable to comply with the terms of the Agreement. Consequently, the attached Agreement, which also addresses the 1-15/Rancho California Road Ramp Improvements, was prepared. The Agreement defines the following responsibilities: The City will assume the responsibility to construct the I-15 improvements and widening Rancho California Road. The developers shall reimburse the City its cost of constructing the I-15 improvements and road widening up to a maximum of $2,000,000.00. The form of the reimbursement will be an additional building permit fee of approximately $2,600 on each residential dwelling unit to be built within Margarita Village until the entire $2,000,000.00 has been repaid. The City will use its best efforts to condition each property owner abutting Rancho California Road with the requirement to reimburse the City for the cost of the widening. The City will then pay over such recovered amounts to the developers. The City will have no liability if it fails for any reason, including negligence, to obtain the reimbursement. As the developers have already expended approximately $358,467.00 on the cost of improvement plans, the initial building permit fees will be offset by the amount of a credit for the cost of these improvement plans until the entire $358,467.00 is offset. 5. The prior Reimbursement Agreement will be rescinded. The developers will cooperate with the City to form a Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee District so that an impact fee may be imposed immediately which would be collected from abutting property owners when they develop their property. The present Agreement has been signed by each of the developers with the consent of the merchant builders that have purchased property within the Specific Plan Area. However, Tayco has sold lots to parties who have not consented and will not be obligated under this Agreement. Therefore, when the 1,800th building permit is pulled, Tayco will immediately pay to the City an amount equal to the additional fee that would have been collected from the non-participating parties. The improvement plans for the Reimbursement District were prepared by Robert Be,n, William Frost and Associates of Temecula for Bedford Properties. The street plans have been approved by the Public Works Department and the final storm drain plans have been submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for their approval. The improvements will construct full-width pavement with curb and gutter (no sidewalk) within existing right-of-way on the south side of Rancho California Road from Margarita Road to west -2- pwOl~gdrpt\lll2~2m~vi~.spt 103191 of Lyndie Lane. Storm drain improvements and a traffic signal modification at Moraga Road are also included. It will be necessary to obtain slope easements from the affected property owners along the south side of Rancho California Road prior to starting work. The Engineer's opinion of probable cost for the total project, including design and administration, is $832,240.00 As a condition of final approval Tract 23304 (Club Valencia) prepared street improvements for the north side of Rancho California Road and entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the City, secured by Subdivision Bonds, to construct the improvements within eighteen (18) months of final map approval. The Agreement expires on January 10, 1992, and it is anticipated that the owners of the tract will request an extension of the Agreement. The Public Works Department will include the construction of this section of Rancho California Road as an alternative/additive bid within the contract documents for the entire Reimbursement District in case an extension of time is not granted and it is necessary to use surety funds to construct this portion of roadway. Tract 23304 has already obtained building permits and the owner's representatives indicated funds were not available for them to participate in the District. It is anticipated that the Public Works Department will request authorization to solicit construction bids prior to January 1, 1992. The I-15/Rancho California Road plans and the associated traffic signal plans have been approved by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans. The traffic signal construction is not a part of the Reimbursement Agreement and will be 100% funded with Federal Aid Interstate Funds in the amount of $287,000.00 (Cooperative Agreement approved by Council 1/22/91 ). It is anticipated that Caltrans will issue the encroachment permit and authorize solicitation of construction bids by the November 26th Council Meeting. The Public Works Department would then request the Council to authorize solicitation of construction bids. The construction that will be funded through this Agreement includes the following: 1. Widening of southbound off-ramp to two (2) lanes; 2. Widening of northbound off-ramp to three (3) lanes; Construction of a right-turn lane for eastbound Rancho California Road to southbound Ynez Road; Re-s~riping of roadway and reconstruction of median isl= ~ds between Front Street and Ynez Road; Asphalt concrete overlay between Front Street and Ynez Road (not on bridge deck); and 6. Landscaping median islands and freeway right-of-way. The Engineer's opinion of probable cost for the entire project, including design, is $1,1 67,760.00. The Agreement places a $2,000,000.00 ceiling on the cost to be reimbursed to the City through the additional building permit fees. Approximately $358,467.00 of the ~2,000,000.00 ceiling will be credited to the developers for their processing fees and engineering costs; leaving a total of approximately $1,641,533.00 for the construction phases. Based on the Engineer's estimates and the current economic situation within the construction industry, this appears reasonable. However, it must be noted that the City will -3- pwOl ~agdrpt\ 1112~m,-gvill. spl 1031 c) 1 be responsible for any construction costs that exceed the above-mentioned amount along with the associated construction administration and inspection costs. The possibility of incurring additional costs is offset by inclusion in the contract documents of items such as special median landscaping ($194,460.00), overpass re-surfacing(S180,818.00), storm drains ($152,250.00), and traffic signal modifications ($59,540.00) that would not have been the responsibility of the developer if they proceeded under the Specific Plan conditions. The Council may wish to delay action on this Agreement until construction bids are received to finalize the actual cost. FISCAL IMPACT: It will be necessary to appropriate funds from the Development Impact Fund balance to finance the construction when the construction contract is awarded. The amount will be reimbursed by the developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan as building permits are issued. -4- pwOl\s~drpfilll2~nmr~vill.spl 103191 RECORDING REQUESTING BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Scott F. Field, Esq. Burke, Williams & Sorensen 3239 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into as of this day of , 1991 by and between The City of Temecula ("City") and Bedford Development Company, a California corporation ( "Bedford" ); Marlborough Development Corporation, a California corporation ("Marlborough"); Margarita Village Development Company, a California limited partnership ("MVDC") and TayCo, a California general partnership ("Tayco"), with the consent of Mesa Homes, a California corporation ("Mesa"), Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, a California corporation ("Taylor Woodrow"), and Cosrain Homes Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Cosrain"). Bedford, Marlbo- rough, MVDC and TayCo are collectively referred to herein as the "Developers" Mesa, Taylor Woodrow and Cosrain are collectively referred to herein as "Merchant Builders". This Agreement is entered into with respect to the following facts. RECITALS R-1. The Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 was adopted by Resolution 86-355 on August 26, 1986 and amended by Resolution 88-471 on September 6, 1988 (the plan and all amendments are herein after collectively referred to as "The Plan"). R-2. Development Agreement No. 5 was entered into on November 7, 1988 by the Developers and the County of Riverside. It incor- porated by reference requirements of The Plan and encumbered a sub- stantial portion of the real property encompassed by The Plan (which real property is hereinafter referred to as "The Property"). Development Agreement No. 5 was recorded on November 7, 1988 as Instrument Number 325515, Official Records of Riverside County. Developers and Merchant Builders own all of The Property as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, which does not include portions of The Property on which homes have been built and sold to the general public, and does not include the following lots that TayCo has sold to builders who are not a party to this Agreement: Lots 1-31 Tract 22716-2 Lots 1-40 Tract 22716-4 Lots 1-21 Tract 22716-F Lots 1-34 Tract 22915-F Lots 1-7a '~ract 22916-1 ("Manning/McMillan lots"). Map Book 208 Map Book 208 Map Book 208 Map Book 206 Map Book 225 Pages 78-81 Pages 87-90 Pages 91-93 Pages 75-79 Pages 41-50 - 1 - sw: Legal. :MARGVZLG.FLD/0991 R-3. The Plan require that certain improvements to the 1- 15/Rancho California Road offramps be completed by The Developers. There is some difference of opinion as to what these improvements include, but for purposes of this Agreement the pazties agree that the 1-15/Rancho California Road improvements (the "I-15 Improve- ments") are as set forth on Exhibit B to this Agreement. R-4. The Plan requires widening portions of Rancho California Road between Ynez Roads and Margarita Road (the "Road Widening") be completed by the Developers. There is some difference of opini- on as to what these improvements include, but for purposes of this Agreement the parties agree that the Road Widening includes all of those improvements set forth on Exhibit C to this Agreement. R-5. The Plan requires that the 1-15 Improvements and Road Widening be completed prior to the issuance of the 1800th building permit on lots within the area covered by The Plan. As of the date of this Agreement The Developers have pulled the following approximate number of permits on lots they own within The Property: Developer Permits Bedford (through Mesa Homes) MVDC Marlborough TayCo (including Costain and Taylor Woodrow) 610 10 113 290 Total 1023 The parties acknowledge and agree that under the requirements of Development Agreement No. 5 and the Plan the Developers and Merchant Builders could pull approximately 777 additional building permits before completing the 1-15 Improvement and the Road Widen- ing. The ~xact number of permits previously pulled by Developers shall be verified by City and the parties agree to execute an amendment to this Agreement if the verified number is not 777. R-6. Except for Bedford and MVDC, the Developers agree that their respective shares of the costs of The 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widening are as follows: Developer Percentaae Bedford 20.12 MVDC 34.48 Marlborough 20.78 TayCo 2~.62 sw: Legal. :MARGV! LG. FLD/09~I - 2 - Bedford and MVDC have agreed to submit to arbitration their dispute regarding their respective shares, and they shall amend this Agreement upon the conclusion of such arbitration to reflect the arbitrator's decision, which shall be binding upon them. This arbitration and/or amendment shall in no way affect any other party's share. R-7. The parties desire to have The City assume all respon- sibility for construction of the 1-15 improvements and the Road Widening according to plans prepared by the Developers ("The Im- provement Plans"). The parties agree that the value of The Improvement Plans and paid fees is $358,467. Of this sum, $51,827 has been paid by Marlborough ( the "Marlborough Credit" ); and $207,148.15 has been paid by Bedford (the "Bedford Credit"); and $99,491.85 has been paid by Tayco (the "Tayco credit"). AGREEMENT In consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants contained herein the parties agree as follows: 1. City shall use reasonable diligence to cause the 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widening to be constructed as soon as is reasonably practicable. Developers shall assign to City and City shall accept the assignment of all rights, title and interest in and to the Improvement Plans in return for credits discussed in paragraph 6, below. City shall finish processing The Improvement Plans through CalTrans and any other government agencies as neces- sary and then go out to bid the work shown on the Improvement Plans and contract for the construction of the 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widening. 2. Developers shall reimburse City as hereinafter set forth for all of its reasonable costs and expenses in connection with the design and construction of the 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widening up to a maximum of $2,000,000 (the "Ceiling"). Developers make no representations as to actual costs and the parties recog- nize that the plans for the 1-15 Improvements and Road widening have not been finalized. If the actual costs to City of constructing the 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widening are less that the Ceiling, the Ceiling shall be adjusted downward to equal those costs. If the actual costs to City of constructing the 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widening are more than the Ceiling, there shall be no upward adjustment to the Ceiling in recognition of the fact that the 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widening contain work beyond the requirements imposed on the Developers by Development Agreement No. 5 or the Plan. 3. City shall impose, and Developers ~nd M=rch~nt Builders agree ~.c the imposition of, an additional building permit fee of approximately $2600 (the "Fee") per residential dwelling unit. The - 3 - sw: tega L :MARGV| LG. FLD/0991 actual fee will be computed by dividing the Ceiling by the dif- ference between 1800 and the number of remaining unpulled build- ing permits in the Property as of the date of this Agreement. Said Fee shall be imposed against all residential lots of that portion of The Property described on Exhibit A on which building permits are sought until the City has collected an amount equal to the Ceiling. The parties acknowledge that The Property described on Exhibit A does not include the Manning/McMillan lots, for which TayCo will pay the Fee as set forth in Paragraph 10. For purposes of this Agreement, any payment of the Fee by Mesa shall be deemed a payment by Bedford and any payment by Taylor Woodrow and/or Costain shall be deemed a payment by TayCo. 4. The City shall use its best efforts to condition each property owner who would benefit from the Road Widening ("Benefitt- ed Owner") with a requirement that before any discretionary develo- pment approval is granted or any development permit is pulled that Benefitted Owner shall pay its prorata share of each Benefitted Owner of the costs of the Road Widening. The parties estimate the prorata share to be in accordance with the percentages set forth on Exhibit D hereto. The amounts covered by this paragraph shall not bear interest. Any payments under this reimbursement agree- ment shall be made directly to City. Further, any work done by any Benefitted Owner which results in a decrease in the cost to com- plete the Road Widening shall reduce the Ceiling by the reasonable value of such work as set forth in Paragraph 2 above. 5. Any payments received by City from Benefitted Owners shall be reimbursed to Developers within 90 days of receipt. The amount of the reimbursement shall not exceed the fees which have been paid by or credited to the Developers under this Agreement. Said reimbursement shall be made in the percentages set forth in paragraph R-6, above. All right of reimbursement of Developers pursuant to this paragraph shall cease ten years after the date this Agreement is signed by City except as to properties where the condition of such reimbursement has been imposed by City. City is not liable to Developers if it fails for any reason, including negligence, to impose the condition or recover the costs contemplated in Paragraph 4. Rather the sole remedy of each Developer in enforcing paragraph 4 is to participate in the Public hearing(s) to require the Benefitted Owners to pay their pro rata share of the costs of the Road Widening as a condition of the development permit approvals. 6. Each Developer shall receive a credit against the Fee obligation of that Developer in the amount of its Credit as defined in ?~r~ra~h R-7, above. The Marlborough and Bedford Credits woul~ be ~DDlied a~aj.nst the th~ current Fee charged to each Deveiop~r until full credit had been received by that Developer. By way of sw: I. ega[ :MARGVZLG. FLO/0991 - 4 - example, the Marlborough Credit is $51,827 so using the present estimated Fee of $2600, Marlborough would pull its next 19 permits with no payment to the City, thereby using up $49,400 of its Credit. The 20th permit Fee would be $173 (the Fee of $2600 less $2427, the balanc~ of the unused Marlborough Credit). Thereafter Marlborough would pay the Fee in cash for all subsequent building permits pulled by Marlborough in the Plan area. This credit may be assigned to Merchant Builders or other purchasers from Develop- ers. 7. Performance by Developers and Merchant Builders of their obligations to the City as set forth in this Agreement shall be in full accord and satisfaction for any and all of the off-site im- provement obligations for the 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widen- ing specified in either Development Agreement No. 5 or the Plan. 8. The Developers recognize that as they pull building permits one or more of them may pay (directly or through the Mer- chant Builders) an amount of Fees (which includes credits set forth in paragraph 6, above) greater than their share of the obligation for the cost of the 1-15 Improvements and the Road Widening (such obligation being the Ceiling, as adjusted, multiplied by the Devel- oper's percentage set forth in paragraph R-6, above). As such Developers begin to pay excess Fees above their obligation, on or near the first business day of each calendar quarter, that Develo- per shall send out an accounting to the other Developers stating the excess fees paid by that Developer and a demand for reimburse- ment of the other Developers prorata share of the excess Fee pay- ment by said Developer. By way of example, if Marlborough paid $20,490 in excess fees in a given quarter, Bedford's share of reimbursement would be 20.40 percent (its 16.16 percent share in R-6 divided by 79.22, which is 100.00 less Marlborough's 20.78 percent share in R-6, above) and Bedford would be obligated to reimburse Marlborough $4,179.96. Notwithstanding the foregoing, once a Developer has paid its percentage share (as set forth in R- 6) of the Ceiling, it will have no obligation for reimbursement pursuant to this paragraph. 9. Reimbursements required under paragraph 8 will be made by each Developer within 15 days of receipt of request therefore which request will be accompanied by appropriate back-up documenta- tion. Any request that is not timely paid shall bear interest from the date of the request until paid at the lesser of 11 percent or the maximum rate permitted by law. If such payment is not made by any Developer within 30 days of request therefor, City covenants and agrees it will not issue any further building permits to said defaulting Developer on receipt of a notice of default, which notice shall set forth the conditions of said default and be cer- tified by the Developer cl~iminq that a default exists. Each of the Developers and Merchant Euii,~crs covenants it will not bring any action against City or seek any damages from City or in any - 5 - sw: L egat :MARGV[ LG. FLD/0991 other way try to impose liability on City for not issuing building permits after receipt of notice under this paragraph of the Agree- ment. Upon the cure of any default, the Developer(s) receiving payment shall immediately notify City who will thereupon issue building permits in accordance with its standard practices. 10. Each Developer covenants and agrees that the obligation to pay the Fee shall fully apply to any party who has or will in the future purchase some portion of The Property from that Developer. Each Developer agrees that it is a guarantor of any and all such purchasers from said Developer, as well as a guarantor of its respective Merchant Builder. Each Developer further agrees that any and all of the other Developers can look to the guarantor Developer for full performance of said Developer's prorata share of all obligations hereunder. In that regard, Bedford has sold property to Mesa Homes and is a guarantor of their obligations to comply with the terms of this Agreement and TayCo has sold property to Cosrain and Taylor-Woodrow, McMillan and Manning and is a guara- ntor of their obligations under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, TayCo has sold the Manning/McMillan lots to parties who have not consented to and will not be obligated for, the pay- ment of the Fee. Therefore, when the 1800th building permit of The Property is pulled, TayCo will immediately pay to the City an amount equal to the Fee multiplied by the number of Manning/McMillan lots for which building permits have been issued subsequent to effective date of this Agreement. City Shall not issue the 1801st building permit or building permits for the Property until the Fee attributable to the Manning/McMillan lots has been paid in full. Said payment will be credited towards TayCo's percentage share as set forth in Paragraph R-6. 11. Any notice given hereunder shall be deemed effective (i) on receipt by receipted personal delivery; (ii) one business day after being sent by a recognized overnight mail delivery service; or (iii) two business days after being deposited in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, certified, return receipt requested. Notices shall be sent addressed as follows: City: The City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: Planning Director Bedford: Bedford Development Company c/o Mesa Homes 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: William Butler sw: regal :MARGVZLG. FLD/O~I - 6 - Marlborough: Marlborough Development Company 6865 Airport Drive Riverside, CA 92504 Attn: Dorian A. Johnson MVDC: The Buie Corporation 16935 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92127 Attn: James Resney TayCo: Cosrain Homes, Inc. 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Robert Wells and Taylor Woodrow Homes California Limited, 3991 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Any party may change its address for receipt of notice by giving written notice to all other parties. 12. This Agreement and any amendment may be recorded with the County Recorder of Riverside County. All parties agree to execute a termination of this Agreement in recordable form upon the comple- tion of the obligations of Developers and Merchant Builders hereu- nder. 13. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire under- standing and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings, or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. Without limiting the foregoing, that certain Reimbursement Agreement for Off-Site Street Improvements to Rancho California-Road by and between Bedford Development Company and the City of Temecula is hereby rescinded. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, undertakings or covenants shall be admis- sible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 14. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 15. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder ~h~ll be gcv~rnec] and interpreted in accordance with the laws of ~hs State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole - 7 - Legal. :MARGV! LG. FLD/0991 according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the partieshereto. The rule of con- struction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been repr?sented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 16. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provi- sions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 17. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 18. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and con- stitute covenants running with the land. 19. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counter- parts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instru- ment. 20. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agree- ment and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgement or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions con- templated by this Agreement. 21. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer warrants and represents that he/they have the autho- rity to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he/they/has/have the authority to bind Developer to the perfor- mance of its obligations hereunder. 22. Entering into or a breach of this Agreement shall not affect, render inv~!id, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on The Property made in ~ocd faith and for value. sw: L ega t :MARGV! LG. FLD/0991 - 8 - 23. For purposes of sales of improved lots to consumers, this Agreement, if recorded, shall be deemed to terminate as to individual lots upon the issuance by City of a notice of comple- tion for a structure on said lot. 24. Should it become necessary for any party to bring legal action to enforce any provision of this Agreement, then the prevai- ling party in such action shall be entitled to recover all attor- ney's fees and court costs reasonably incurred thereby. 25. The parties acknowledge that City may wish to replace this Agreement with a major thoroughfare and bridge fee district pursuant to Government Code 66484. So long as the obligation of each Developer and/or Merchant Builder under such a district is not greater than such Developer's obligation hereunder, each Developer and Merchant Builder will reasonably cooperate with City in the formation of such District. Legal :MARGV! LG. FLD/0991 - 9 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year set first forth above. CITY OF TEMECULA Mayor dated: Approved as to form: City Attorney Attest: City Clerk PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC [SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] sw: I. ega I. :MARGV! LG. FLD/0891 - 10 - [SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE] BEDFORD DEVELO~.MENT COMPANY, a Calif0 n'(/coloration 'Wii'li~m ~er Vice President By: Dennis Klimmek Secretary President corporation PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC [SiG~ATCR~S CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] sw: legal :MARGVILG.FLD/0891 - 11 - [SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE] MARLBOROUGK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Cai~L~orni~ co,z~a.~iDn Its: and : ~. SeptemDer 18, 1991 . zetore me. me unaers~gmea. a NcTa-. ~uOhc ,m ana for sa~d S~ate. Oe~sonaHy aoOeare~' ~R/AN A. JO~N amu JACQUEL~ MILLER . personally known ,o me ~Or :rovea to me on the Eases of sa~sfacto~ ewaence) To Oe the Oersons who execute~ the w~tDm instrument as Vice President and ,MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION = Tree corOora~om ~ere~n name~. anu acknow%e~ged ~o me mat - ~ sucncoroorat~onexecutedthew~thininstrumentoursuantto~ts .= ~y-laws or a resolution of dS Doard of directors, Secretary, on Oel~alf of s~: tega t :MARGVI LG. FLD/0891 - 12 10x~JS/1991 14:38 BEDFORD PROPERTIES INC*** 714 6?6 3385 P.03 . ', [SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE] MARaARZTA VZLIAGm DIVII~PMSNT (~)MPItI~X, a California Joint venture By: Nevada-Rancho California, Ltd. a California limited partnership By: Nevada a By: Capital, Ltd., California eorporatto~, general part er Bule-Rancho California, Lt&., a California limited partnership By: The Buie Corporation, a California corporation, PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC [SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] - 13 - teeat ;NARIIV! tO. FLI)/O~!~I [SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE] TAYCO, a California qeneral partnership By: Taylor Wo row Homes CalifOrnia Limited, Cal"zforn'a orp tion, general F rtner By: . CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT- "ALL IN ONE" CAL-42 liStateof California OnZ -' ' ,,~..' :' i'~'before me. a Notarv Public in and for the :* NOTARY L,AUR, AL,.Q'HARA State of California. personally appeared "" -,_ ,~ ,7: ~, -' " name ul person or persons} ~_,.personaily known to me. or ' proved [o me on the basis of satisfactory evidence [o be the person(s) whose nameis) is, are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged [o me [ha[ (he/she, they) :, b.i.~r/their authorized capacicy(ies). and that bv }:~ie/4wf4their signa- ture(s) on the instrument the person(s). or the e'ntity upon behalf of which the personis) acted, executed the instrument, , ' ................... WITNESS mv hand and offidal seal ! """ ' "' " ' ~i:'7:. :i : "\C,L :~.~ ' .", ." . ' '. i Notary Seal' N6tarv's Signature ..~::~.:;~;~v~v;~:.:~:~:~:~:~:~:~v;~:.:~:.:~:~:~:~;~:~.~t..~?t~:v;~t.v~:;~yt~;~ .: ,:;';.t..:,: ,: } STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~_C/L,~L }ss. COUNTY OF --~c-<. ? } :ersonany appeared ~1 C'~_ ~'~~ '~' ~e on ,ho n=~ nf q;qhc:f=,'teu"v e~,'~lon,¢o) to De the person(S) whose name(s)-~/are SuPscribed to the within ,nstrument and acknowledged to me that~/they executed me same en n~,a~/tnelr authorized capaclty(~es), and mat by r.,e-R.~,me~r signature{s) on the enstrument the perSon(S) or the entm/upon Denaft of winch the acted. executed the ,n~trument. I,/VITNESS my nand and official seal. iOFFICL~-r- SE~I CHERYL IHII~L NOT.aIR)'~LIC-C,NJFORNIA O~ COUNTY II~Caw~. ~A~reSJunm I. 1994 area for ot~cla] nolanat seal) [ SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE] CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT- "ALL IN ONE" ~:;. - _, State of California ! County of '_ On'~'...'777, t', C, :' ," ~ ~-ri,'!before me. a Notary Public in and for the '. (ate) State of Califordnia, personally appeared Jr · ~ , . (name of person or persons] personalJy known to me. or evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) iS/are subscribed to the within that ..~_'he, executed the in instrument and acknowledged to me (enhe~Z.~ey) Same h hZ,:...ritheir authorized capacitydes), and that by t.e4..et/their signa- ture(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. '. WITNESS mv hand and official seal. ': ' ~ , · Notary Seah Notary's Signature "-- ."~ .":;':'4:: ,.~:": ~.*:':*:;'*::"*: ':*:*-";.': V v ;.~v v v;.~v v.z v v v PLEASE RCKNCWLEDGE BEFORE A NOTARY ~X,8~iC [SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] sw: Legal :MARGVILG. FLD/0891 - 15 - [SIGNATURES CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE] Cosrain Homes Inc., a Its :~ ~ ~e'C> , By: ~/~/~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0 'yL--%,,~ ~SS COUNTY OF . u' ~ ~ 2 ~ I ' --~' ,. I ] J '1 before me. 'o m~ ~ . ,~ b~ u~ ~L~J~g, y ~,~, ,~e~to -strument and acknowledged to me ~8t ~lthey executed the same ~n nlthe~r 8umonzed caDac~(ies), ~nd that ey ~:s:hu,'tne~r s~gnatureis) on the instrument the Derson(s) or the ent~ uDon be~8~ of winch the sersomsl acted. executed the ~nstrument. .'~IT~S~ ~ ~a~O ane offic;al seal. ,~ ~ S~gnature ~ ~"-( ¢his area for officl~ noinal seal) [END OF SIGNATURE PAGES] - 16 - si: Legal :MARGV! LG. FLD/0891 Exhibit A The Property owned by Developers and Merchant 3uilders Buie: Parcel 1 through 5 of amended Parcel Map 21884, recorded in Book 152 of Parcel Maps, Pages 22 through 31, Riverside County Records, together with the effects of Tract Map 23371-1, recorded in Book 216, Pages 8 through 16, Tract Map 23371-2, recorded in Book 219, Pages 18 through 25, Tract Map 23371-3, recorded in Book 222, Pages 97 through 113, Tract Map 23371-4, recorded in Book 223, Pages 1 through 9, and Tract Map 23371-5, recorded in Book 224, Pages 50 through 56, Riverside County Records. TayCo: Lots 23 and 28-56, inclusive, of Tract 22715-2, recorded in Book 209, Pages 59-65, Riverside County Records Lots 1-35, inclusive of Tract 22916-2, recorded in Book 225, Pages 51-56, Riverside County Records Lots 1-76, inclusive of Tract 22916-3, recorded in Book 225, Pages 57-64, Riverside County Records Lots 1-74, inclusive of Tract 22916, recorded in Book 225, Pages 65-72, Riverside County Records Lots 1-97, inclusive of Tract 22915-1, recorded in Book 217, Pages 41-50, Riverside County Records Lots 10-90, inclusive of Tract 22915-2, recorded in Book 217, Pages 51-59, Riverside County Records Lots 1-58, inclusive of Tract 22915-3, recorded in Book 217, Pages 60-66, Riverside County Records Marlborouqh: PARCEL A: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 22554, as shown by map on file in book 147 pages 94 through 98 of Parcel Maps, records of Riverside County, California; Excepting therefrom those portions described in deeds recorded November 17, 1989 as instrument Nos. 403924, 403925, a:\Exhibit.A nmi/9-11-91 403926 and 403927 all of official records of Riverside County, California; Also excepting therefrom that included within the land described in Parcel "A" of a grant deed to the metropolitan water district of Southern California recorded December 13, 1967 as instrument No. 109720 of official records of Riverside County, California; Also excepting therefrom any portion lying within Tract Nos. 23100-1, 23100-2, 23100-3, 23101-1, 23101-2, 20879, and 20879-1 all of official records of Riverside County, California; PARCEL B: Lots 35, 36, 37, 38, and 67 through 71 and 75 of Tract No. 23100-1, as shown by map on file in book 214 page 5 of maps, records of Riverside County, California; PARCEL C: Lots 1 through 14, inclusive, of Tract 23100-2, as shown by map on file in book 214 pages 12 through 15 of maps, records of Riverside County, California; PARCEL D: Lots 1 through 77, inclusive, of Tract No. 23100-3, as shown by map on file in book 222 pages 44 through 49 maps, records of Riverside County, CAlifornia; PARCEL E: Lots 1 through 108, inclusive, of Tract No. 23101-2 as shown by map on file in book 228 pages 15 through 21, inclusive, of maps, records of Riverside County, California; Bedford (Mesa]: Lots 1-10, inclusive, of Tract 21674.3 recorded in Book 211, Pages 95-98, Riverside County Records. Lots 1-53, inclusive, of Tract 21675-F recorded in Book 221, Pages 43-48, Riverside County Records. Lots 1-14 and 35-42, inclusive, of Tract 21675-5, recorded in ~ook 207, ~a~s 55-62, ~;iverside COUDty Records. Lots 1-36 and 40-45, inclusive, of Tract 21675-6, recorded a:\Exhibit.A nmi/9-11-91 3 in Book 221, Pages 38-42, Riverside County Records. Lots 1, and 6-18, and 22-23, and 24 of Tract 21082-1, recorded in Book 160, Pages 27-30, Riverside County Records. a:\Exhibit.A nmi/9-11-91 [- 15 IMPROVEMENTS 5une 27. 1991 I}~PROVEi~ENT I Gradimz 2 Street Imorovement 3 Construction Sinkre2 4 Landseaton2 5 Dramsize 6 Special Median Landscave 7 Resuffacin2 Overpass SUBTOTAL 9 Desip.,n and Administration TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 68.575 413,149 28.625 a6.728 2.990 [94,460 180,818 935.345 !32,415 1.167,760 EXHIBIT B RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD WIDENING .rtme 27, 1991 ESTLMATED COST I Gradmsz tg.438 2 Street improvement 431,028 3 Storm Dram 152.2,~0 Traffic Control 59.540 5 Constructlon StakinR I5.950 SUBTOTAL 677,206 6 Design and Administrauoa 7 Assessments and Fees 118.026 37,008 TOTAL 832.240 EXHIBIT C III RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF REIMBURSABLE BENEFIT BASED ON ACEAGE PRORATION August 12. 1991 STREET IMPROVEMENTS-RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT Parcel Acru ~e Percent Parcei B 6.12 ?arcei C 20.88 Parcat D 10.78 hrcel E 1.96 Parcel F 10.22 12.2 -el .8 2:.6 3.9 =D.5 TOTAL Note: Parcels D & E same ownershiD (25.5%] 65,363 223,948 115,725 20,895 109,831 49.97 ~00 535.762 IV ADDITIONAL ITEMS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTE IN MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 (Drainage cost proration is based on tributary. drainage areas) DRAINAGE/SIGNAL I,MPROVEMENTS-RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD BENEFIT DISTRICT Parcel Parcel B Parcel C Parcel D Parcel E Parcel F Acrnge Percent Co~t 3.7 10.4 14.4 40.6 6 t6.9 1.7 4.8 9.7 27.3 TOTAL 35.5 Note: Parcels D & E same ownersb;7 ,,9 ! .'~', 100 30.834 t20.370 50.105 14.231 80.938 296,478 EXHIBIT D 0~ uJ ~ or -r'o o // \ ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL/,-~-- CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Scott F. Field November 13, 1991 Legal Advocacy in Support of Other California Cities RECOMMENDATION: policy. That the City Council consider adopting a legal advocacy DISCUSSION: One of the many committees of the League of California Cities is the Legal Advocacy Committee. Its Board of Directors monitors legal cases of statewide importance which merit cities' participation through "Friend of the Court" briefs (also known as "amicus" briefs). These are briefs filed by third parties (not one of the litigants) in support of positions of statewide importance. In this manner, the appellate courts, particularly the State Supreme Court, is made aware of the broader significance of its rulings. Periodically, I receive reports of the Legal Advocacy Committee. These reports evaluate the various requests made by municipalities for amicus briefs. The Board of Directors makes recommendations as to which cases cities should join as amicus. I believe that the Board of Directors is sensitive to the fact that not all cities are in agreement as to all legal disputes. Consequently, the Committee does not always recommend support for the position taken by every city in litigation. Enclosed is some of the correspondence I periodically receive from cities asking for amicus support. In some cities, it is the practice of the City Attorney to bring all such requests directly to the City Council. However, frequently the time for joining in a brief is very short and there is not sufficient time to agendize the matter. Consequently, I suggest that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to join in all cases where the League has "urged" cities to join as an amicus brief. Enclosure CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 RO. BOX 1200 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY October 10, 1991 Scott Field City Attorney BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: Amicus Brief in Burden v. Snowden, et al. Dear Collegue: I am writing to urge you to join in an amicus brief being prepared by Dick Whitmore on the above-referenced appeal by the City of Costa Mesa in the California Supreme Court. On September 13, 1991, the Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities met and decided to urge cities to join in such amicus brief. The appeal involves issues important to your city and police department. In this appeal, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Public Safety Officer's Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Government Code Section 3300 et seq.) should be extended to non-sworn civilian police recruits while on probation and attending a P.O.S.T. certified police academy. In Burden, the Court of Appeal upheld a judgment that the Act applied to a non-sworn civilian police recruit while she attended the police academy and while the recruit was still on probation. The Court found that the City could not terminate a recruit for failure to meet standards of a police officer without an administrative hearing. The Court of Appeal also held that the City of Costa Mesa and its Police Chief were required to provide the recruit with a copy of any adverse comments contained in her file (a confident- ial background check), an opportunity to respond to those comments, and an administrative hearing under the Act. The Court of Appeal discounted the fact that the recruit had signed a written consent and waiver of any right to see the confidential background investigation. 77 FAIR DRIVE · (714) 754-5399 · FAX: (714) 556-7508 October 10, 1991 Page Two Thus, the Burden decision represents a significant extension of the Act. If the principles set forth in Burden are accepted by the Supreme Court, police recruitment practices by municipal and county police departments will be severly impacted. Police departments will not be able to accurately check the backgrounds of new police recruits, because the recruits will be entitled to receive a copy and respond to confidential background investigations. Police departments will not be able to quickly terminate unqualified or untrainable police recruits. Therefore, if you wish to join in the amicus brief being prepared by Mr. Whitmore, please contact him at telephone number (415) 941-9333 as soon as possible. The amicus brief will be filed on November 12, 1991. Your name and association must be received by October 30, 1991, in order to be included. Thank you for your anticipated assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Thomas A. Kathe City Attorney TAK:pb co: Robert Burnham JoAnne Speers Richard Whitmore seam League of California Cities I~~' 1400 K STREET · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 · (916) 444-5790 California C~ties Work TocJether Legal Advocacy Committee Report The League of California Cities' Legal Advocacy Committee and Board of Directors have determined the following cases are of statewide importance and merit cities' participation as amicus cudae. For those briefs which have not already been filed, city attorneys are encouraged to take the steps necessary to have their cities join in these briefs. The membership of the Legal Advocacy Committee is listed on the last page of titis report, along with instructions for bringing other cases to the committee's attention. Note several new members have been appointed to replace those whose terms recently expired. The committee ~ next meeting is on September 13. 1991. I. CASES IN WHICH CITIES ARE URGED TO JOIN AN AMICUS BRIEF 1A. Consaul v. City of San Diego, 231 Cal. App. 3d 131, 282 Cal. Rptr. 214, 91 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7039 (4th Dist. June 13, 1991), rehearing granted (July 12, 1991). 1. Case Description In a departure from traditional notions of vested rights, a court of appeal has ruled property owners acquired a vested right to develop their property even though the property owners had not obtained building permits and even though the city sulzsequently downzoned the property. The court said it was sufficient for the property owners to spend time and money obtaining discretionary approvals for the project, including allocations of permits in compliance with the city's interim development ordinance. Relying in part on city documents which referred to the allocations as "entitlement" as well as the city's treatment of allocations, the court said the allocations entitled the property owner to develop consistent with allocations and free from subsequently-enacted restrictions. Reviewed by the Executive Committee only. It. CASES IN WHICH CITIES ARE INVITED TO .lOIN AN AMICUS BRIEF A. City of Susanville v. Lassen County, No. (3d Dist.). 1. Case Description This case involves a city-county dispute over annexation proposal. Lassen County is refusing to approve four proposed annexations to the City of Susanville, even though the city has agreed to give the county 100 percent of the property tax revenues from the annexed areas. The county takes the position it should also be able to negotiate for other tax revenues (including, but not limited to, sales tax revenues). The city won at the trial court level. The judge said a county cannot "veto" an annexation by refusing to accept a 100 percent relinquishment of property tax revenues from the area to be annexed. 2. Status of Brief On July 19, the city had a settlement conference with the county, during which the county was advised it has no case. The city is waiting to hear back from the county regarding whether the county is planning to pursue its appeal. 3. Brief Writer Needed/For Further Information Anyone interested in writing an amicus brief in the event the county does pursue the appeal should contact JoAnne Speers at the League's Sacramento office. For further information about this case, please contact: Kathleen R. Lazard City Attorney, Susanville P.O. Box 730 700 Court Street Susanville, CA 96130 (916) 257-7704 B. Bravo Vending Machines v. City of Rancho Mirage, Civil No. E009272 (4th Dist.). 1. Case Description In this case, a city-wide ban of cigarette vending machines is under attack. Those challenging the ordinance are claiming state law preempts local regulation of cigarette vending machines. 2. Status of Brief The brief was due on August 5, 1991; the City of San Francisco wrote a brief in support of Rancho Mirage's position. The existence of the brief and call for cities e to take any chemical test (blood, breath or urine) after failing field sobriety tests. The officers took the suspect to a hospital and directed the technician to draw the blood sample while the officers restrained the suspect. The suspect physically resisted the technician's efforts. '- Status of Brief The City of Newport Beach filed its petition for certiorari on August 12, 1991. Although the LAC voted only to invite individual cities to file amicus briefs, cities may be interested in knowing the California Attorney General's office is preparing an amicus brief. His application for leave to file the brief and the brief is due thirty days after the opening brief in support of the petition for certiorari is due. For Further Information Frederick R. Millar Deputy Attorney General 110 West A Street, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 224-5800 IV. FOR INFORMATION ONLY Mound v. City of Hollister, 230 Cal. App. 3d 760, 281 Cal. Rptr. 455 (6th Dist. May 24, 1991). --- 1. Case Description This case involves the question of whether a property owner can sue a city for inverse condemnation (an unlawful taking of property) after the city ordered the structure demolished after the structure was damaged in the October earthquake. The city asked the court to throw the suit out based only on the complaint (the first document filed in a lawsuit stating the facts which give rise to the claims in the suit). The trial court granted the city's motion. The court of appeal reversed the trial court, finding that there were factual disputes requiring resolution before the case could be decided. The city is seeking California Supreme Court review. 2. For Further Information John G. Barisone/Vincent P. Hurley Atchison & Anderson 333 Church Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (408) 423-8383 5 D. Chevron v. County of Santa Barbara, No. CV 91-2768-JMI (JKx) (C.D. Cal). 1. Case Description In this case, an oil company is challenging the county's authority to condition a permit for onshore facilities to support offshore oil drilling. The condition requires the company to deliver oil to shore by pipeline (as opposed to by tanker). The oil company is claiming 1) the condition unreasonably interferes with interstate commerce; 2) the county's regulation is preempted by federal law; and 3) the condition works a taking without just compensation of the oil company's property. 2. For Further Information Katherine E. Stone Freilich, Stone, Leitner and Carlisle The Wilshire Landmark, Suite 1230 11755 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90025-1518 (213) 444-7805 Gregg v. City of Laguna Beach, 231 Cal. App. 3d 404, 282 Cal. Rptr. 383, 91 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7353 (4th Dist. June 19, 1991), modified and reh'g denied (July 16, 1991). 1. Case Description At issue in this case is the statute of limitations for challenging a city's refusal to hold an administrative hearing on a police officers' application for disability retirement. The court of appeal found the city ignored his two timely requests for hearing in March 1985 and did not formally deny the officer's request for a hearing until October 1, 1987. The court further held a cause of action to compel an administrative hearing does not accrue until the administrative request to hold one. The court also found that the statute of limitations on the officer's right to seek review of any adverse determination on the pension does not begin to run until a hearing is actually held. The court also rejected the city's laches argument. 2. For Further Information Philip Kohn City Attorney, Laguna Beach Rutan and Tucker 611 Anton Blvd. Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 (714) 641-5100 7 LITIGATION COORDINATION PROCEDURE Contact LAC Representative City attorneys involved in litigation or other disputes which may be of interest to other cities should contact their representative on the Legal Advocacy Committee (roster attached) or JoAnne Speers at the League's Sacramento office. Send Cover Letter Plus Relevant Documents A short letter outlining the legal issues involved and the status of the litigation or dispute, along with copies of relevant documents (e._&.., trial court decision) is especially helpful. Please send copies of correspondence to both the appropriate division representative and the League in Sacramento. Note Deadlines for LAC Action The LAC meets quarterly. The LAC's recommendations must then be approved by the League's Board of Directors, which meets approximately two weeks after the LAC meets. The LAC Report is then sent out two weeks after the Board of Directors meets..However, the LAC's Executive Committee may be convened when necessary and "interim" LAC reports may be sent out. It is very important that the LAC be contacted as early as possible about litigation or disputes of interest. The LAC must .know what the pertinent deadlines are so that it may take timely action. Indicate the Availability of an Amicus Writer If an' amicus writer is already available, please indicate in the cover letter describing the case. If you have suggestions for potential amicus writers, please indica',e these as well. Requests for Petitions for Hearing. Publication-Depublication. etc. In the letter explaining the case, please show how the standard for publication, see Cal. R. Ct. 976(b), or California Supreme Court review, see Cal. R. Ct. 29(a)(1), are or are not satisfied. Please enclose a service list; a draft letter is also helpful, particularly when the letter needs to be filed quickly. See, e._&., Cal. R. Ct. 978 and 979 (time limits for seeking publication/depublication). j:\legal\hm\lac\doc\litigate.new ITEM NO. 17 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: November 12, 1991 SUBJECT: Appointment of Old Town Historic Review Committee PREPARED BY: City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: Appoint five regular members and one alternate as recommended by the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to operate within the guidelines adopted August 13, 1991. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of September 10, 1991, the Council appointed a committee consisting of Councilmembers Lindemans and Moore and City Manager Dixon or his designee(s) to review and screen the applications for the committee. Ten applications were received from qualified citizens wishing to serve on this committee. Councilmembers Lindemans and Moore along with Director of Planning Gary Thornhill and Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson met on October 31, 1991 to review the applications submitted. After. carefully considering all of the applications, the Ad Hoc Committee determined that the City would be best served if five members and one alternate were appointed to this committee. The committee recommends the following members and alternate: Regular Members Alternate Member Walt Allen Bill Harker Larry Markham Bob Morris Tony Terich Christina Reina The Council may wish to amend the adopted policy guidelines to deal with the duties and term of office of the alternate member. It is suggested that the alternate member serve on occasions when a regular member is unable to attend and meeting and be appointed for a full three-year term. Agenda Report - Old Town Historic Review Committee Appointments November 12, 1991 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: Operational Guidelines for Historic Review Committee Applications for Appointment (10) Pro. //003 Admin Date 8/13/91 Dept. City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA Policies and Procedures Old Town Temecula Historic Review Committee Operational Guidelines The City Council of the City of Temecula, recognizing the benefit to the community in establishing a committee to review proposed new developments in the Historic Preservation District, hereby establishes the Old Town Temecula Historic Review Committee. This committee will be charged to serve as a sub-committee working directly with the Planning Commission. It will review the design, authenticity of architectural style and appropriateness '.o the area and consistency to the Specific Plan for all proposed developments within the boundaries of the Temecula Historic District. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Number of Members. This committee shall consist of five (5) members. Ouali~cations. No member of any committee shall be a City employee, nor shall any person be a member of more than one commission or committee at any one time. No person shall be eligible for appointment for more than two full consecutive terms (six (6) years). , Members: Appointment and Removal. Members of this committee shall be appointed by the City Council of the City of Temecula, subject to the approval of a four-fifths (4/5t. hs) majority of the City Council. A majority of the Council may remove an appointee for good cause. The chairperson and Recording Secretary of this Committee shall be selected by a majority of the membership of the Committee. Term. The term of each committee member shall be three (3) years with staggered terms. Initially, all five members may be selected at one time. In order to achieve staggered terms, one member shall be appointed to a term of three (3) years; two for terms of two (2) years; and two for terms of one (1) year. Said terms to be determined by drawing of lots. At the completion of any term, a commission member may be reappointed pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Policy and Procedure. Policies and Procedures Administrative Pro. g)03 8/13/91 Page 2 , Vacancies. Vacancies on this Committee will be filled pursuant to the procedures established in Administrative Policy No. ~ff)02, approved by the City Council June 12, 1991. Meetings/Quorums. The meetings of this Committee with be on an "as needed" basis and at the specific request of the Director of Planning. A quorum of three members shall be required for the transaction of any business. The Committee Chairperson or his/her designee shall attend and report the Committee recommendations to the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Absence from meetings. Should any member be absent from any three (3) consecutive meetings of the Committee without excuse acceptable to the City Council, that member shall vacate his/her seat on the Committee. The vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as any other vacancy. Compensation. no compensation. Unless otherwise required by law, committee members shall receive CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: C)L]::) NAME: HOME PHONE: G OCCUPATION: ~r.~EMP4, OY"R/ADDRESS: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA: WORK PHONE: LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMN ITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical. community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary): I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for pu i ity purposes. PLEASE NO licatio s will be kept on file for consideration of future vacancies. Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 2/formsic OM-OO 1 October 7, 1991 City Council City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Appointment to Old Town Historic Review Committee Dear Members of the Council: Thank you for the opportunity to apply for this community service position. I am honored that you feel me to be worthy of consideration. Enclosed, please find the application you sent, accompanied by a brief but reasonably recent resume of my work history. I hope that will suffice for your purposes. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to serve the Community in an area where I feel I have both some small amount of expertise and more than a passing interest. It is not often that one can separate business incentive from long developed technical knowledge and experience. But in this case, as a member of the Old Town Historic Review Committee, I feel I can bring both the technical/aesthetic expertise and an even-handed, fair-minded influence to the review table. As I mentioned above, much of my background and expertise are in the area of architecture. As a student I was very interested in architectural history. Though the history of architecture is very long and the history of American architecture is relatively short, the formative period of Western American architecture was very rich, indeed. In fact, there were probably more legitimate popular styles in the 19th Century than in any century before (or since.) As a river tour guide and camper, I have had the opportunity to see many of the old towns and cities of the West. There are several aspects that they all seem to share, while yet maintaining their own individuality. There is a certain eclectic quality in both western public architecture and vernacular buildings of the 19th and early 20th Century. For this reason, I feel there are a number of ways to look at building and/or planning proposals. Perhaps there is one "appropriate" style for Old Town, as some suggest. But I sincerely doubt it. I think the flavor of the Old West can be maintained without stifling the creativity of good designers and planners of today. Finally, I am connected to no large development company or planning firm. I have little to gain by appeasing powerful developers. I am not particularly intimidated by money, and I feel no obligation other than to my conscience and the citizens of and visitors the to the City of Temecula. I am excited by some of the work which has been undertaken in Old Town during the past three or four years. I feel that, for the most part, the work done recently has been tasteful and sensitive. The Review Committee has obviously worked hard to set the tone for development, rehabilitation, or renovation. But, as we are all aware, there are still problems to solve. A great deal of time and often thankless effort go with a position such as this. I am fully aware of the difficult, and sometimes awkward situations in which committee members find themselves. I am fully prepared to dedicate the time and make the commitment necessary to perform the duties required of me as a member of the Old Town Historic Review Committee. Again, I thank you for thinking of me and am pleased to offer talents and energy to assist this very important committee. Yours, very truly, Walt Allen Z CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: NAME: HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: OCCUPATION: EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: A~ YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA: LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WMY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessaN): I understand fiat any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to ~e release of this information for pu lici~ purposes. PL~SE NOTE: Applications will be kept on file for consideration of ~re vacancies. Re~rn to: CiW Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 2/fo rmm/c OM-O01 CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: Old Town Historic Review NAME: Larry R. Markham HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: ( 714 ) 677-1853 OCCUPATION: Development Consultant EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: Master of Science of Civil Engineering, Bachelor Committee YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA: Business Owner 10 Rd., Suite N, Temecula Virginia Tech of Science of Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech years 92590 LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: See Attached ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): See Attached BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessan/): I served on the Redevelopment Advisory Committee and was a part ~f forming a unified direction for the Old Town area. I feel that i know the concerns of the area and can provide my expertise to h~lp accomplish the goals that are important to the continued economic viability of Old Town as a retail and tourist center and preserve this unique areas historic signature. I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information fo~ publicity urpos . S G ATURE: DATE: PLEASE" TE: ApI~ ns will be kept on file for consideration of f vacancies. Return to: ~rk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 2/fo rms/C OM-O01 ORGANIZATIONS -Murrieta/Temecula Group -American Society of Civil Engineers -American Planning Association -Urban Land Institute -Friends of Murrieta Schools -Friends of French Valley Airport -Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce -Murrieta Valley Chamber of Commerce -Wildomar Valley Chamber of Commerce -Temecula Town Association -International Congress of Building Officials -Building Industry Association -Audubon Society -Nature Conservancy -Rancho California Business Center Architectural Control Committee COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 1985-1986 and 1989-1991 Murrieta Creek Citizens Advisory Committee 1986-1989 South West Area Plan Citizens Advisory Committee 1987-1991 Temecula Redevelopment Citizens Advisory Committee 1991 Rancho California Water District Citizens Advisory Committee 1990-1991 County Service Area 143 Citizens Advisory Committee 0 3 000 >'->->- ~ 00~-- CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: OLD TOWN HISTORIC REVIEW CO~LMITTEE NAME: YEARS RESIDENT TO-MAC HAS BEEN LOCATED ANTHONY J . TERICH , OWNER, TO-MAC ENGINEERING*I , HOME PHONE: ( 619 ) 728-0586 OCCUPATION: CIVIL ENGINEER/BUSINESS PERSON EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: TO-MAC ENGINEERING, 41934 MAIN EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: OF TEMECULA: FOR WORK PHONE: ( 714 ) 676-5715 16 YEARS STREET, TEMECULA, CA. 92590 B.S., CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE AT LOS ANGELES, CIVIL ENGINEERING LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional palter if necessary): I WAS ASKED IF I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SERVING BY ONE OF THE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS BECAUSE OF 1) MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 2) THE JOB TO-MAC HAS DONE WITH ITS OWN BUILDING IN OLD TOWN 3) LENGTH OF SERVICE IN TEMECULA. *NOTE: MY PARTNER, JOHN MC MAHAN, IS A RESIDENT IF RESIDENCY DISQUALIFI ME. HE IS INTERESTED IN THE APPOINTMENT (RESUME ATTACHED). I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for I}u :c:.~f pur?oses.~t SIGNATURE: ~ -C/..~/__~ DATE: PLEASE NOTE: Appli~a ion 2/forms/C OM-O0 1 IE3- E CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING ANTHONY J. TERICH, P.E. PRINCIPAL EDUCATION B.S., California State College at Los Angeles, 1968, Civil Engineering REGISTRATION Civil Engineering, California R.C.E. 21914, 1972 RESPONSIBILITY Mr. Terich is responsible for project scheduling, manpower allocation, professional responsibility for designs, calculations and surveys, percolation testing and land planning. Mr. Terich has 25 years of experience in the filed of civil engineering and 16 years of experience as an independent businessman as a founding principal of To-Mac Engineering. Mr. Terich's project experience has included preparation of designs, specifications and cost estimates for all phases of subdivision work including residential, commercial and industrial projects. Mr. Terich has over twenty one years experience on projects in Temecula/Rancho California. Recent project include Plaza Seville (Jefferson at Winchester in Temecula), Temecula Auto Center, Griffin Oldsmobile, Nissan of Temecula, Paradise Chevrolet, Acura of Temecula and consulting services for the formation of CFD 88-12 (Ynez Road Corridor). 41934 MAIN STREET · TEMECULA, CA 92390 · (714) 676-5715 / (714) 676-5716 · FAX (714) 676-6306 CIVIL ENGINEERING · SURVEYING · LAND PLANNING JOHN MCMAHAN EXPERIENCE Thirty four years in the field of surveying. Four years as a party chief, ten years as field office manager (supervising as many as 13 crews), 16 years as independent businessman as a founding principal of To-Mac Engineering. RESPONSIBILITY Mr. McMahan is responsible for scheduling, manpower allocation and technical supervision of surveying operations. Projects include boundary surveys, design surveys, all phases of construction surveys and precise surveys for dam monitoring and geologic/seismic monitoring. Twenty six years of Mr. McMahan's experience has been in charge of surveys in Temecula/Rancho California. 41934 MAIN STREET · TEMECULA, CA 92390 · (714) 676-5715 / (714) 676-5716 · F:AX (714) 676-6306 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590 Ronald j. Parks Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall .'v'aycr Pro Tern I~rel F. Ljndemans r .... r.lm~m~er Peg Moore Counc;zrn..emser J. Sal Mu~oz David F. Dixon C, 2¢ ,~,, ',ar:aCer _ (714) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 September 24, 1991 Tony Terrich 41934 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Appointment to Old Town Historic Review Committee Dear Mr. Terrich: On behalf of the City Council I would like to invite you to complete the enclosed application to serve as a member of the Old Town Historic Review Committee. We are contacting you in this way, because your name has been suggested to the Council as being an excellent candidate for appointment. Please complete this application if you are interested in serving on this committee and return it to me at your very earliest convenience. The members of the City Council are anxious to make their appointments to this committee at the meeting of October 8, 1991. Feel free to attach a resume to your application if you feel this will assist the Councilmembers in making their selections. Thank you again and please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, June S. Greek City Clerk JSG:swj CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: NAME: YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA: EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: ~!TE LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional. technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary): ?~m ON ~ ~~~o~~t ~o~ ~M ~ into~m~tion tot publkiW put~o~. ., . PL~SE NO or consideration of futu ancies. Return to: CiW Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 2/forms/COM-O01 CHRISTINA GRINA (714) 676-7826 30305 Via Norte Temecula, CA 92591 PERSONAL DATA Nationality: U.S. Citizen Born: August 14, 1965 Marital Status: Married Health: Excellent PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES , Architectural Design Construction Document Preparation · Computer Aided Drafting · Model Building · Preservation of Historic Architecture · Planning · Landscape Design · Interior Design · Government Agency Plan Processing EDUCATION 1990, B.S. Degree: Architecture, California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, California Palomar Community College, General Education PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE W. Dean Davidson, Architect Commercial and Residential Projects - Responsibilities included design and drafting of preliminary plans, working drawings, tenant improvements, plan processing, client cont~''~ computer aided design (IBM 386), model building, administration and general office. Alhambra Group, Landscape Architecture & Planning Design, site plan graphics, and production of landscape construction documents and details for residential and commercial projects. The Country Estate, Interior Design Firm Commercial and residential design coordination, including sales of blinds, draperies, artwork, carpet and tile. Sycamore Plaza Associates, Building Management Management of 12,000 s.f. office and manufacturing building including collect. ion of rents, building maintenance coordination, tenant meetings, management of bank accounts, and correspondence. Jeff Lyon, Architect Interior residential elevations, drafting OTHER PROJECTS Research - "Old Town Temecula Revitalization Study" Research - "California Style Projects" Study model for custom residence Research - Historical Restoration Sycamore Plaza office building model REFERENCES Furnished upon request CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula COMMISSION ON WHICH SERVE: NAME: YEARS RESIDENT HOME PHONE: - OCCUPATION: EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: OF TEMECULA: WORK PHONE: LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: ~rofessional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND ~l~y YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if Z, n'~'e~.a/~'r ~" O,'7'7'7'7h4'/~' ---- ....................... I understand ~at any or all information on this form may be verHied. I consent to ~e release of this V~ ;~/~ information for publiciW purposes. ~' ~ SIGNATURE: ,~~J DATE: ~' Z ~' ~ ~ PL~E NOTE: A~r~ations will be kept on file for consideration of future vacancies. Return to: Ci~ Clerk's Office, 43172 ~siness Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 2/fo rms/C OM-OO 1 CITY OF TEMECULA ' L-- APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMM ~ (;~ Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: HOME PHONE.' ~ ~ ' ?CO IWORK PHONE: ~dT~' ~ (--I OCCUPATION: EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: /.~ EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: t LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMI~EE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if any or all informatio~oo~n this form may be verified. '1 consent to the release o this information for publicity purposes. PLEASE NOT'E: Applic~t~ns will be kept on fil consideration of ~mre vacancies. Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business P~rive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula , COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE! NAME: H?jM.E PHONE: OCCUPATION: (,~/..-.///~/~ _7/,~/_~ YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA: WORK PHONE: EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE: ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service): BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessan/): HA}~ '~C~5,T-/b//~-___~'S J: 4-/ O L--~ b~r~,,_..,/~5~' -' c,, . I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this information for publicity purposes. Return to: CiW i Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 2/formsiC OM-001 ITEM NO. 18 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL CITY MANAGER ~----- r CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department November 12, 1991 Change of Zone 19 John R. Meyer Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. DIRECT staff to establish boundary proposal for Old Town Temecula Historical District expansion, notice all property owners within proposed boundary, and schedule for public hearing by the Council. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: Expand Old Town Historical District Boundary. LOCATION: ' Old Town Historic District, generally located between Murrieta (River Street) Creek and Hwy 15, between 2nd and 6th Streets. EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USES: C-1 C-P M-S R-1 (General Commercial) (Restricted Commercial) (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) (One Family Dwellings) No Change Proposed Commercial Residential Vacant S\STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC 1 DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing for proposed Change of Zone No. 19 on October 7, 1991. Staff had recommended the following boundary expansion: North: to Rancho California Road. South: to First Street/Santiago Road. East: No change West: to include the area within the Murrieta Creek Channel. In their deliberation of the project's merits, and in consideration of public testimony addressing the proposed change of zone, the Commission voted 5-0 recommending approval of Change of Zone 19. The Commission did increase the expansion area as follows: North: to include all four corners of the intersection of Rancho California and Front St. South: to include the lots along the west side of Front Street, south of First St. East: No Change West: to include the lots that front onto the west side of Pujol Street and the lots that front on the north side of Sixth Street (west of Murrieta Creek). The existing and proposed boundaries are shown in Exhibit I. The Commission believed the expanded boundary was necessary to include other historical structures and other areas that could influence the character of old town. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent to closing the Public Hearing for Change of Zone No. 19, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 recommending approval as amended to expand the Old Town Temecula Historical District Boundary. The Staff forwards the Commission's approval recommendation to the City Council for their consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: DIRECT staff to establish boundary proposal for Old Town Temecula Historical District expansion, notice all property owners within proposed boundary, and schedule for public hearing by the Council. Attachments: 1. Boundary Exhibit 2. October 7, 1991, Planning Commission Report 3. October 7, 1991, Planning Commission Minutes S\STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 BOUNDARY EXHIBIT S\STAFFRPT'~I 9-CZ.CC 3 TI[RRA S~NG~-I, C2,AK LEGEND ~ Existing Old Towx', Boundary ~::~ Proposed Old Town Boundary I \ \\ ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT S\STAFFRPT~I 9-CZ.CC 4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 7, 1991 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 19 Prepared By: John R. Meyer Recommendation: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No; 19. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: City of Temecula PROPOSAL: Expand Old Town Historical District Boundary. LOCATION: Old Town Historic District, generally located between Murrietta (River Street) Creek and Hwy 15, between 2nd and 6th Streets. EXISTING ZONING: C-1 (General Commercial) C-P (Restricted Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial) R-1 (One Family Dwellings) PROPOSED ZONING: No Change Proposed EXISTING LAND USES: Commercial Residential Vacant BACKGROUND: On October 11, 1979, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 578 which sets the parameter for establishing Historic Preservation Districts. The Temecula Historic Preservation District (District) was then established by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on October 8, 1980. The Historical District boundary was established to coincide with the historical Temecula city boundary, JRM\MEYERJR\CZ19.M1P PROPOSED BOUNDARY: ANALYSIS: Ordinance No. 578 provided for the establishment of a Local Review Board (Board) to oversee preservation activities and review development proposals within the District. The Board serves in an advisory capacity to the Planning Director, who has the responsibility to issue Certificates of Historical Appropriateness. Although specific design standards for Old Town have not been adopted, general guidelines encourage development to conform to a late 1800's/early 1900's style of architecture and building materials. Development outside the District boundary may have a significant impact on the character of Old Town. With the current boundary configuration, key sites fall outside the jurisdiction of the District. Therefore, the City Council has directed Staff to expand the existing boundary and initiate a process to prepare a specific plan for Old Town. The expansion and subsequent specific plan are intended to strengthen the preservation effort and promote Old Town as a significant community resource. With direction from the City Council, staff recommends the following boundary expansion: North to Rancho California Road. South to First Street/Santiago Road. East - No change West to include the area within the Murrietta Creek Channel. The existing and proposed boundaries are shown in Exhibit I. As mentioned above, development outside the District boundary may have a significant impact on the character of Old Town. The expansion of the Old Town Historic District will provide a more comprehensive review of development proposals that relate to the original Old Town. JRM\MEYERJR~CZ19.M1P 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: The purpose of expanding northerly to Rancho California Road is to create an Old Town gateway statement at a freeway interchange, by providing better signage and identification. It will also allow for review of any major remodels of the existing commercial development. The expansion to the south will provide for a better delineation or "break point" of the district boundary. The Murrietta Creek provides a logical boundary and buffer for Old Town. By including the area within the channel within the District any future improvements within the channel will be subject to the Old Town guidelines· This project has been determined to be a Statutory Exemption per Section 15262 of CEQA. An Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared as part of the specific plan. The subject item is recommended for approval subject to the following findings: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The proposed boundary expansion will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study for this project. There is a reasonable probability that the boundary expansion will be consistent with the future General Plan. The proposed boundary expansion will likely be consistent with the goals, policies and action programs which will be contained in the General Plan when it is ultimately adopted. e The area of the proposed boundary expansion is suitable to accommodate all the land uses currently permitted in the zoning district. JRM\MEYERJR\CZ19 .M1P 3 That said findings are supported by analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 19. Attachments: 1. 2. Resolution Exhibits JRM\MEYEFUR\CZ19.M1P 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES S\STAFFRPT\I 9-CZ.CC 5 PLANNI COMMISSXON MINUTES OCTOBER 7, lggl a opposed the change of zone. He added that he d~d not 'h mixing commercial development with reside tial. JOH~I MO~CO, P.O. Box 906, Temecula, representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association, requested that the Commission d~lay their decision for 30 days to allow the \ homeowners time~t~meet with the applicant and to discuss the CC&R's. ~. Because the applicant ~as not present, CHAIRMAN BOAGLAND suggested postponing the-item to later in the evening. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved~ continue Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 2~9. to 7:30 P.M. to allow for additional testimony, second~by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blai~,Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, ~ NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. EXPAND OLD TOWN HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY Proposal to expand Old Town Historical District Boundary. Located in the Old Town District, generally located between Murrieta Creek, between 2nd and 6th Streets. JOHN MEYER presented the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern that the expansion should not delay the improvements to the Murrieta Creek. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. BILL PERRY, 28677 Front Street, Temecula, stated that his opposition is because he felt that the City was missing the target area and would endorse expansion if the boundaries include Pujol Street, Town Association Center and area south to Hwy 79/Hwy 15. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she agreed with the decision to increase the boundaries and added that she would be willing to consider the boundaries expanded further as suggested by Mr. Perry. TPCMIN10/07/91 -4- 10/08/91 pLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1991 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-[next) recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 19, amending the staff recommendation to expand the historic boundary to extend north to Rancho California Road including all four quadrants of the intersection, west to the backside of the lots that front Pujol, and south along the west side of Front Street, to Hwy 79/Hwy 15, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that the City of Murrieta was requesting that Items 9, 10, 11 & 12 be continued to allow their staff to confer with the City of Temecula staff regarding circulation impacts. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. on Items No. 9, No. 10, No. 11 and No. 12. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stepped down on these items due to a conflict of interest. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Items No. 9, No. 10, No. 11 and No. 12 to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 21, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff CHANGE OF ~ NO. 17 AND FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME VESTING TENTATIVE T~HAP NO. 23125 Proposal to ch%~ge the zoning on 88.4 acres from R-A-2-1/2 to R-1 and R-5;'-~nd subdivide 88.4 acres into 215 single family residential. lots. Located at the northeast corner of DePortola and Bdtterfield Stage Road. TPC ZN10/07/91 ·1 RICHARD AYALA provided'~e staff report. \ \ CHAIRMAN BOAGLAND opened tMX, public hearing at 7:15 P.M. \ -5- ~ 10/08/91 ITEM NO. 19 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY , FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '>~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager r~F, ment of Public Works November 12, 1991 Vertical Grade of Butterfield Stage Road California Road Adjacent to Callaway Winery North of Rancho PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the vertical alignment for Butterfield Stage Road north of Rancho California Road adjacent to Callaway Winery and direct Staff to proceed with processing the second extension of time for vesting Tract Map 23103. BACKGROUND: On April 15, 1991 the City Planning Commission approved First Extension of Time Application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103. The project is located west of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena Way and Rancho California Road. The Extension of Time Application was then heard at the City Council on May 28, 1991 and June 11, 1991. On June 11 th, the City Council approved the First Extension of Time and further directed the Staff to add a condition on the map that prior to recordation of the final map, the City Engineer will approve a final design of Butterfield Stage Road that addresses the negative impact to the wineries with respect to flow of cold air and potential blockage of the flow. Subsequent to June 11, 1991, Staff met with Callaway Wineries, Marlborough Development Company (the developer of TR 23103), Michael Lundin (the developer of TR 23209, north of TR 23103) and engineers representing various parties to establish a street grade alignment that would minimize blockage of cold air flow to Callaway Wineries and be acceptable to the wineries. The street grade alignment was studied from Rancho California Road on the south to approximately 225 ft. south of Calle Chapos on the north. The recommended street grade is no higher than 14 feet above natural grade, at street centerline, adjacent to the winery property. The street grade could not be lowered below this level due to the installation of storm drain and water transmission facilities. The design speed of the roadway was held to a 55 mph minimum on all the vertical curves. Both tract maps have worked out designs of intersecting streets that will work with this recommended alignment. All parties have now -1- pwOl%sgdrpt\lli2\bU'field.vg 110591 agreed to the recommended street grade. A wall-mounted display of the street grade will be provided for the Council at the meeting, The street grade may also be viewed in the City Engineer's Office prior to the meeting at Council convenience. The topic of the necessity for the installation and use of wind machines on the Callaway Winery property was discussed at length. The street grade as proposed may not entirely obviate the need for the winery to provide additional air movement during certain times of the year. Marlborough Development and Michael Lundin have agreed to provide written notices to all potential home buyers that wind machines may be utilized by the wineries as a disclosure at the sale of property. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minute Action of City Council re First Extension of Time - Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23103 2. Letter dated April 11, 1991 from Callaway Vineyard & Winery re Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23101 -2- pwOl\~gdrpt\lll2\btr~eld.vg 110591 MINUTE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCI2L OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DATE: TO: June 14, 1991 Tim Sertet City of Temecula Engineering Department MEETING OF: AGEaNDA ITEM No.: SUBJECT: June 11, 1991 Item 23 First Extension of Time - Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23103 The motion was made by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to approve staff recommendation as follows: 23.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23103, AN 18 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 29.2 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF BUITERYI~LD STAGE ROAD BETWEEN LA SERENA WAY AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923- 210--010; and further directed staff to add a condition that prior to recordation of the final map, the City Engineer will approve a final design of Butterfield Stage Road that addresses the negative impact to the Wineries with respect to flow of cold air and potential blockage of the flow. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Paxks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: i COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall CALLAWAY April 11, 1991 Temecula Planning Department The City of Temecula 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Ref: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23101 Gentlemen: We are the owners adjacent to the property referenced in Tract Map No. 23101. We understand the state of real estate sales and do not have a concern with the extension of the time-frame for this development. However, we have been in contact with the owners of this property regarding the grading they have done on Butterfield Stagecoach Road. In grading the road and elevating it by 40 feet high, has caused pockets of cold air, resulting in frost damage in our vineyards. We will very likely have to install wind machines in the near future'to contend with this problem at a significant cost. To assure that potential buyers are aware of this, we request that the Use Permit be modified to require advising potential buyers of a situation that they may perceive as a nuisance in the future. Further, we request that the Planning Department be cognizant of this problem when evaluating future plans along Butterfield Stagecoach Rd. to avoid increasing this problem in our vineyards. John Moramarco, Senior Vice President JM:ll ITEM NO. 20 APPROVAL CITY A'I'rORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning November 12, 1991 City Western Ridgeline Development Policies and Potential impacts of County Development Project No.: Change of Zone No. 5425, Tentative Tract No. 24308, Amd. No.5. PREPARED BY: Charly Ray RECOMMENDATION: Convey the City's concerns regarding Change of Zone No. 5425/Tentative Tract No. 24308 Amd. No.5 recommending this project be denied by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. APPLICATION INFORMATION BACKGROUND On November 5, 1991, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors continued the Public Hearing for Change of Zone No. 5425 and Tentative Tract Map No. 24308, Amended No. 5. The referenced project requests a change of zone from R-A-20 (Residential-Agricultural-20 acre minimum parcel size) to R-A-5 (Residential-Agricultural-5 acre minimum parcel size) and subdivision of 51.6 acres into 9 residential lots. Specific project data is as follows: LOCATION Northeasterly of Rancho California Road at Rancho California Road and Circle Montecillo. EXISTING LAND USE Vacant Hills. SURROUNDING LAND USE Vacant hills, groves, scattered single family residences. S\STAFFRPT\5425-CZ. CC 1 EXISTING ZONING R-A-20 (Residential-Agricultural-20 acre minimum parcels) SURROUNDING ZONING A-1-20 R-A-20 R-A-5 R-R (Light-Agricultural Uses-20 acre minimum parcel size) (Residential-Agricultural-20 acre minimum parcels) (Residential-Agricultural-5 acre minimum parcels) (Rural-Residential) COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN DATA Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) Land Use: SWAP Density: Mountainous 1DU/10 AC PROJECT LAND DIVISION DATA Total Acreage: 51.6 ACRES Total Lots: 9 DU Per Acre: .17 Proposed Min. Lot Size: 5 acres BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In late October of 1991 City Planning Staff was advised that the project referenced above was scheduled for consideration by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors at their Public Hearing of November 5th, 1991. After opening the Public Hearing and receiving certain public testimony, the Board subsequently closed the hearing, regarding Change of Zone No. 5425 and Tentative Tract Map No. 24308 (Amd. No. 5). City Staff had previously received communications from adjacent property owners expressing their opposition to the Change of Zone and Tentative Map proposed, based on the project's potential visual impacts and possible interference with regional wildlife migratory patterns. In review of the proposed zone change and tentative subdivision, City Staff has similar concerns regarding this project, primarily the visual impacts of ridgeline development proposed, and disturbance of a defined wildlife movement corridor necessary to realize the project as currently designed. Both are considered potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the requested Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map. S\STAFFRPT\5425-CZ. CC 2 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The City finds in the review of this project that it is not compatible with the County's adopted Southwest Area Plan policies, nor is it compatible with existing adjacent development to wit: The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation for the project site is Mountainous-10 acres. The site is in the Western Ridgeline Area as identified by SWAP. Under SWAP, all projects within a half mile of the Western Ridgeline are evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if proposed building sites will have an adverse impact to the Ridgeline as viewed from the Temecula Basin. The prominent location of this project indicates that pad sites proposed will result in construction of houses visible from the Basin. Based on the above, Staff finds the project as designed to be inconsistent with the County SWAP's Western Ridgeline policies. Further, the site is transversed by a Wildlife Movement Corridor identified by SWAP. The Wildlife Corridor runs along Rancho California Road. Proposed street access to the project site crosses the Wildlife Corridor at two points. Disruption of the region's few remaining wildlife migratory corridors such as will result from the project in question leads directly to reduction in viable animal populations, contributing to potential species endangerment. Cm The project site and surrounding properties are characterized by rolling, mountainous, vacant terrain accented by scattered residential homesites. The site is currently zoned R-A-20. Approval of the proposed Change of Zone from R-A-20 and the associated Tentative Map will set precedence for similar development requests, each contributing incrementally to adverse environmental impacts described above. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Approval of proposed Change of Zone No. 5425 and Tentative Tract Map No. 24308 are not in the best interest of the City of Temecula at this time. The map design proposed will result in adverse visual ridgeline impacts, and disruption of regional wildlife migratory patterns, reducing wildlife access to remaining viable habitat areas. Potential environmental impacts of the proposed Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map are considered significant and warrant denial of this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council, endorse and forward the City Planning Department's concerns discussed above; recommending the County Board of Supervisors DENY Change of Zone No. 5425 and Tentative Tract Map No. 24308 Amended No. 5. Attachment Riverside County Staff Report-Change of Zone No. 5425 and Tentative Tract No. 24308 Amd. No. 5 March 12, 1991, City Council Staff Report-Western Ridgeline Policies March 6, 1991, Riverside County Staff Report-Change of Zone 5748, Tentative Tract Map No. 25980 Amd. No. 1 S\STAFFRPT\5425-CZ.CC 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY STAFF REPORT CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5425 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24308 AMD. NO. 5 Zoning Area: Santa Rosa Rancho Supervisorial District: F'n~t E.A. Number: 55669 Regional Team No.: ONE PROj'F, CT PLANNER: SEAN SCULLY CHANGE OF ZONE NO. S42S TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24308 A1MENDED NO. 5 Planning Commk~ion: g-21-91 Continued from: 8-7-91 Agenda Item No.: 2.4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer/Rep.: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 10. 11. 12. Existing Land Use (Exhibit #1): Surrounding Land Use (Exhibit #1): Existing Zoning (Exhibit #2): Surrounding Zoning (Exhibit #2): Comprehensive General Plan: Land Division Dam: Letters (Opposing/Supporting): Sphere of Influence: William & Sharon Watson John Peters & Associates To subdivide 51.6 acres into 9 parcels and change the zoning on said property from R-A-20 to R-A-5. Northeaste~y of Rancho California Rd. at Rancho California Rd. and Circle MonteciIlo. Vacant hills Vacant hills, groves, scattered single family residences. R-A-20 A-l-20, R-A-20, R-A-5 and R-R Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) Land Use: Mountainous Density: 1 DU/10 AC Total Acreage: 51.6 acres Total Lots: 9 DU Per Acre: . 17 Proposed Min. Lot Size: 5 acres None received Not within a city sphere RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33669, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5425 from R-A-20 to R-A-5 in accordance with Exhibit 2, based on the findings and conclusions found in the staff report; and, APPROVAL of TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308, AMENDED NO. 5, based on the findings and conclusions as found in this staff report and subject to the conditions of approval. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5425 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AMENDF~D NO. 5 Staff Report Page 2 FINDINGS: 1. Change of Zone No.5425 and Tentative Tract Map No. 24308, Amended No. 5 are concurrent requests to change the zoning on approximately 51.6 acres from R-A-20 to R-A-5 and subdivide the site into nine residential parcels with a minimum size of five acres. 2. The site is located northeast of Rancho California Road and east of Circle Montecillo in the Santa Rosa Rancho Area. 3. The site is designated Mountainous by the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP). 4. The site is presently vacant hilly land. The majority of the site is in excess of 33% slope. Surrounding land uses include a mix of vacant, groves and scattered single family residences. The areas topography is mountainous. 5. The site is within the Western Ridgeline as delineated by SWAP. 6. Outstanding scenic vistas and visual features, such as the ridgeline west of Interstate 15 shall be preserved and protected. 7. The line of sight analysis has been reviewed and redesign done so that there will be no impact on the Temecula Basin viewshed. 8. The project is tran sversed by a Wildlife Corridor as per the SWAP. This area will only be disturbed as necessary for site access. 9. Environmental concerns included: Fire services, schools, slope, erosion, Mount Palomar, wildlife, vegetation, scenic resources, water services and sewer services. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and the Comprehensive General Plan. 2. The proposed project is compatible with area development. 3. Environmental concerns can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5425 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AMF~NDED NO. 5 Staff Report Page 3 ANALYSIS: Project Description: Change of Zone No. 5425 and Tentative Tract Map No. 24308, Amended No. 5 are requests to change the zone on 51.6 acres from R-A-20 to R-A-5 and to divide the site into 9 lots, with a minimum lot size of 5 acres. The subject site is located northeasterly of Rancho California Road and east of Circle Montecillo in the Santa Rosa Rancho Area. The site is presently undeveloped. The hilly site contains a blueline stream that is fed by run-off from the drainage located on the north-central portion of the property. Surrounding land uses include scattered single family residences, groves and vacant hilly land. Surrounding zoning includes A-l-20, R-A-20, R-A-5 and R-R. General Plan Consistency/Area Compatibility: The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) designation for the project site is Mountainous-10 acres. Five (5) acre parcels are permitted in the Santa Rosa]De Luz area if they are able to provide a minimum of 10,000 square foot pad and meet other grading criteria. The site is in the Western Ridgeline Area as identified by SWAP. Under SWAP all projects within a 1/2 mile of the Western Ridgeline are evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if the building site will have an adverse impact to the ridgeline as viewed from the Temecula Basin. The line of sight profde supplied by the applicant, and the prominent location of the site indicates that all pad sites will have houses not visible in profde from the Temecula Basin. Based on the above Staff finds the project as designated to be consistent with SWAP's Western Ridgeline policies. The site is transversed by a Wildlife Corridor as identified by SWAP. The Wildlife Corridor runs along Rancho California Road and the proposed street access to the project crosses the Wildlife Corridor twice. Access is the minimum necessary for public safety. The project site is hilly and vacant. Surrounding land uses are vacant hilly parcels, groves, and scattered single family residential. The site is currently zoned R-A-20. Surrounding zoning includes A-l-20, R-A-20, R-A-5 and R-R. SS:jg 7-29-91 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5425 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AMF~NDED NO. 5 Staff Report Page 4 FURTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: AUGUST 21.1991 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5425 and TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24308, AMENDED NO. 5 were continued from the August 8, 1991 Planning Commission in order to further clarify and if necessary re. solve the issue dealing with the Western Ridgeline policy as specified in SWAP. To date the applicant has completed and submitted for review a detailed "Line Of Site Analysis". Planning Staff has reviewed this analysis and has determined it to be adequate. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No.1 33669, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5425 and TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308, AMENDED NO. 5. , ~'EI El VAC WID Y V IB SCAT ED S GR VAC NURSERY 9. kl~C~O C.4 L l?O.qN/,l V A C it ILLS V ~ ,.0,0,, ,,, ,-,t~',;:, ",.. ,,o. "";; ~;;,,,, -""" '~'"" '"" ""'"'"~"' """'"" "' A 1 V 'CALiFO R 1" " 640' CZ5425TR24308 / "',"~ PROPOSED ZONING s,,. 33 TTSR3W )s~t;~::., 935-38 Zo.e ~ SANTA ROSA RANCHO IsT",;tsT D Thomas 125A-2ID"~' 06/19/91 ~gr~.wn PL,CJR Bros, P.q. Drawn y. RIVERS I DE COUNTY PLANN I NG DEPARTMENT LOCATION,N, 10 AC ERAL L TN C4LIPORNi4 MTN lo AC - 640' 'CZ5~,25TR24.308 COMMUNITY PLAN s,,. 33 TTSR3W !~ks;(Ps~s;rs 935-38 A 2 06re PL. CJR Thom6l 125 ' ~O~esn 06/19/91 P Eros. R t VER$ I DE COUNTY PLANN t NG DEPARTMENT LOCATIONAt, MAP .q ~i . RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24308 AMENDED NO. $ STANDARD CONDrrlONS The following conditions of approval are for TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24308, AMF-NDED NO. ~. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24308, AMENDED NO. 5, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code, Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. s This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance No. 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 No. 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance No. 457 and as may be additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AlV[1;'-NDED NO. S Staff Report Page 2 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of County maintained road right-of-way. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the f'mal map. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Transportation Department's letter dated 6-6-91, a copy of which is attached. Legal access as required by Ordinance No. 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 Transportation Director. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Transportation Director. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 5-7-91, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 5-15-91, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance No. 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 5-16-91, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Department of Building and Safety: Land Use Section's transmittal dated 5-10-91, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Department of Building and Safety: Grading Section's transmittal dated 5-13-91, a copy of which is attached. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AMENDED NO. 5 Staff Report Page 3 19. 20. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Geologist's transmittal dated 7-27-91, a copy of which is attached. 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. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 21. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 5 acres gross. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance No. 460. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-A zone. de All houses shall be single story (20 feet max.) unless it can be demonstrated with a line of sight profile that the house will not be visible in profile from the Temecula Basin. All houses shall be earthtoned and shall blend into the natural features of the site. No whites or pastels are permitted. No obtrusive roofing materials/colors shall be used. ee All cut and fill slopes shall be landscaped with native species that are drought tolerant, fire resistant and habitat providing. f. Graded but undeveloped land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. 22. Prior to the RECORDATION of the final map, the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Transportation and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County Flood Control County Health Department County Planning Department TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AMENDED NO. S Staff Report Page 4 23. 24. bo Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5425, shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. Prior to the recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet CECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently fled 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: 'County Biological Report No. 799 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: Wildlife Corridor." The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: 'No permits allowing any surface alterations shall be allowed in the Wildlife Corridor constraint area without further investigation and/or mitigation as directed by the Riverside County Planning Department. No fencing which obstructs wildlife movement is allowed.' Wildlife Corridor shall be mapped in accordance with Exhibit A. Grading and construction is restricted by Western Ridgeline Policies and conditions of approval. No structure may be visible in profile from the Temecula Basin. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: as All approved grading and building plans for parcel 4 shall reflect the utilization of post and beam foundations or the appropriate combination of split-level pads and post and beam foundations. b® All approved grading and/or building plans for all proposed new structures shall be limited to the areas shown on the approved tentative map, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AMF~NDED NO. S Staff Report Page S If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of the tentative map grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: 1) Techniques which will be u~ to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. Grading plans shall conform to Board-adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benthing) plan, increase slope ratio (i.e., 3: 1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceed ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: 1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. 4) Where cut and/or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AM~NDED NO. 5 Staff Report Page 6 25. 26. 27. 28. Grading permits shall not be issued for Parcels 3 through 6 unless building plans are in plan check. Natural features such as water courses, specimen trees, and significant rock outcrops shall be protected in the siting of individual building pads on final grading plans. All grading for manufactured pads shall be limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet for each lot/parcel. Graded areas shall be revegetated (or landscaped) with California native tree and plant species that are habitat-providing, fire retardant, drought tolerant, erosion- controlling, common to the area. Native trees shall be required to be transplanted as part of this property revegetation plans. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a line of sight profile for each parcel shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The profile shall demonstrate that the proposed structure will not project above the ridgeline as viewed from the Temecula Basin. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, grading plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and its approval. This is a CEQA monitoring condition required to demonsWare compliance with applicable grading conditions. The project proponent shall notify the Riverside County Planning Department in writing that the appropriate California Fish and Game notification pursuant to Section s 160 1/1603 of the California Fish and Game Code has taken place, or obtain an 'Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration~ (Section 1601/1603 Permit~) should the proposed project result in any development within or alongside the banks of the onsite natural watercourse. The project proponent shall notify the Riverside County Planning Department in writing that the alteration of the onsite drainage course complies with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit conditions, or obtain a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act should the proposed project result in any development within or alongside the banks of the onsite natural watercourse. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: The applicant shall demonstrate the building plans are in compliance with Conditions 21d, 24a and 24k. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24308 AMENDED NO. 5 Staff Report Page 7 29. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a certified landscape architect shall verify in writing compliance with Conditions 21e and 24j. FISH AND GAME CONDITION 30. In accordance with section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, the applicant/subdivider is obligated to pay a filing fee to defray costs .incurred by the Department of Fish and Game in managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. The applicant/ subdivider is also obligated to pay a documentary handling fee to defray costs incurred by the County of Riverside in implementing the Department of Fish and Game f~ing fee program. The filing fee is $1,250.00 for a project for which a negative declaration has been prepared and $850.00 for a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared. The documentary handling fee is $25.00 in all cases. These fees shall be paid to the County Clerk of the County of Riverside at the time of filing a notice of determination pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. If these fees are not paid, the project in question shall not be operative, vested or final. Accordinqly. until the fees are paid. no subsequent approvals will be I~iven. no subsequent permits will be issued and the property involved may not be used in the manner approved. SS:jg 7/31/91 1Z:5-=' Iq,Z.'DO1 P.02 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FRANKLIN R SHERKOW June 6, 1991 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Tentative Tract Map 24308- Amen~ #5 - Schedule D - Tee 1 SMD t9 - Parcel I of PM 18254 Ladies and Gentlemerit with respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Transportation Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvements, street ' plans and/or road Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurrin in ON~ is as binding as though occurring in all. A/1 questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Development Review Division Engineer's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage FatS.ms, i.e., concentration of diverzion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as followsl "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachmanSe by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Transportation DeNmrtment. e The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or throdgh the site. In the event the Planning and Development Review Division Engineer permits the use of streets for drainage purSoees, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 w~ll apply.' Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Transportation Department. - kjF'ERTIE'~: TE:.':-i-Tla-9:5:2-29S9 Jun ...':,! 17. :5, r.l,.~ .001 P .03 Tentative Tract Map 24308 - Amend June 6, 1991 - Page 2 Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Transportation Department. 4. Fagle Nest Road shall be improved with 24 feet of Class 3, A gregate Base (0.33' thick) on a 40 foot graded section w~thin a 60 foot full width dedicated-right~ol-way. Improvement plans'shall be b~sed' upon a design profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Planning and Development Review Division Engineer. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. 6.' Lot access' shall be restricted on Rancho California Road end so noted on ~he final map. Prior to the recordation of the final map, or the granting of a waiver of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Transportation Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. 8. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any subdivision which is part of an existin Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said Section. A vacation of restricted access rights along Rancho California Road (as shown on PM 116/69-78) ~O provide for two street connections ~s shown on the exhibit is required. Should any of said vacation be ~enied by the Board of Supervisors, this project shall Be submitted for redssign. Sincere~ ~~ Ehner F. Baumgarten Development Review Engineer EBxEMxlg County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TI: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLANNING DEPT. DATE: ATTN: Sean Scully FDDM: ~~MA~'~ronmental Health Specialist IV TRACT MAP NO. 24308, AMENDED N0.5 05-10-91 Environmental Health Servxces has reviewed Tract Map No. 24308. Amended No. 5, dated 05-09-91. Our current comments w~ll remain as stated in our letter d~ted 05-07-91. SM:dr MAY 13 1991 RIVERSIDlE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4065 COUNTY CIRCLE DR. RIVERSIDE. CA. 92503 (MailSriO Address - P.O. Box 7600 92513-7600) FACS # C714) 358-4529 p,y e 't991 RIverside County Planning Dept. 4080 Lemon $treet, 9th Floor Rlverslde. CA 925C2 ATTN: Randv WIlson: Ri'-JERSIBE COUNTY pLANNtNG DEPARTMENT RE: TRACT MAP NO. 24308: PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 18254, AS SHOWN IN PARCEL MAP BOOK 116, PAGES 69 THROUGH 78., RECORDS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA. (8 LOTS) gentlemen: As this is a CI~'== E' suk, dlvls!cn under the determlnatz:.n :f C, rd;nance 4~?.28, no water system ;s required. There ~lll be a requirement that the foilz, wlnG statement be stamr, ed on the re:or~e~ mad ~n q'.~aiter inch high letters: NO WATER SYSTEM IS PROVIDED FOR THIS LAND DIVISION AS OF THE DATE OF RECORDATION OF THIS MAP. If a water s-!stem sh~Duld be installed. it shall be ~nstalleJ accc.-d~nc to plans and speclflca~Ions as a~,prcved by the water cc. mpanv and the Health [!e~,artment. F'ermanent orlnts cf the plans of the water system shall be submitted triplicate. w~th a minimum scale not less than one Inch ecuals 200 feet, along wlth the ori,~nal drawin,J, to the '"- The prints shall sho~ the 2nt=rnai ,.,.:u~tv Surveyor. - - d~ar. eter. location of valves and f~re hydrants; p~r,e .D:Int specif~catlons, and the size of the m~in ~L the .~unct:on of t~,e new system tc the existing system. The Dlan~ shall comply ~n all respects with Dzv. 5, F'art 1, Cha:,ter 7 of the Callfornla Health and Safety Code. California Admlnzstrat~ve Code, Title 17. Chapter 59, and General Order No. 103 of the F'ubl~c Utilities Comm~sslon of the State of California. when applzcab/e. This Department wzll permit domestic sewage d~spesal from the zndzvzdual lots at this subdivision as per a percolatzcn report subm=tted by Leighton &Assoczates. dated 05-01-91, as follows: For each 100 gallons of septic tank capacity, 120 sq. ft. of bottom area of leach l;ne only. >:ve~!nie ~_.:t~n~~ Fl~inin~ D~Dt: Pace Two Attn: Randv Wilson May 7. 1991 When grading is required, the soils engineer must assume theoretical cuts. fills, compaction. etc., and perform the tests and borin~s at the necessary subsurface sewage disposal system depths. E[A. Qr_..~ ~n.Z_gr~d~_r~,. the soils engineer must provide a oradino plan for review and approval which shall include and address the following: The proposed cuts and/or fills in the areas of subsurface sewage disposal system. The se~zaoe system and it's 100% exDansion area. placed in natural undisturbed soil. The elevation of the individual buildin~ pads in reference to the elevation cf the disposal system. On those pro}ects where the oradin~ plans are prepared by other t~an the person ~.reoarin~ the soils feaslbilitv reD,Drt, a Statement must be included cn the grading plan submitted for review and approval with the soils encineer's sicnature and seal as to the aDpropriateness of the gradino with reJard to the conclusions and recommendations set forth in the soils enoineer s feasibility report. If the final grading exceeds the soils englneer's estimate by more than t~zo feet, additional reports may be required· At the c~mpletion of final oradino, cr prior to any construction. the soils encineer of record shall revie~ all subsurface sewaoe disposal data to include previous soils feasibility reports and confirm with his signature and seal on the final grading plan. that the previous design parameter~ have been adhered to and that the subsurface sewage disposal systems recommendations remain valid with regard to prevlou~ requirement details for each sewage disposal system. Riverside County Planning Dept. Fage Three Attn: Handy Wxl~on May 7, !991 A copy of the final grading olan, on a scale not smaller than 1=40, maximum with detailed subsurface sewaoe disposal data to include 100% expansion. shall be submitted for review and approval. Sincerely, :_-*.M:dr ironmental Health Specialist IV KENNETH L. EDWARDS CHIEF ENGINEER t995 MARKET STREET P 0 BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (7i4) 275-1200 FAX NO (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. I Re: MAY 17 i991 We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construction should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural watercourses 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." /~vl~,txEll~ ~JAu. Exf This project is in the/~rt~at'l~ew C.tEt'I~, ~TE~Eco~¢~ X/Au~-;y Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accoroa~ce with the applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's reDoft dated project. is still current for this The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of . The project will be free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements have been constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. ryXtruly yo enior Civil Engineer GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: SEAN SCULLY RE: Tract 24508 - Amended #5 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above refer- enced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "D" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2 1/2") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 660 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 550 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 500 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. 2. Applicant/Developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. ~] INDIO OFFICE 79-733 Coum~ Cl..k Drive. Suk~ F,/~Jio. CA 92201 (619) 34 e2-.S~ · FAX (619) ?75-2072 PLANNING DIVISION ~ RIVeSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Sm~ RivaskJ~ CA 92501 (714) 275-4777, FAX (714) 369-7451 t] ~ OFFICE 41002 Count,/Center Driw., Sui~ 225, Temea~s, CA 92390 (714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076 (~ printed on recycled IMper ., ~ ::.'.: ,:.~,: Re: TR 24308 Page 2 HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA 4. The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any building construct ed on lots created by this land division shall comply with the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance 546. 5. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in Section 5203 of the Uni form Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Depart- ment prior to installation. MITIGATION 6. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. 7. Blue retroreflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. MEANS OF ACCESS 8. Driveways exceeding 150' feet in length, but less than 800' feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400' feet apart. 800' TURNOUTS shall be a minimum of 10' feet wide and 50' feet in length, with a minimum 25' feet taper on each end. A 45' foot TURNAROUND shall be provided at all sites on driveways over 150 feet in length, and within 50 feet of the building. building shall be Re= TR 2450B Page Access Hill not have an up, or downgrade of more than 15%. Access Hill no~ be less than 16 feet in width and will have a vertical clearance of 15 feet. Access mill be free off sharp confined turns. Access will be designed to withstand the Height of any type of emergency vehicle. Access will have a turning radius of 45 feet capable of accommodating fire apparatus. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall ferred to the Riverside County Fire Department Planning staff. be re- Division DW:ml RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Daniel Wagner, Fire Safety Specialist Department of Building and Safety Q A¢lmimst~etive Oefiol 17'T/Altm'~ta Ave., Ste G-5 River,J~e, CA 92507 QT0 N. Sm't Gorgonio Ave. Bafintng, CA 92220 {:~1370 S. State Stt~ S~n J~imo, CA 92383 Thomas H. Ingram, Director REFER REPLY TO ~]'79733 Coun~f Clut} Suite C Betmud~ Dunes. CA 92201 {:2~160 N. BrolO'wly BI~, CA 92225 (2~170 W'dkerlon Perrts. CA 92370 (2~26111 Ynez Rold Suite 120. Bldg, A Te~qecute. CA 92390 Q4080 Lemon SUet 2rid FIoo~ Rivers~le, CA g2501 TO: DATE: RE: PLANNING / SEAN SCULLY May 13, 1991 TR 24308 AMENDMENT ~ 5 The "Grading Division" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Division" recommends approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety department. All grading shall conform to the Uniform Building Code, Ordinance 457, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in Riverside County. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner sha]" obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building a~ Safety Department. Plant and irrigate all slopes greater than or equal to 3 'in vertical height with grass or ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15'in vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per county ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Landscape plans are to be signed and bonded per the requirements of ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security to be posted with the Building and Safety department. In instances where a grading plan involves import or export, prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Building and Safety department. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate 100 year storm flows. A slope stability report shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for all proposed cut or fill slopes steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or over 30 feet in vertical height. pnnteo~ Ott recycled paW (~ TO: DATE: RE: 'PLANNING / SEAN SCULLY May 13, 1991 TR 24308 AMENDMENT # 5 PAGE 2 OF 2 NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86, and 284-46. These forms are available at the Building and Safety Department offices. Thank you. Respectfully, Department of Building and Safety [~Admlnistrltiv~ Office 1777 Atllnta M, Ste G-5 RNerside, CA 92507 E]135 N Alelllndm Room 203 Blnnmg, CA 92220 E31370 S Strte~ S~n Jlcinto, CA 92383 REFER REPLY TO [] 79733 Country ClUb Dr. Suite C Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 i'~26111 Ynez Roid Sune 120. Bldg. A Temecui~,. CA 92390 C"'] 160 N Broadway 81ylhe, CA 92225 '34080 Lemon Street 2rid Floor RN~ri~de. CA 92501 ]170 Wilkerson Street Pems, CA 92370 Thomas H. Ingrain, Director Nay 10, 1991 Riverside County Plauuln8 Department Attention: Sean Scully County Administration Center 4080 Lemou Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Tract 24308, Amended #5. Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval and building permits for all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. Clearance required from Santa Rosa Community Services District prior to grading/building permit issuance. Sincerely, Becky Brew gton Use T/ BB:kd . - I July 27, 1990 INTER-CIEImAR'rMENTAL. I,.EI'TER COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PI.A~tNIrtG DEPARTMENT TO: Randy Wilson - Team 1 FROM: Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist RE: Tentative Tract 24308 Slope Stability Report No. 219 The following reports have been reviewed relative to slope stability at the subject site: 1} "Slope Stability Analysis, Rancho California Road, Rancho California, CA", by Academy Soils Engineering, dated January.24,' 1990. 2) "Revised Slope Stability Analysis, Rancho California Road and Santa Rosa Boundary, Parcel Map 24308 and Parcel Map 24831, Rancho California, CA," by Academy Soils Engineering, dated May 22, 1990. 3) Response to County of Riverside Planning Department review, by Academy Soils Engineering, dated July 5, 1990. These reports determined that: 1. The project is underlain by slightly metamorphosed siltstone and sandstone of the Bedford Canyon formation. 2. The metasedimentary rock is grossly competent for slopes with the exception of possible zones of platy bedding at an adverse angle to the slope. Stability. analysis for fill slopes up to a height of 150 feet at a gradient of 2:1 indicates that the proposed slopes have a factor of safety in excess of 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and pseudo-static cases, respectively. 4. Fill slopes constructed with on-site materials at 2:1 inclination will not be stable against shallow surficial failure under saturated conditions. These reports recommended that: 1. Geologic hazard inspections during and after site grading shall be performed to verify geologic conditions. Subdrain systems shall be installed in approved ground. Subdrains shall be surveyed for line and grade after installation and prior to commencement of filling over the subdrain. Slope Stability Report No. 219 Page 2 The outer 12 feet {minimum) of the fill slope face shall be composed of cohesive soils. Soils containing significant amounts of plastic fines {more than 50% by weight silt and clay} are defined as cohesive soils. Cohesive soils could be selected either from on-site alluvial and colluvial materials or import. Selected soils shall be tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant during grading to verify their suitability. The upper 12 feet of the fill slope shall be compacted to a minimum of 93 percent of the maximum density. Fill slopes shall be constructed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications, attached in the revised report dated May 22, 1990. 6. Surface drainage shall be directed away from slopes. 7. Slopes shall be covered with a jute cloth or erosion control device prior to planting. 8. Slope planting shall consist of deep rooted vegetation requiring little watering. This report satisfies the General Plan requirement report. The recommendations made in this report shall be design and construction of this project. for a slope stability adhered to in the SAK:al August 7, 1991 Staff Riverside County Planning O~L.~assion Riverside, Ca 92501-3657 I an opposed to the change of Zone #5425 with Tract Map # 24308, EA 33669 Frcm R-A-20 to R-A-5. I think the "Ridgeline" & Wild Life Corridor on our over- lying foothills should be left Natural and undisturbed. The Southwest Area Plan calls for a minimum 10 acres if the ground were flat. The existing ground at the proposed site is greater than 25%. The developer had to use two tractors, one to b~)ld the other, while digging their septic systens o The access to the proposed site is not very logical. It appears to be very dangerous. There has been two accidents within the past year at a similar driveway access to R. C. Road. The proposed access is more dangerous because it is closer to the top of the hill and more on a curve. There have been n~m~_rcus projects abandoned on the West Side by over-zealous developers who have run out of funds. They are unaware of the hefty costs of over-excavating this rocky page 2. terrain. As a result, many unfin~ ~hea_ projects litter the West side. The proposed Zone Change #5425, would result in MAJOR excavation for hcmesites, causir~ errosion problens because they ~mld be located right on top of Ridgeline. The excavation would also create unsightly rock-slides, and also DramaticA to the silhouette of the skyline. There are no trees to hide such a project. There is one brine that sits on top of a ridge further west of proposed site. It can be seen for miles! Inmagine n~lt- iplying this by nine, on the foremost ridge overlooking the Temecula Valley ara you may get scme idea of my concerns for such a Zone Chan~e. These h~mes will be perched along the Ridge like clay-ducks at the f~rground Shooting Gallery. As a concerned citizen, and I am sure there are many others, but they are not aware yet, of this proposed change, I urge S~ff to scrutinize this, by accepting an invitation to cc~e out to the site for a truer picture. Sincerely, Eion McDowell 426QQ Pradera Way Temecula, Ca 92590 676-4478 C RiVE:i3iDE count.u PLAnninG DEPARCl;EnC APPLICATION FOR LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ilKCHANGE OF ZONE NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PARCEL MAP NO. PLOT PLAN NO. DATE: 5-" [] Pu. ,c use PER.,T NO. [] TRACT MAP NO. [] TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. [] VARIANCE NO. 24, 1989 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. APP ~,ANT INFORMATION William C. Watson 1. Applicanrs Name: ._ Ma:lingAddres$: 1994 North Euclid Ave. Upland, CA Telephone No.: [ . 714.. ) _(8 a.m.- 5 p,m,) 2. Owners Name: Same as Above Mailing AddresS: Telephone No.: ( ) _(8 a.m,- 5 p,m.) Diversified Engineering 3. Representative: MadingAddresS: 27715 3efferson Ave. Temecula, CA 'E~T'REET 'CITY "S'T~f'E Telephone No.: ( 714 ) ___6_7_et56,8_zL__(aa.m.-5p.m.) 91786 92390 NOTE: If more than one Oarson is involved in the Ownership Of the property being developed a separate page must Oe attached to this application which lists the names and addresses of all persons having an interest m the ownersrap Of the properly. B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Purpose of Request (describe project): (Ordinance 348 ref. no.) Subdivide +- 47.0 Acres vith change 2. Related cases filed in conjunction wdh this request: Tract Map R R N C. PROPE TYINFO MATIO 1, Assessors Parcel No(s), 935-380-002 2, General location (street address, etc,) Rancho California Road of zone Thomas Bros. Page & coord. 125:A-2 3. Section Township 8 South Range 3 West__ 5. Par 1 PM 116/69-78 6. Thomas Brothers Page No. and Coordinates: SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT Authority for this application is hereby given: SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERrS} ApproximateGrossAcreage: 47.0 Acres Net Legal description (give exact legal description as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder). May be attached. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 1619~ 342-8277 REQUIRED PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION INFORMATION APPLICATIONS FOR: PARCEL MAPS TRACTS ZONE CHANGES CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PUBLIC USE PERMITS WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM 18.30 PLOT PLANc Requiring Enwronmental ASSessmPnt~ (~.qulhfamdy. COrnmerc~al. Inalustn~l! VARIANCES TEMPORARY U,~-' PERMITS The following items wdl be reciuffed at the hme of filing of the above noted case 1.. T',NO ~dentical Oackages to be inserted in selmarate 9'/~" X 12 !,~" manila envelopr - T · ,>.~ envelopes shall indicate the Case number and the word 'labels." and shatl contmn the tollowing: a. One typed set of gummed labels indicating all the property Owners'names .:n:: oh., ma,hng addresses that are wdh~n a 300-lOot tadsue of the exterior ol theer proposed I:)roiect (this list sh~i; t-,,~ ."'.certamed from the lasl eduahzed assessment roll.) b. A photocopy ot the aforementioned labels. c. One label for the applicant/engineer. d. One label for the owner. e, FOR LAND DIVISION CASES ON LY: An 8'/~" x 11 ,, reduction of the tentat,., maD. 2 Four typed sets of gummed labels of the applicant. owner. engineer .and representa h de wdh ti~eir reading addresses. Do not include duplicate sets where aOphcant and owner,etc.are the same. These should hP inserted m a letter.sized envelope and sta~Dled to the outside of one o~ the large manila envelol~es mentioned ~n item 1 at>dye. 3. Cer1~cati~nbythetit~ec~mp~ny.eng~neer~rsu~ey~rthattheab~ve~ist~sc~mpieteandaccurate TheTaxAssessor'sOthce w,II nol prepare Or cen,fy the properly owner list (see cerhficahon form below). 4, On acopyofyourexhibitortentahve map show all parcelswithin 300feet. On the mal3.pnnt th~ names of aH proper~yowners wsthin 300feet as they are listed on the gummed labels. The alcove holed information may be obtained by Contacting a bile insurance Comp;~nv ,n the Riverside County PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION {Pr,nl Namel ., the attached property Owner~ list was prepared by pursuant to application requirements furnished by the Riverside County Planning Department. Said lisl es a complete and true compdahon ot owner ol the subject property and all other property owners within 300 lePt of the property revolved zn the aophca. tion and ~s based ul:x}n the latest equalized assessment rolls. I further certify that the information filed is true and Correct to the best ol my knowledge: l understand that incorrect or erroneou~ informabort may De grounds fOr rejection Or dema. I of the application. SIGNATURE: ~/'~-~ ...... OATE: ~'~ _ CASE: ,---- CA,~L """ ,S'IAFF U:S~ ONLY ENWRONRWENTAL INFORMATION FORM Plea,.e COIhpl~lr~ Part'- I and II ol tins form end provide ~ ol In~ addmon~l mulenal~ requested sn Pan IlL Fadur~ ~o do ~ may ~o~y t~e rowew an~ p~85~ ol your proi~ct. It you bee u~ubl~ [o l)rov~e th~ mlormahon, or you rlee~ tree to conloot lhu Planning Departmenl at ~714) 7U7-6418. PART I: General Information 1. What i~ In¢ lutal Acreage involved? ..... ~. ~. ~C_ ~ ..................... 2. Is there a pfcwOus appl~llon hind IOr the ~ittc ~ll~.? YES l:l NO ~ II "Yo~' prowde C~se Number. Also prOvld~ Ih~ Enwronn~dnldl A~seSSmcnl Number. if known. and Environm~nl~l hn~Ct Re~rl Number. d apph~Ole. CASE NO .................... (Parcel M.p, Zone Chdng=. elc ) ~ NO ....................... II KnOwn), EIR NO .......... (If apphc~l=) Addshonal c~m~nt$ you may wi~h to supply regarding your pKOleCL (AllaCh an addihOnal in=el d neces~ry.) PART II: Environmental Questionnaire 1. Is Ir,¢ proidol w~thin an Atqui~t-Pholo Spc~c$,zl 5Iud~u.~ Zone? YES El NO.~ To determine il your prol=ct is I~tled in a Sp~csdl $lud~es Zone. contact the Public Info(m~hon Scchon. or reler to Special Study Zone~ Maps available al lh~ Pubhc Inlormat~on Counter ol the Planning Dep~rtmenL If th. zone, refer to Ordinance 547.1. or d~scu~s the 5~tudtiQn with me County Geologist. II a I~ull n~za~d r~pod i~ nec~s~a~, complete t~¢ i$1v~l$~llOn prior to ~ubmitllng your apphCahOn and t)~owd~ ~ ~opl~ OI the report wllr~ this form. If a waiver or lhe requir~merns $~ gr~nt~ uuom,I 3 copy of the waiver w,m ross form. 2. li Ifi~ prol~cl I~al~d wllfisn a h~zard ~n~g~nl¢nl zon~ ol hqudaClion ~rca ~ Shown OR maps Ot r~nl T~chn~l R~po~"? YES Q NO~ To d~l~rmm~ ~1 your prol¢ct is ~u~Nct Io lh¢ gcolo,j~c (Id~dl'd~ holed abOv~ yOU ShOuid Con~ull [h~ Elumenl T~hnic~l Rc~rr' which is av~iidbie at II1~ Pubhc Inlolnlahon Counl~r ol Ihe Planning II lhe answer 1o qu¢~hon ~2 i~ "Ye~" contact ~l~u ~pprop~te G~oge~pnic Planning Team Section to dl~cu~ ~pprol)rial~ ~iSUrC tO ilunl~llz~ the hazard. Incorporate ally mmyation nnuasur~ i~lo tr,~ project ~i~ll pnor Io ~ubfl ulhl ,~ t~e a~phc~- t~n Or en~lCate m Ih~ space providc~ below the r¢~uit~ ol yOu~ O,~cu~siOn~ wdh the Planning Team. 3. I1 your p, Ol~cl i~ ,n Ine ~es~ area, 15 it wslhm ~ bl~v.~dnd h.:~d ~r~a? YES t'J NOX T~= Planning Ollice~ in Ind~o an~ Riverside wdi p~ovl~c yuu with mlOi mahOn concermng ~low;~nd h~z.~d=.Ycu m~.,. w~b~ tO contact lhe U.S. Soil Con~ar~ahon Service. I1 your project is ~u~Jcct to ~lowsa~d h~zaro~ ~ubmd ~ ~lOw~.nd Cunllul pldn wd~ t~ apphcalion. (.ALso ~l~r lu ~cchon 14 1 ~ Ordinance 460. ~1 your prol~ct is a ~arcel rn~p or ~ub~=vi~eon). 4. Is water ~e~c~ avui~ble il the OrOiecl site? YESX NO L'I I1 'NO." how Idr must the wafer lin~} ~ extended Io ~row~ Number ol I=~t or mdes .............................. . Further 5. Is sewer sexysee availabl= at the sire? YES t:~ NO.~ II -No," how lar must Ihe water line(s) be extended to provIde ser'v,ce? Numb=r or leer or miles b,.p.~.t"~o)(, ........ .'~ . 1/_2,,. _.F~_. t L,E' ....................... 6. Ac~j,lion-',a Comment&: PART Ill: Additional Materials The following items mu~l be Submstted with thi~, form: 1. At least three (3} panoramic pholo42raphs (color pqint.~) ol the project site, or an aerial photo of the s~te. If color pnoto43rapht; ire utilize:d, include a map idenhlying: · . The ¢x)51tion from which each I~totograph was t~.kun b Tht= area ol Coverage of each pholograpn 2. A clear phOtOcopy (XerOx Or sintil:.r copy) ol the appropri;,te porhon ol the U.S. G~olo~Jical Survey quadfanOle map. edhng the boundunes ol the plult..cI sde. Also note the Idle ol thv map. I Curhly th.l I hdvt: mve~hg;,lud the qljt~.tlon5 in Pall:~ I ~nd II -',nd the ahswcrs alu true and cOrluct to thu L~:':I ul n,y OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE THIS MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY ADlVl]NISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 LEMON STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 loseph A. Richards, Planning Director A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the application(s) described below. The Planning Department has tentatively found that the proposed project(s) will have no significant environmental effect and has tentatively completed negative declaration(s). The Planning Commission will consider whether or not to adopt the negative declaration along with the proposed projec~ at this hearing. Place of Hearing: Board Room, 14th Floor, 4080 Letnon Street, Riverside, CA Date of Hearing: WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 7. 1991 The time of hearing is indicated with each application listed below. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Department before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the adoption of the negative declaration and/or approval of this project at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. BE ADVISED that as a result of public hearings and comment, the Planning Commission may amend, in whole or in part, any proposed amendment and/or the environmental documents associated therewith. Accordingly, any General Plan designations of any properties within the boundaries of the proposed amendment may be changed in a way other than specifically proposed. The environmental finding along with the proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter of the Planning Department Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. CHANGE OF ZONE 5425 WITH TRACT MAP NO. 24308, EA 33669, is an application submitted by William C. Watson for property located in the Santa Rosa Rancho Area and First Supervisorial District and generally described as NEIy of Rancho California Rd to amend Ordinance No. 348, Riverside County Land Use Ordinance. Said amendment would change zone R-A-20 to R-A-5, etc., or other such zones as the Planning Commission may find appropriate for a division of 46.91 acres into 9 lots. (SS) TIMF. OF HEARING: 1:30 P.M. George M, Coladonato 4965 Pola Ct,. San Diego CA 92110 No 50 Center City Assoc F',O, Box !142 Escortdido CA 92025 Frank J Muratore Inc 710 Herbert Blvd. Williamstown NJ. 8094 William C- Watson .1994 N, Euclid Ave, Upland CA 91788 Rancho Calif Dev Co 51560 F'io Pico Temecula CA 92590 Rancho Calif Dev Co 5160 Pio Pico Rd, Temecula CA 92590 Philio T. See 805 Ranch Dr. Lono Beach CA 90815 Rancon Business Center Rancho Cal ~' 27720 Jefferson Ave. Temecula CA ?2590 PCH Ruby Inc 51,~, Avenida Del Reposo Temecu!a CA 92590 Eion McDowell 8501Crista F'~lma Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92646 Somboon Larlarb 271 Avocado P1. Camarillo CA 95010 Taro Kurata 8115 Rosevelt Ave. Midway City CA 92655 Terry L. Gibson 427g0 Calle Monticello Temecula CA 92590 Frank J 19uratore Inc 710 Herbert Blvd. Williamstown NJ 8094 : :VER3iDE COUntY, iq.&nnirl6 DEPa RClTIEnC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: ~ ~ ~ ( 1 MODULE NUMBER(s): I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size and uses as applicable): el, ? Io e. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES 'z/4- c~ } ,~*"/, ~' ;or SQUARE FEET C. ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO.(S): ~ '~5' ' ~Ob"' ~ O"~ ~ D. EXISTING ZONING: E. PROPOSED ZONING: F. STREET REFERENCES: IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? Ge He II. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly. [] All or pad of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," 'REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community POlicy Areas". Complete Sections III, N (B and C only), V and VI. [] All or part of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV (A, B and D only), V and VI. NI or pro1 of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned above. Complete ,~9cttons III, N (k B, and E only), V and VI. t',?+/,~ ( :' .4~ ?} / '111. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT A. Indicate the nature of the proposed land use as determined from the descriptions M found in Comprehensive General Ran Figure VL3 (Circle One). This information is necesiary to determine bhe appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section III.B. NA- Not ,.~,~., ~k~ b..t~ NO.~-.~h Ri.k ~"o-~-,ow ~ B. Indicate with a yes p0 or no (N) whether any environmental h~s=-'rd told/or resource issues may significantly affect or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures ere contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any issue marked yes (Y) write additional data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact and any mitigation measures under Section V. Also, where indicated, circle the appropriate land use suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page). HAZARDS 6.~/ 7-~/ 1 ~ AJquist-Prioto Special Studies or County Fault 12. Hazard Zones (Fig. %/1.1) NA PS U R (Fig. %/I.3) Liquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. %/I.1) 13. NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.4) Groundshaking Zone (Fig VI.1) '14. NA S PS U R (Fig, VI.5) Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps) 15. Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16, NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6) Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. Expansive Soils (U.S.DA. Soil 18. Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19, Erosion (U.S.DA. Soil Conservation 20. Service Soil Surveys) 21, Wind Ersosion & Blowsend (Fig. %/I.1, 22, Ord. 460, Sac. 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23. Dam Inundation Area (Fig. %/1.7) 24. Floodplains (Fig. %/!.7) 25, NA U R (Fig. VI.8) Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11 & V1.12 & 1984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Railroad Noise (Fig. VI.13 - VI.16) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Highway Noise (Fig, VIA 7 - VI.29) NA A B C D (Fig, V!.11) Other Noise NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 ) Project Generated Noise Affecting Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VI.11 ) Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI.11 ) Air Quality Impacts From Project Project Sensitive to Air Quality Water Quality Impacts From Project Project Sensitive to Water Quality Hazardous Materials and Wastes Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - VI.31 ) Other Other 26J~__ 27- N' 28- Y' 29-Y c~c,,,,.. NQ RESOURCES Agriculture (RQ. VI.34 - %/I.35) In or Nee an Agricultural Pmserv~ (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation Contract Maps) Wildlife (Fig. %/I.36 - %/I.37) Vegetation (Fig. V1~38 - %/I.40) Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - %/I.42) Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43- VI 44) '7'~ ne4~ 32 ~/ 35 Jk~ Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45) Historic Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33) Archaeological Resources (Fig. VI.32 - %/1.33 & VI.46 - %/I.48) Pieontological Resources (l:~lleontological Resources Map) Other Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings NA * Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U * Generally Unsuitable R * Restricted A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged a5-7o (N~ ~ 2~n 2 LAND USE DETERMINATION Complete this part unless the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community POlicy Areas." 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): 2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: 3. SUBAREA, IF ANY: 4. COMMUNITY POUCY AREA, IF ANY: l,,I 5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IF ANY:~' 'r',o-'l-~u,,-e.:~¥ 6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s) IF ANY: 7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL: For all projeds, inidcate with a yes (Y) or no (N) w.hether any public facilities and/or services issues may significantly affect or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Ran. For any issue marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V. ..... PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1./J Circulation (Fig. IV. 1-IV. 11. Discuss in 10-1~/ Sec. V Existing, Ranned & Required Roads) 2-JJ BikeTrails(Fig. IV. 12 - N. 13) 11- 3- Y' water (Agency Letters) 12,-N- 4. Y Sewer (Agency Letters) 13- 5. y' Fire Services (Fig. N. 16- N. lS) 14- 6- N. Shedff~(FiglV.11-N. 18) 7. y Schools (Fig. N. 17-N. 18) 15 N 8 N Solid We (Fq3. N.17 - N.18) 16 A1 9- H Parks and Recrea~3n (Fq]. N.19 - N.20) 17. "-' Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV.19 - IV.24/ Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps) Utilities (Fig. W.25 - W.26) Libraries (Fig. W. 17 - W.18) I-fealth Se'_rvk:e~__ (FH}. N.17 - IV.18) Aim (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18,4, 11.18.8 - 11.18.10 & W.27 - W.36) Disaster Preparedness City Sphere of Influence Other If Idl or part of the project is located in "Adopted SpecifK; Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community POlicy Areas", review in detail the specific policies applying to the proposal, and complete the following: 1. State the relevant land use designation(s): 2, Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate documeL'tt, and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain: 295-70(New 12/87) 3 ! N. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continued) D. If all or part of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", and is not in a Community Plan, complete questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 if it is in a Community Plan. 1. Land use cetegory(ies) necessary to suppod the proposed project Also indicate land use type (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) (n-t,~, ~*,,~ ~ Current land use category(les) for the site based on existing conditions. (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) Also indicate land use type 3. If D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the development stage? Explain: 4. Community Plan designation(s): 5. Is the proCK~sed project consistent with the policies and designations of the Community Plan? If not, explain: 6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses? If not, explain: 7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? ff not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: ff all or part of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following: 1. State the designation(s): //~ o ~J rt-4-,~ ~/t ~ ~J .~ . 2. le the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain: 3- Based on this initial study, is the proCx:sal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan? ff not, reference by Sectk)n and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: 7~/~> 29S-70 (l'klekV 12/871 4 SECTION/ S,SUE NO. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued) MITIGATION MEASURES: [:3 See attached pages. j/VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION: The project will not have 8 significant effect on the environment end 8 Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) [~/The project could have 8 significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the project and 8 Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) ~5-70 (New 12/87) APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEy FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECUIA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department March 12, 1991 Western Ridgeline Policies PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDAT ION: Oliver Mujica The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: Direct Staff to develop interim Hillside and Open Space Policies to be used as the City of Temecula's Western Ridgeline Policies until the General Plan is adopted; and direct Staff to forward said policies to the County of Riverside. Forward a recommendation to the County of Riverside relative to Change of Zone No. 5748 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980. BACKGROUND: On February 11, 1991, the Planning Department ~eceived a letter of transmittal from the Riverside County Planning Department regarding their processing of Change of Zone No. 57~8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980. Change of Zone No. 57~8 proposes to change the zoning designation of the subject 71 .~8 acre site from R-A-20 (Residential Agricultural - 20 Acre Minimum Lot Size) to R-A-5 I Residential Agricultural - 5 Acre Minimum Lot Size). STAFFRPT\WESTRIDG 1 ANALYSIS: Tentative Tract Map No. 25980 proposes to subdivide the subject 71 .~8 acre site into eleven ( 11 ) residential The proposed density is 1 DU/6.50 acre, with a rainira lot size of 5 acres. On February 27, 1991, the Planning Department received a copy of the Final Staff Report, from the Riverside County Planning Department, for Change of Zone No. 5748 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980 which was scheduled for the Riverside County Planning Commission Public Hearing of March 6, 1991. The recommendation of the Riverside County Planning Department is for denial (see attached report) based on the following: The proposed project is not consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and the Comprehensive General Plan. The proposed project is not consistent with Ordinance No. ~60. 3. The proposed project's visual impact is currently unmitigated. On March 1, 1991, the City of Temecula Pianning Department Staff presented a letter to the Riverside County Planning Department ( attached ) requesting tl~*~ ~.he item be continued to a County Planning Cornmiss Public Hearing date after March 12, 1991, in order to allow the City of Temecula City Council the opportunity to submit a formal response regarding Change of Zone No. 57~8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980; and forward formal policies of the City of Temecula regarding development on and adjacent to the Western Ridgeline. The Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) has the following policies: 11. Hillside Policies ao The "Hillside" designation is applied to relatively small isolated topographic features with slopes in areas of 2596. These features should be incorporated, when possible, into the design of development proposals as open space, and/or larger lot sizes. The Hillside designation shall have a minimum lot size of minimum or .2 STAFFRPT\WESTRIDG 2 12. DU/AC for density transfer purposes. Development within the Hillside area shall follow design Policy 12 (a) . Open Space Policies a. Mountainous The minimum lot size permitted within the Mountainous designation shall be 10 acres, permitting a 5 acre minimum lot size in the Santa Rosa/DeLuz Area, in accordance with policy (12) and (13). Post and beam construction and special foundations designed to resist earthquake shaking shall be encouraged in areas with slopes in excess of 25% to reduce excessive gradin9. Development in Mountainous areas shall blend into the natural features of the site and shall attempt to avoid an unvaried, unnatural or manufactured appearance. Narrow canyons which might create a significant fire hazard shall be left undeveloped. {5) Structures must be setback a minimum of 30 feet from any slopes greater than 25% and 30 feet in height and, excepting lawns and some ornamentals and groundcovers, natural vegetation shall be cleared for a distance of not less than 30 feet from any structure. {6) Roads and driveways should attempt to try to avoid alignment through areas of natural slopes in excess of 25%, STAFFRPT\WESTRIDG 3 STAFFRPT\WESTRIDG (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Roads crossing drainage channels__ shall provide for proper drainag, and placement of draina9, channels which might undermine or erode the roadbed shall be avoided. All driveways shall be constructed with a finished 9fade of no more than 15%. Building pads may be permitted on hilltops and ridgelines ( excluding the Western Ridgeline, Policy 1~), when grading would be minimized, and mitigated by landscaping and/or special treatment. Erosion andsedimentation control shall be encouraged with retention of existing trees, vegetation, planting of cut and fill slopes, construction of retaining walls, dikes, proper cover and an irrigation system calibrated to soil.~ permeability. Within the Santa Rosa/DeLuz Area, land divisions creating parcels less than 10 acres in size shall provide paved roads that are connected to a maintained road system, or shall be required to form an assessment district to provide such paved access. Each proposed lot less than 10 acres in size, within the Santa Rosa/ DeLuz area shall be able to provide a minimum 10,000 square foot building pad, unless post and beam construction is to be utilized. DISCUSSION: The boundaries of the Hillside and Mountainous designations are based on general topographicai data. Therefore, the lines should not be considered final for the purposes of determining how much of a given parcel is inside or outside the Mountainous or Hillside designation. Development applications located on the edge of the Mountainous or Hillside designations may be accompanied bymore detai ledtopograph ic data to further define slope characteristics of the parcels in relation to the parcel. Building sites shall not be permitted on the Western Ridgelineas identified on the land use allocation map. Projects proposed within the area of the Western Ridgeline shall be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure that building pad sites are located so that buildings and roof tops do not project above the ridgeline as viewed from the Temecula Basin. All projects within a 1/2 mile of the western ridgeline shall also be evaluated on a case by case basis to determining if the building site will have an adverse impact to the ridge line as viewed from the basin. The Planning Staff has the following concerns regarding development on the Western Ridgeline: Potential aesthetic impacts as viewed from the City of Temecula basin· Potential inconsistency with the City's future Ceneral Plan, if said plan includes Western Ridgeline Policies. STAFFRPT \ WESTRI DG 5 R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: Based on the above mentioned proposal that is currently under review by the County of Riverside; due to the fa-~ that the City of Temecula does not have an adopt General Plan; and since the City utilizes the Southwest Area Community Plan as a guideline document only, Staff suggests that the Hillside and Open Space Policies of the Southwest Area Community Plan should be incorporated into interim City policies regarding the Western Ridgeline until the General Plan is adopted. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: Direct Staff to develop interim Hillside and Open Space Policies to be used as the City of Temecula's Western Ridgeline Policies until the General Plan is adopted; and direct Staff to forward said policies to the County of Riverside· Forward a recommendation to the County of Riverside relative to Change of Zone No. 57~8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980. OM: ks Attachments: Riverside County Planning Commission Staff Report (dated March 6, 1991) Letter to Riverside County Planning Department (dated March 1, 1991 ) STAFFRPT\WESTRIDG 6 Z, oatng Area: Sm'tta Rosa R~ncho Supezvisorial District: First E.A. Number: 34917 Regional Team No.: One PROJECT PLANI'~R: RALPH L. WILLrAMS CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 374~ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25980 AMENDED NO. 1 planning Commission: March 6, lg91 Agenda Item No.: 2- I RIVERSIDE COL~a'I'Y PLA.'~'LNG DEPARTHENT ~TAFF REPORT 10. 11. 12. Applicant: Engmecr/Rep.: Type of Request: Loc~tion; Exis',ing r~nd Use (Exhibit #1): Surrounding Land Us~ (Exhibit tl): Existint ZoninI (Exhibit Surro,,mding 7.xxdng (L'xh~lt ~2): Comprehensive General Plan: Land Division Dam: Leers (OpposlaS/SupponinS): Sphe_-s of Influence: Pct~ and Judy Rosen Markham and Associates Change the zoning on 71.48 acres from R-A-20 u~ R-A-5 and subdivide the same acreage into 11 lois. Located northeast of Via Horca and north of Camlno 6atillo Vacant parcel Vacant parcels. groves and single farnil? nsid~nce R-A-20 R-A-20, R-A-10, and R-A-5 5oumwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) Land Us~: Category IV, Residential DensitT: l0 acres minimum Opsn SpaceiCons.: Mounuinaus Total Acreage: 71.48 ' Total Lots: l 1 DU Pa Acre: I du/6.50 acres Proposed Min. Lot Size: 5 acres Norm rccelv~ as of this wrltlns Adjacent to City of Temecula RrCOMI%IF. Nm A TIONS: nr_.~rr,J. of CHANCE OF ZONE NO. r/,~l from R-A-20 to R-A-5 based on the findings and conclusions in~,~fated in ths sts_~ report; and DENIAL Of TENTAliVE TRACT MAP NO. 2S980, AMEND~ NO. 1, I:)ased on the findings and conclusions i~corperated in ~he staff report. FR0~ RIU CNTY PLANNING DEPT. a2.27.1991 I~:~ N0.36 P. ~ CHANGE OF ZOl~ NO. 5748 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21980 AMLNDED NO. 1 Staff Report ChtnSe of Zoae No. :5748 and TcnTztivc Tract M&p No. 25980, Amended No. 1 are concurrent re~uesLs to change the zoning on ai:~oxlmatcly 71.48 acres from R-A-20 to R-A-5 and subdivide the site into eleven rcsiclcntlzl parcels with a minimum of five C~) acres. The site L~ locet~ northeat of Via Horca and north of Camino GatiLlo in the Santa P-on Rancho Area. The site is designated as l~[ountainous by the Southwest Area Community PIn (SWAP). 4. The project is subject to C~teltory IV land use policies. The site is currenUy vacant. Curtent land u~s include vacant paxeels, groves, and single "- family residence. 6. The site is zoned R-A-2O. Surrounding zoning includes R-A-20, R-A-10, and R-A-5. Outstanding scenic vistas and visu~ rzatuzm, such as the ridgcEnc west of Intcrstatc 15, shall be preserved and protected. The project is within a 1/2 mile of the Western Rid2cline. Based on the Ridgeline policies all Fojects within a 1/2 mile of the wesf~'n ridgeLine xha/1 be evalu~tM on a case by cuc bsuia to determine Lf the buiJdbs2 site will have an adverse impact to the xtdgclLnc as viewed from ~he basin. e Based on the information pro~,~,ded by the applicant nine of the eleven proposed pad sites will have homes vitible in Foede from the Temecula Basin. 10. The current proJoel has not received clearance f~om the lru~ Department. I1. Bnv~mmental concerns includcd: F~es Services, schools, slope, erosion, hazardous fire area, Mount Pa/omar, agriculture, wildlife, vegetation, scenic resources, and · archaeololical resources. 12. The project's visual impact is currently unmitigated. FROM RIU CHTV PLANNING DEPT, 82,27,1~91 14:37 N0.14 P, 4 CHANGE OF ZONE .N'O, ~?,t~ TENTATIVE TRACT ,MAP ,NO. 259~0 ,~IENDED NO. I Staff lbp~rt hie 3 CONCI-USION,~: The propos..d project is not consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and the Comprehensive General PI2.,,.. 2. The proposed project is not consis~en~ with Ordinance No. d.63. 3. The proposed proj~fs visual impact is currendy unmitigated. ~N'AI-YSI.~; Proj~'t .nescripti. oa Change of Zone No. 5748 and Tentative Tzaa Map No. 25980, Amended No. i are concurrent requests to changs the zoning on appmximately 71.~g acres f'~om R-A-20 to R-A-5 and subdivide the same acr~aSe into eleven residential parcels with a minimum of ~s (5) acres. The Site is located nonlzas~ of via Hotca and north of Camino OatSilo in the Santa Rosa Rancho wning ar~. ~ Pl,,n Consistency Art~ Ccmpatibili~ The S~uawest Area Community ?lan (SWAP) d~ignation for ~hc projet, J: site is Mountainous - 10 acrt's. Five (5) acre parcels are permitre! in the Santa Rosa De Luz area tf they are able :o provide a minimum of I0,000 square foot pad and race; other grldinI cri. tcr~a, The site iN locat,-4 within 1/2 mile of the Western R,kigeline as identified by SWAP, Under SWAP all pwjects within a 1/2 mils of the Western Ridgeline shall also be evalule. d:d on a case by case bash m' dctcrmlne if the build~$ sits will have tn adverse impact to the ridSeline a.s view~i fzom the Temecula aasizt. Under SWAP' s Genel'al DesSin considcratlons "Outstandln; scc, nic vistas and visual feattL~S SUC!~ as rktgeline west of Intentace 15, shall be preserved anal protected'. Southwest Ares Community Plan Olnz Space policies ~fj:mntainous - No. 14) state · ... kmildlnS sites shall not be permitted on th: wesmm ridgeline as idcntifled on the land use allocation map.' P.-~oject. s proposed within the tree of the western rldp31ine must be evalu~f~i on a case by case bash to ensure that buildin; pad sin vc located so that buildlnSs and roof COpS dO nix project alx)ve the rifleline as viewe4 from the Temccula Basin (see Exhibit B). The information supplied by ~he applicant ~hotos, partial line of sight profile) and the prominent location of the sits indicates that approximately 9 d the 11 pad sits will have housti visible l:n,o~le from thc Tcmccula Basin, Base~ on the above Staff finds the proje~-t as dealShard tO ~ bx:~nsis~t v,.i. th SWAP's Weslern Ridgeline policies, FROM RIU CNTV PLaNHINd DEPT. 82,27.1991 16:38 NO.16 P. 5 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. S74N TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25980 AMENDED NO. 1 Staff Report Page 4 Trte project site is vacant. Surromadtng land uses aye vaca.qt parcels, $rovc3, a~d sinSic Family residential. The site is currently zoned R-A-20. Surrounding zoning includes R-A-20, R-A-10, and R-A-$. Or~n,nceCons{~ncy County Fire DcparUncnt recommends denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 25980, Arncnd~ No. I per Ordinance 460 scction 3.2 (I) (See fir~ letter). Santa Rosa Community Service Distri~ indlcatad that the some driveway locations ~hown do not provide adcatuat¢ tiSht dlsts:tc¢. ~:-nvironmcntal Assessment The inidal study for t'tvlronmemzl Assessment No. 34917 was completed for the proj~t. The euvironmental assessment identified the followinl areu of concern: schools, slopes, erosion, agriculture, h,,~rdous fire area, Mount Palomar Wildlift and vegetation, Archaeological" Resources and Scenic Resources. The environmental assessment concerns have been addressed as fallows: Schools: Impacts to the school system serving the area will be mltiSated through ~e payment of smm mandated fees. Slopes and Erosion: Slope Stability Report No. 269 was prepared for the site to address these cone. eros: specific recommendations are found in the County Engineering Geologist letter dated Yuly 24, 1990. Hazardous lqrm An~: Ordinance No. 460 requirements for the maximtam length or a cul-dc- sac in · Hazardous Fire Area have not bccn met. See Fire Departmcnt letter dated December 20, 1990 Mount P~lomar: The sit= is within 45 milc,m of Mr. Palemar Observatory. Mitigation will thrOugh requlrcd confonuance with Ordinance No. 655. AgrkuRure: The site is designated unique farmland by the Comprehensive General Plan. The site is v-~znt and does not have any existing Stoves on site. No mitigation is required. FRO~ RIU CNTY PL~NNIN~ DEPT, e2.27.I~I 1~:~8 NO.i~ P. 6 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. ST48 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. ~980 .dklVn:'.~ NO. 1 Staff Report Wildlife and Vegetation: Biological Survey No. 703 was prepared for the site. Specific recommendations and mitigation are includccl in the conditions of approval. ArchaeoloWkai Resources: Ar~logical Sun, ey No. I623 was cortductsd for the site and no cultural resources constraints exist and no archaeological resources wets found. Scenic Resources: The pro~s~i tentative map will result in creation of building pads along the ridgeline. This impact is currently unmitigated as the project is designed. RLW:I~ 2/22/91 FROR ~IU CNT? PLANNING DEPT. e2.27.1~1 16{~S NO.16 P. 7 ; HILLY VAC. /iROVES C GROVES · GROVES ii; TEMECUL A C2 5748/TR 2598.0 LAND USE { E x. 1 RIVERJIbE ¢OgNTY ILANNINI tIIARTBENT " LbGA{~ON MAP W0 $C~LE ~0~ ~IU C~T'~ PL~HHIH~ ~EPT, ~2,27.1991 1~:~9 H0,1~ P, 8 -A-5 R-A-20) R-A-20 R-A-20 R,i_lO \*" ' ":! . R-A-5 -A-5 · TEMECUL A ~ Sros. "' ES' Drawn ........... 1"= 8~4::)' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARI'IIENI' CZ 5748/TR 25980 PROPOSED ZONING {Ex. 2 ~"""'- ,.~ ',~.',';T_,~_S..,_.._~ W~ """"' mL.,,~. 9_4.Q:qg..O, !.40 Z~n,...S~NTA ROSA RANCHO L'OGATLON MAP l/2tij3' ~RO~ RI~ CNTV PL~NIN~ DEPT, ~2,27.1991 16~4~ NO,16 P. 9 $p 150 / I' CZ 5748/TR CP-SWAP 25980 IEx. 5 ~::' SANTA ROSA RANCHO Die. 'n'tornBs 12~/D5, Date 1/31191 ,~/~ ~ 8ros. E5 ~ Draw. }Orawn n By: 1": t 2000' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNINI3 DEPARTMENT NOe. CA~.E LOCATION MAP I.LI ~L C' '/3" ':: !:' :' ': i 1 Ronalcl J. Patios Mayor Pa~'icia H. Birdsall Mayor PrO Tam Karel R Unclemane Couno~ Pec:j Moore C:ounc:~irneml:~ J. Sal MuAoz Courx:dmernl:>er David R Dixon 17 141694-19ec~ FAX 7714) 694,-1999 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive ,Temecula. California 923c~0 March 1, 1991 Ms. Laurie Dobson, Senior Planner Riverside County Planning Department LI080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside. CA 92501 SUBJECT: Change of Zone No. 5748; and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980, Amended No. 1 Dear Ms. Dobson: This letter is in response to the Staff Report received from your office on February 27, 1991, regarding Change of Zone No. 57u, 8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980, Amended No. 1. The City of Temecula Planning Department Staff has the followin9 concerns relative to the proposal: inconsistency with the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP} hillside and open space policies. 2. Potential aesthetic impacts. 3. Potential inconsistency with the City's future General Plan. Potential inconsistency with the City~s future Western Ridgeline Policies· The City Council would appreciate the opportunity to submit a formal written response regarding the project, as well as the City's Western Ridgeline Policies. However, the next available City Council meeting is scheduled for March 12, 1991. It has been noted that Change of Zone No. 57L~8 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980, Amended No. 1 are scheduled for the Riverside County Planning Commission Public Hearing of March 6, 1991. Therefore, the City of Temecula recommends that the project be continued to a public hearing date after March 12, 1991, in order to allow the City the opportunity to formally respond to the project. Ms. Laurie Dobson March 1, 1991 Page 2 Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at |714) 69~-6~00. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF TEMECL~LA Plannin9 Director GT: ks CO: Riverside County Planning Commissioners Ralph L. Willjams, Riverside County Planning Department David F. Dixon, City Manager, City of Temecula 05 ~91 09:52 i4ARKHAM ~'ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE SUBMFIT,kL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSmE. STATE OF C&LIFORN~ : AMENDED NO. 2 - Peter & ludy Rosen - Fint Supervisorial Distrlct'-~---~r-~"-:-- - ....--.. Rancho Area- 71.48 Aau- 10 Lots- $chedul~ H- R~uest: R-A-20 tc R,: ~L~[_s~~L:;[ s RF. COMMEN MortoN: I 4 The Planning Commission recommends: .' ~~ ,&rgIPTION of the Nelative Declaragon for Environmental Assessment No. 34917 based on the findings incorporagd in the environmental assessment and the conclusion thai the proposed project will nox have a significant effect on the environment; and dAPPRQVAV- Of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. t'7,2 from R-A-20 xo R-A-5 in accordance with Bxhibit 2, based upon thc~findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minuxes daw. d Au2ust 21, 1991; and APPRnVAL of TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28980, AMI:~NDED NO. 2 subject to the attached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minules da~l August 21, 1991. Mark .~. ~ys, Chief Dep~g DirectOr L Prey. ~n. D~ts. Cm~nmM D~st. AGENDA NO. NOV 05 '91 09:52 MARKHAM ~ ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE PLkNNING COMMISSION HTNUTES August 21, 1991 (AGENDA ITEM 2.3 - Tape 1A, 1B) ~l~Gm O~ IONI S~48 - EA 34917 - Peter & Judy Rosen - Temecula Area - Pirst Supervisorial District - 71.48 acres, northeast of via Horca and north of Camino Gatlllo - R-A-20 to R-A-5, WITH TRa~T I~ NO, ~Sgl0, ~~ ~. a - 11 lo~8 - 71.48 acres - ~ch~aV~ D f~o~. from 8/7/9~) Hearing was opened e~ 10101 and was closed at 10113' ~.'1. ST~PUCO~DATIONz Adoption of the Nagstire Declets=ion for 34917, approval of ChanCe of Z~ne ~74S and approval of Tentative ~mc~ Map No. 25980, ~ended No. 2 sub~ec~ ~o ~he findings and conclusions In the staff report. The subJec~ uases have been conti~ued four times to resolve =he issues and feasibility upon the Tamecull Basin wi~ regard to ~he General Plan and the Western Ridgeline Policy and ~hat ~he s~ruc=ure Is visible and silhouette from ~he Tamsouls Basin. ~ended Map {2 does address ~he silhouet~e feasibility on mos~ of ~he lots. Lo~e 3, 5 and 10 still have profile visibility. Staff fel~ tha~ lo~ 10 can be dwel~ wi~h ~ough =he conditions requiring the pad to be lowered. The condi=ions of approval have been revised ~0 reflec~ previous reco~enda~ions end i~corpors~ed condi~ions tha~ ware offered ~he applicant. The County's Engineerin9 Geolo~is= has indica~ed ~ha~ f~her information is necessary ~o complete ~he revised slopes s=abill~y repor~ based on ~ended Map No. ~2. S~aff would no~ objec~ to ~his being accomplished prior Board of Supervisors. I~ was noted b~ staff ~hat a Heal=h letter had been received mee~ing Condition of Approval ~12 would have ~o be emendedi ~- C~ndi~ion of Approval ~12 read Augus~ 21, 1991. Ms. Dobson said the key poin~ of dissention is Condition of Approval 21c that would require lots 2 and 3 and lots 4 and 5 be combined so =hat ~he saddle pad on lo=s 5 and 3 would no~ be used. Ms. Dobson advised that the findings and conclusions would have to be amended. TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT: Jim Rizzt, Markham & Assoc. (41750 winchester Road, Temecula) said they have worked closely wi~h staff in coming up with the mitigation measures through the conditions of approval. Presently, ~he only concern is Condition of Approval #21c tha~ would require combi.ation of the lots. Mr. Rizzi said as was mentioned, they are saddled and the window visibility is very small and both mitigation measures would no~ be an impact. The request of Mr. Rizzi was tha~ the following conditions be amended= Regarding 21c, DELETE the following wording "the fins1 map shall reflect ~he combination of lots 2 and 3 and lo~s 4 and 5". NOV 05 '91 09:33 MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE P.4 PLANNTNG COMMISSION MINUTES August 21, 1991 Regarding 22a, DELETE the last two sentences. There was no one present in opposition. Commissioner Turner commented on the ridgeline matter. In the opinion of C~mmlssionerTurner, the applicant has dons all that he could do with the case in question. The only issue remaining is whether or not the two saddle parcels should be allowed to be built on. It was the feeling of Commissioner Turner that this should be allowed end he asked for further comments from the remaining Commissioners and Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman said at staff level a considerable amount of time had been spent on this case. He noted ~hat he did go out to the site and the only remaining issue of concern was the combining of the two lots. It was hie understanding that the visual impacts of the two saddles would be limited. In comment he felt that all issues had been covered. Commissioner Turner commented he would like the changes to be made 2o that the lots would not be combined. Mr. Goldman in reply said the deletions that were mentioned by Mr. RizZi would accomplish this but he felt a condition should be added regarding the slopes stability report before this case proceeds to the Board of Supervisors. MS. Dobson said this condition would be added as the last condition. The following findings were deleted by staff: DRLBTB - Findings #g and 110 The following findings were amended by staff: aMEND- Finding #12 - The proJect's visual impact is currently mitigated as conditioned. The following conclusions were amended by staff; ).MIND - Conclusion #1 - The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and the Comprehensive General Plan. AMZWD - Conclusion #2 - The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 460. AMEND - Conclusion #3 - The proposed proJect's visual impact can be mitigated as conditioned. Mr. RizZi agreed with the amendments of staff. The hearing was closed at 10:13 a.m. NOV 05 '91 09:54 MARKHAM ~ ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE P.5 PLANNING COMMI~8'rON MIN~JT~ August 21, 1991 FINDINGSAND CONCLUSIONS: Change of Zone 5748 and Tentative Tract Map No. 25980, Amended No. i are concurrent requests to change the zoning on approximately 71.48 acres from R-A-20 to R-A-5 and subdivide the site into eleven residential parcels with e minimum of five (~) acres; the site is located northeast of via Horca and north of Camino Gatlllo in the Santa Rosa Rancho area; the site is designated as Mountainous by the southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP); ~he project is subject to Category IV land use policies; the site is currently vacant; current land uses include vacant parcels, groves and single family residence; the sl~e is zoned R-A- 20; surrounding zoning includes R-A-20, R-A-10 and R-A-S; outstanding scenic vistas end visual features such as the ridgeline west of Interstate 1~ shall be preserved and protected; the project 1 projects within a the western ridgeline po icies all shall be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if the building site will have an adverse impact to the ridgeline as viewed from the basin; environmental concerns included: fire services, schools, slope, erosion, hazardous fire area, Mount Palomar, agriculture, wildlife, vegetation, scenic resources and archaeolo~ical resources and the proJect's visual impact is currently mitigated as conditioned. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and the Comprehensive General Plan; the proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 460 and the proposed project'.s visual impact can be mitigated as conditioned. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Turner, seconded by commissioner Wolf and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended adoption of ?_he NegatiVe Declaration for EA 34917, approval of Change of Zone 5748 from R-A-20 to R-A-5 and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 25980, Amended NO. 2 based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report as amended and subject to ~he conditions of approval. NOV 05 '91 09:54 ~ARKHAM & ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COIJNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23980 AMENDED NO. I ~TANnARB ~-nNnlTI~N~ 1. The following conditions of approval are for TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25980, AMENDED NO. 1. e The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative bod]~ concerning TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23980, AlVlT. NDED NO, 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code, Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County falls to promptly nofi~ the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or falls to cocrperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requiremen~ of Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors appwval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance No. 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licens~l land surveyor subject to sll the requirements of the State of Califon~ Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a mils report to the Rivehide County Surveyor's Office and two copics to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the mils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider x~'l submit one print of comprehenxive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amcnded by Ordinance No. 457 and as may be additionally providcd for in these conditions of approval. 'NOV 05 '9~ 09:55 M~RKH~M ~ ~SSOC~TES/R~VERS~DE P.7 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2S980, AMENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Pqe2 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grsding outside of County maintained rood fight-of-way. Any delinqu~u ~ axes shall be paid prior to recordatiou of the final map. Th~ subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Transportation EN:tmrunent's ~ datai 7-27-91, & copy of which is attached. Legal ms as required by Ordinance No. 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. Water and sewerage disposal facilittei shall b~ installed in a~cordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 6--7--90, 8-21-91 a copy of which is attached. (Amended at Planning Commtsiion 8-21-91). The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 7-26-91, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drsinage area pursuant to S~:tion 10.25 of Ordinan~ No. 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall !~ collected by the Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlin~ in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 7-22-91, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Department of Building and Safety: hnd Use Section's transrninal dar~l 7-24.91, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the rewmm~ndations outlined in the Department of Building and Safety: Grading Section's transmittal dated 7-19-91, a copy of which is The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County F.,ngineering Oeologist transmittal dated 7-24-91, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Santa Rosa Community Sefvic~ District transmittat datsd 7-23-91, a ~ of which is attached. The sulxilvider shall comply with the r~'.ommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water Distria wansmittal dazd 5-22-90, a copy of which is attached. NOV 05 '91 09:5~ MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE P.8 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2S980, AMENDED NO. 1 Conditions ot Al~onl Page 3 20. Lots ~zated by this subdivision shall comply with the following: All lots shall have a minimum ~ of 5 acres gross. be lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with S~on 3.8C of Ontinanee No. 460. Lots created by this subdivigon shall be in amfo~ with the development atandards of the R-A x~ne. 21. Prior to the I~I~t~Rr~ATION of the final map, the following conditions ~I1 be Prior to the reeordation of the final map, the applicant ~ submit written elmrances to the Riverside County Transportation and Survey Department that all pertinent r~quirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agen~u have been met: County Fire Department County Health Department County Flood Control County Planning Department Santa Rosa Community ,q~z'vicu District Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. ~74g, shall be approved by the Board of Sup~rvimrs and ~ be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the prol~ny. The final :-...~,p shall refket th8 oc. ubinatien of Lots 2 and 3, and Lots ! aad 5. (Deleted by Planning Commission 8-21-91). The subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Phnning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of County Counsel: 1, A d~laration of cov~tnts, conditions, and rutfictions; and A sample document conveying fide to the purchaser of an individuaJ lot which lm~idcs that the declaration of covenants, conditions, and r~strictions is incorporated the.~in by ref~ce. NOV 05 '~i 09:56 MARKHAM ~ ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE P.9 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. ~980, AMEND~ NO. 1 Conditions or Apis~val PaZe 4 The dechntio~ of cornrants, conditions. and rv. atrtctions nbmitt~l for review shall include y~o, ttm the final conditions of approval approved by the Board d Supervisors. Prior to the reCOrdation of th~ ring map, an Bnvironm~tal Constraints Sheet (F, CS) shall be pxWar~ in arejunction with tbe final map to delineaz identified environmental concerns and shall t~ permanently fi/ed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Plam~g Department for rz~w and approval. Th~ approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the r~corded final map to the Planning Depaameaxt and the Department of Building and Safety. The following notz shall be plsr~i on tl~ Environmental Constraints Sheet: 'County Biological Report No. 703 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Dqstrtment. * The following not~ shall be placed on the Environmental Constt~nts Sheet: 'County Archimologleal Report No. 1623 wss pr~xrmt for this property and is on ~ at the Riverside County Planning IX-pamnent.' he The following non 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 be from low pre, um'e sodium fighting systzms that are shielded and oriented so as not to shinc above the horizontal plane passing through the hminaire." 'The subject propnty is on the Western P. idgeline and is subject to subslxntial grading and building restrictions ff~.ant w protect the Temeeula Bas~ viewshed. This constraint affects all parcels. Refcr to CC&R's or approved conditions of approval for specific restrictions.' Th~ following shall be pistol on the Environmental Constraints Sheet "County Slope Stability lqxmn No. 269 was pr~ar~ for this property, tad is on ~ at Riverside County PLuminS Delanm~t.' Prior to the issuanc~ of r, RAnlNn FL:~M1TS, th~ following conditions shall be satisfied: All grading/building plan shall be Hmit~cl only to thos~ areas shown on the approved tentative rmtp. No change in pad size or location is permi_-__s~_ without Planning Department approval. TI~ imod ~r ~../oined Lot 2 a.~t 3 shall be the ! shall b~ tho pad sho~%~ for t.,ots I ~,a A..e~!s.l },tap PTo. 2. ~OV 05 ~1"09:~ MARKHAM ~ ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE P.10 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2S980, AMI2~KD NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page S C0 All areas ouuid~ minimum necessary pads, driveways, and slopes shall remain undimL, bed. Agrlafiluml grading is allowed subject to Condition No. 13(m). e The Coast Live Oak on Parcel 6 shall not be removed or damaged, nor shall the existing drainage near the tree be altered. (Amended by Phnning Commission 8-21-91). Grading plans shall conform to Board-adopted I-rfilside Development Standards: All cut and/or ~l slopes. or individual combinations thereof, which exceed feet in vertical height ~ b~ modified by an appropriate wmbination of a special terracing foer~hing) plan, incruse slop~ ratio (i.e. , 3: 1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting wmbined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen (15) p~,cent grade. All manufactured slopes which exceed three (3) feet in vertical height xhall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: The angle of the F'a, ded slope shall be gradually adjusts! m the anile of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded Xemin. The toes and tops of dopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Prior to the is~uanc~ of any grading permit, a line of sight profile for each parcel shall be submitted to the Planning Departm~t for review and approval. The profde shall demonstrate that the proposed structure will not project above the ridgeline ss viewed from the Tcmecula Ba.~. No [radials permits shsll be issued for any parcel unless building phns have been submitted for plan cheek. All grading operations shall be commenced after April 1 of the calendar year and mhxll be completed and inspccted prior m Deccmbez 1 of the same calendar year, with all mlope planting and irrigation,m dninage control devices, retaining/crib walls and erosion control measures in place with completion certification by both the registered Civil Engineer and registered Landscape Architect. ~ov os ~9i o9:s8 MARKHAM ~ ~SSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE P.11 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2~980, AMENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page6 23. ge Retaining walls shall be discouraged to the greaU extent possible, especially on the escarpment face. Crib waits shall I~ used in lieu of retaining walls where l~,,ible and planted in the intastitial spaces with climbing vines. In the event that retaining walls are used the wail shall be either colored concn~ or colored stuo:o to match the nantttl mrth totm of the surrounding environment or plantat with climbing vines. All planrings shall be shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Natural drainag~ patterns shall be maintained to the greatest extant possible. All drainage control swales shall be colored concrete and/or pebble embedded concrcte and hndscape shielded with planting and betruing. All downdrains shall be piped underground with overland overflows, if required, constructed of colored concrete and landscape shielded. All outlets shall be hndscape shiclcled and encouraged to proceed side slope from swale to swale. Colon to be earth tone to match the surrounding environment and/or to have an embedded pebble finish. All planrings shall be shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Grading Plans shall define arm of vegetation clearing and shall be approved by the FIre Department for fire suppression requirements, i.e. Fuel Modification Plan, prior to iuuan~ of a Grading Permit. je All grading retaining/crib walls and drainage control devices shah be bonded prior to Grading Permit issuance. Grading Plans outlining all grading, driveways, slopes, walls, drainage structurcs and cleared areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, This is a CBQA monitoring condition. The following conditions shall be complies w~th prior to issuance of [~RA1~ING pRo~rrS: Graded ares (outaide driveways and not covered by structures) shall be rrvegetated (or landscaped) with California native tree and plant sp~iu that arc habitat-providing, fire rmrdant, drought tolerant, erosion-o>ntrolling, common All street frontage shall be planted with street trees at a random spacing of 2040 feet with mature box specimen trees which shall be shown on the approved Landscape and lrri2afion Plans. Maturc tree planrings shall be placed at the ends of the house to blend with the hackground Xopography. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2S980, AMENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 7 All lrtigatim piping titall be placsi under/round with drip and hubbier irrigation symms used on the slope areas. Moistm~/rain s~nsors shall be incorporsmt into the automatic control system. de Plantinas shah be of a random mature nature and placed on the pad and slope to revegetate in a nantrai fashion, linear patterns shah not be permi~ except in an agricultural ruling. PlantlaSs of tre. and shrubs shall be concentrated along horizontal rwales and i~ slope down drains m create a more natural effect. An erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the Landscape and Irrigation Plans. L Use of natural features such as boulders shall be encouraged to provide relief and interest on the slopes and pads and shall be shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plans. gm Mast antennas. (~telli,,. diahea) and flagix>lea shall either be discouraged or extensively shielded by either roof insets or landscaping and dmlt be shown on the approved Landsrape and Irrigation Plans. Satellit~ dishes shall not be allowed On the east facing slope unlm f3tlIX screened. Driveways shall be of cololz(I concreto and shall be shown on the approved Landgape and lrriJatton Plans. Fencing ~ be wrought iron, with or without pilasters with pilaster stucco of colored stucco in earth lones, or split rail (especially on escarpment faces) and shall b~ shown on the lipproved Landsrape and Irrigation Plans. je External fighting shall be downshielded, low pressure sodium, CLPS) low level and low intensity and shall be shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Street lights shall not be permitted. any street frontage tightinS shall be low level, downshielded and LPS Hghts and shall be shown on the approved Landscape and Irrigation Ram. All public and privat~ utilities shall be placed underground and shah be show on the approved Landscape and lrrllaUon lshns. Landscape and Irrigation Plans showing all erosion control plan planrings, irri~.~ation system. drainage m'ucmm, driveways, walkways, walls, utilities. and special futures, i.e. boulders, shall be,aL. yiewed and approved by the ~pnnlnf Department prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. NOV 05 '91 09:5~ r'I~KHAr.1 ~ ASSOCIATES/~IVE~SIDE P.13 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. ~S980, AMENDED NO. 1 Conditions d Appro~a/ Page 8 24. All land~apin2 and ivftption, instslhtion and maintanancc shall be bonded for a period of 2 yeats, with bonds Io be accepted prior to is.u~ce of a Grmdin~ Permit. In thc event that agricultuntl planting is propose, the implemutntion of the actual planting, hTigation and subm~quent maintenancz thereof shll be innred by bonding. AU qrlcuXtunl plantinls d'mJ1 be shown on the approved IAndseaplng and lrrllation Plans, and shtl be bonded for a period of 2 years, with bonds to be in place prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. Agricultural planting must be accomplished within 45 days of ~g. Prior to the issuance of ~T_TIT_nTIqG PI~.RMITS, th~ following conditions shall be satisfied: The ownex/applicam shall demonstrate that all al~licable grading and development standard requLremcnts have been met. Building plans shall demonstram compliance with applicable development standards and gradin2 restrictions. AXl house mhmll he mingle gtnry ~0 feet1 unlus it can be demonstrated with I Line of sight profile that the house will not be visible in prof 'tic (sillouettc) ~*om axe Ce Construction on o.ll lots shall be Hmited to the pad area shown on the slyproved tentative map. Building plans which require additional area 8h811 utilize split leveJ or post and beam construction, but in no caz shall structures project above the ridgeilne as viewed from tim Temecula Basin. Art house facades, tools and walls shall be of earth tone colors - bright or light colors; whites, blues, reds, yellows shall not be triowed. Roof lines shall be of multiple levels to blend and accentuate the background lopography with hip roofs used on the uds to softca the vertical discontinui~cs. Prior 1o issuance of .~tuildin$ Permits the following shall be submitted to and appfoved by the PluminS Department: Site plan - ahowing art structures, (house, patios, gazebos, barns, corrals, pools), driveways, retaining waIh, fences, and hndsuping. Color elevations - sha/l show sll sides and include all wails, f~cing, accessory structures, and landscaping from approvcd landscape plans. Eastern elevation shall include surrounding slopes. Color and Matcrial Bozrd - shall include samples from atl exterior colors and materials to be used and shall be keyed to color elevations. NOV 05 '91 09:59 MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES/RIVERSIDE P.14 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. L~980, AMENDED N0.1 Conditions or Approval Page 9 The above shall be coordinat~ with the ttn~ of siSht analysis (Condition 22(d)) prsviously require. FISH AND GAME CONDITION In accordance with section 711.4 of the Fish and (3am Code, the applicant/subdivider is obligated to pay a filin$ fee m defray costs incurred by the Department of Fish and (hznc in managing and protecting fish and wildlife Irust resources. The applicant/ subdivider is aim obligated to pay a documem.~ han,1~ne fee to dchay costs incurred by thc County of l~v~rsidt in implementing the I~ent of Fish and Game filing fee program. The filh~g fee is $1,250.00 for a projm:t for which a negative declaration has ~ prepared and $850.00 for a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared. The documentary hutdtirag fee is $25.00 in all cases. The~ fees shall be paid to the County Cluk of the Cotmt~ of Riverside at the timc of filing a notice of determination pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. If these fees arc not paid, the project in question shall not be ~ve, vested or final. Accordingly. -ntil the fe~ pre IpId. no~-bs,~luent ,tpDrovalf will be ~tv,n. no apbma~,ent Optmira will be t~ed ,,n~ the Dropertv Inyolved ms, v~pot be ,,eod in tho manner ~pDroved. 26. Prior to issuance of~.C~.~TPANf~Y PrRMTTS. a cuti~cd landscape architect shall vesi~ in writing that landscaping has been installer per al~proved plans. 70 A review fee of the 18.30 (Ovu Th~ Counter Plot Plan) shall be charged for review of each of the following: - Grading and Line of Sight Plans - Landscape Plans - Bu~ding Plan Package 28. Prior to submittal to the Board of Supervisors the applicant shall submit necessary additional slope stability information to _r,~__:ived clurance from the County Engineering Geology. RLW:Zja:]/ 2-2~-91/8-19-91 ITEM NO. 21 FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works November 12, 1991 Calle Medusa Alternatives C. M. Gilliss, Special Consultant to City Manager's Office RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve 1. The Traffic and Transportation Commission's recommendation of the following: a. Extension of Margarita Road b. Extension of Butterfield Stage Road; and c. Completion of improvements at Nicolas Road and Winchester Road as alternate routes for Calle Medusa traffic. 2. Direct the Staff to proceed with implementation of the approved alternatives as financing may permit; and 3. Consider a recommendation to table any future action on Calle Medusa by the City Council for a minimum of a 24-month period. BACKGROUND: On October 23, 1991, the Traffic and Transportation Commission approved the following three (3) recommendations: 1. The extension of interim Margarita Road from Winchester Road to North General Kearney Road; and 2. The construction of a bypass route from Nicolas Road to Rancho California Road utilizing the existing alignment of C.alle Girasol, Calle Chapos, and future Butterfield Stage Road alignment. - 1 - pwO1 \agdrpt\ 1112\cartereed. air 110491 3. The ultimate intersection improvements of Winchester Road/Nicolas Road· On several occasions residents living on Calle Medusa have brought before the Council the concerns that they have about traffic problems on their street. The number of petitioners, and the energy and emotion that they brought with them to the Council meeting, is evidence of a kind that theirs' is a sincere concern. In particular, it is their perception that the addition of substantial non-resident traffic has raised the numbers of vehicles and the average speed of those vehicles to an unacceptable and unsafe level. Among the options discussed to ameliorate the problem were speed bumps, double yellow line striping, stop signs, more intense enforcement of speed and weight limit laws on the street, signing to encourage traffic to use alternate neighborhood routes, and the early development of feasible and attractive alternate north/south routes on other than neighborhood streets. Staff is prepared to discuss any of these options if Council desires. However, Staff has concentrated its efforts on the alternate routes. In meetings between City Staff and residents on Calle Medusa, it was agreed that the option that held the most promise for real and lasting relief was the early development of attractive alternate routes. The Residents' Spokesman and City Staff then formulated a plan to concentrate on the development of information, and the undertaking of steps that would effectively move ahead the construction of three (3) alternative improvements. They are: The earliest possible funding and building of Margarita Road from Winchester to Solana Way; The consideration of all funding sources and construction possibilities of Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to connect with Nicolas Road via Calle Girasol and Calle Chapos; and Improvement of the Winchester Road and Nicolas Road intersection to ultimate grade and alignment, together with the installation of signals. Butterfield StaQe Road: The Residents' Spokesman and the Staff met with developers along Butterfield Stage Road to assess the likelihood of developer improvement of that road in the near future. The answers were less than promising, due in large part to the present depressed housing market· An estimate for the cost to build portions of Butterfield Stage Road had been previously compiled. Both the Residents' representative and City Staff questioned whether that number was realistic. It was agreed that a new preliminary estimate would be helpful. That third party 'curbstone estimate' was ordered. It shows the cost of constructing Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to connect with Nicolas Road via Calle Chapos and via Calle Girasol to be: -2- pwOl \agdrptX 1112\callcmcd. alt 110491 2. 3. 4. Nicolas Road .......................................... ~50,000. Calle Girasol .......................................... ~66,500. Calle Chapos ......................................... ~ 179,700. Butterfield Stage Road from Calle Chapos to La Serena Way .................................... ,~ 1,816,300. Butterfield Stage Road from La Serena Way to the existing improvements north of Rancho California Road ............................... $1,197,000. La Serena extension .................................... $252,000. TOTAL: ................................................ $3,561,500. In the General Plan, the traffic element on Butterfield Stage Road is being done by the Wilbur Smith Company, with Bob Davis as Project Manager· At the Traffic Commission's last meeting on October 23rd, Mr. Davis emphasized the importance of a circulation plan which would include circumferential routes, and through-urban arterials to serve the heavier traffic needs of the City· He drew particular attention to the Butterfield Stage route as one very important north/south segment of the circulation system· Possible sources of financing include developer mitigation funds, Federal Aid Urban Funds, "congestion" funds from Riverside County Transportation commission, joint development agreements with property owners, as well as local assessment and improvement districts. Marqarita Road Improvement from Winchester Road to Solana Way: Margarita Road from Winchester Road to North General Kearney was collectively agreed upon with the Residents' Spokesman and Staff that it would provide some north/south traffic relief to Calle Medusa. The City's General Plan also shows Margarita Road extension to be an important traffic element· Staff has met with the property owner of the Margarita Road extension. The results of the meetings look very promising that the funding, design, and construction could take place within the next year. This construction would include the portion of Margarita Road to Solana Way. The c~nstruction of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Solana Way would also be used as a bypass route for Ynez Road during the construction of the Ynez Corridor. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road Intersection - Imorove to Ultimate Grade an Alianment, Plus Installation of Sk3nals: Ivan Tennant, Deputy County Road Commissioner, and engineers from the RANPAC Company, who are responsible for the design and construction of the project elements in A.D. 161, which includes the six-laning of Winchester Road, as well as upgrading the Winchester/Nicolas intersection and the installation of signals, did not give much encouragement for an early completion of that project. A.D. 161 is contemplating the sale of Series "C" Bonds for the financing of the next project elements in the A.D. 161 program, which includes the Winchester-Nicholas Road intersection. Largely because of the economic turndown, developers who own the underlying property that pay the bills for A.D. 161 have decided to delay the sale of the Series "C" Bonds for a while. -3- pwOl~s~drpt\lll2\callancd.alt 110491 Staff mailed out a questionnaire to the residents bounded on the north by Nicolas Road, east by Wolcott Road, south by La Serena Way, and west by Calle Medusa. As of November 1, 1991, there were 351 effective questionnaires sent out and 173 (49%) returned. The following is the questionnaire with results (as of November 1 st): CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS/TRAFFIC DIVISION QUESTIONNAIRE YE~ NO NIA Improvement/completion of routes have been proposed. they help? alternate 103 (60%) 64 (37%) Would 6 (3%) Please rank alternate routes with #1, #2 and #3 in order of importance: 52 (30%) Extension of Margarita Road, Winchester to North General Kearney 35 (2O%) 69 (40%) Extension/improvement of 49 (28%) Butterfield Stage Road via Calle Girasol and Calle Chapos to connect Rancho California Road and Nicolas 51 (29%) 53 (31%) Full intersection improvements 84 (49%) @ Winchester & Nicolas with e traffic signal 33 (19%) 47 (27%) N/A 17 (10%) 21 (12%) 9 (5%) -4-- pwOl~agdrpt\lll2\czdlcmcd.slt 110491 J. Vanderwal 992 Carnation Ave Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 ( 71 4 ) 850-1500 The Honorable Members of the City Council c/o Mr. Tim Serlett Public Works Dept. 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92390 Nov. 4, 1991 Ref: City council Hearing on Nov. 12, 1991. Item: Road improvements for Butterfield Road and Calle Chapos. Dear Members of the City Council, As a property owner in the area and a General Contractor I would like to make the following comments: Because of the steadily increasing population in the subject general area it is clear that the time has come to provide adequate all-weather access to the residents in that vicinity, which simultaneously would benefit the residents of Calle Medusa who now suffer dangerous and highly undisirable truck and other through traffic in their neighborhood. From an economic point of view, there will never be a more advantageous time then right now to improve these roads, because: 1. -- General construction activity is presently very low, many contractors have no work, and they would come in with bids right now to do this work at rockbottom prices. 2. -- Interest rates are at present very, very low, and long term financing of this roadwork at this time would guarantee that this project can be done at a very low cost that can not be matched in the future. 3. -- Due to the strategic location of Butterfield Road and Calle Chapos, it would greatly enhance under inclement weather conditions much needed fire and police protection, and it would also improve trash collection, and reduce undesirable dumping of toxic materials and other unwanted disposables. I hope that you will give the above items serious consideration, in particular since I know that you will want the very best for your constituents in the City of Temecula. JV/jg Sincerely, Jay Vanderwal TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD OCTOBER 8, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:11 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula by President Sal Mu~oz. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Parks Also present were City Manager David Dixon, Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh and City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS James Marpie, 19250 St. Gallon Way, Murrieta, spoke regarding steps that need to be initiated to control rainfall run off. He also recommended that trails be placed in the creek beds to create hiking, biking and riding arterials through out the City. He recommended that the City contact the University of California and invite them to prepare a study of the available resources to help preserve the natural water courses in the area. CONSENT CALENDAR Director Birdsall questioned if there are CDBG funds to cover the change order for the Sam Hicks Monument Park project. Community Services Director Shawn Nelson responded that funds are available through CDBG. It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Moore to approve the staff recommendations on Consent Calendar items one through three as follows: 1. Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of September 24, 1991 as mailed. Change Order - Sam Hicks Monument Park Curb and Gutter Project 2.1 Approve change order to the Sam Hicks Monument Park Curb and Gutter Project for additional electrical and street improvements. Tcsd\ 10/08/91 - 1 - 1 O/18/91 Temecula Community Services District Minutes October 8.1990 Change Order - Sports Park Restroom/Snackbar Project 3.1 Approve change order to the Sports Park Restroom/Snackbar Project for soils compaction requirements, masonry and handicapped improvements. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz None Parks DISTRICT BUSINESS 4. Sports Park Battinq Cage Proposal Community Services Director Shawn Nelson advised that the developer has requested a continuance of this matter to allow time to present additional information to the City. It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Moore to continue this matter off calendar and to present any additional information from the developer to the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to it being reconsidered by the Board of Directors. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Parks absent. 5. Official Name of Sports Park Community Services Director Shawn Nelson presented the staff report outlining the Parks and Recreation Commission's reasons for recommending the renaming of the Rancho California Sports Park to Sports Park. Director Lindemans stated he favors retention of the existing name since it helps the area in name recognition. Director Moore stated that Rancho California is part of the area's history and that it should not be discarded just because it was not the name chosen for the City. Director Birdsall stated that she does not favor a name change because the park was built and dedicated by the donors as Rancho California Sports Park. She said to rename it would show disrespect to the people who made this donation. President Mu~oz concurred with all of the comments. It was agreed by consensus of the Board of Directors to take no action on the recommendation to rename the park. Tcsd\ 1010819 1 -2- 10/18/91 Temecula Community Services District Minutes October 8.1990 GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT General Manager David Dixon advised that staff is continuing to pursue the matter of the funds still owed to the Community Services District by the County of Riverside. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORS REPORT No report was given. BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS No reports were given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Birdsall to adjourn at 8:34 PM to a meeting to be held on October 22, 1991,8:00 PM in the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. J. Sal Mu~oz, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk Tcsd\l O/08/91 -3- 10/18/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD OCTOBER 22, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:11 PM. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko, City Attorney Scott F. Field and Recording Secretary, Susan W. Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CSD BUSINESS 1. Boys and Girls Club ReQuest for Funds Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, introduced the staff report. Jeannie Miley, 42106 Via Beso del Sol, addressed the Board requesting consideration of an interest free loan of $24,800 for the balance owed on a modular building which could be used to house the Boys and Girls Club. She asked that this loan have a 15 year period, with a graduated payment program. Ms. Miley also requested that the modular building(s) be located on 5 acres of parkland which could be leased to the Boys and Girls Club for $1/year for 99 years. She explained this is a much needed program for the youth in the City. Director Lindemans expressed his support of this program, stating that the City has a responsibility to its youth in providing programs that will prevent problems such as drug abuse, crime, etc. Director Moore asked if the Boys and Girls Club has done any fund raising on its own. Ms. Miley stated that the Club is working on a "write-in" campaign for United Way Funds, they will be having a Christmas Tree Auction and many service clubs have been contacted. Michael Donaldson, 31240 Calle Felicioad, President of the Board of Directors of the Boys and Girls Club, asked that the Board act favorably on the Boys and Girls Club request for funds, and give them the opportunity to provide services to the children of the community. Minutes\l 0\22\91 -1 - 10/29/91 CSD Minutes October 22, 1991 President Mu~oz asked what type of programs would be offered. Mr. Donaldson stated that a large variety of programs would be offered such as a babysitting course, with a certificate upon completion, homework tutors, basketball program, karate, computer room, etc. Earl Faison, 40088 Adian Court, asked that the Board of Directors support this request for a loan, stating the Boys and Girls Club offers programs that a Community Recreation Center does not. Donald K. Engdahl, 418590 Corte Selva, addressed the Board of Directors in support of a loan to the Boys and Girls Club and asked that land be set aside for the modular buildings. Evelyn Harker, 31130 So. General Kearny Road, supported the loan request of ~24,800 for the Boys and Girls Club, and asked that land be made available for their use. Director Birdsall noted an error in the amount of total payments. She stated the final payment should read $400.00 per month. It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Moore to approve an interest free loan in the amount of $24,800 for the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula to be used for the purchase of a 5,000 sq. ft modular building. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT General Manager Dixon reported that staff will be instructed to coordinate activities between the Community Services Department and the Boys and Girls Club so that activities are not unnecessarily duplicated. He also encouraged the Boys and Girls Club to meet with Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer to apply for City Council discretionary funds. Minutes\ 1 O\ 22\91 - 2- 10/29/91 CSD Minutes October 22, 1991 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT Shawn Nelson reported that the first Community Workshop on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan has been scheduled for October 28, 1991 at 7:00 PM at Vail Elementary School, and encouraged the public to attend. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:53 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk/TCSD Secretary J. Sal Mu~oz, President Minutes\l 0\22\91 -3- 10/29/91 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON NOVEMBER 12, 1991 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - SPORTS PARK BALLFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT- PHASE I & II PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Accept Phase I and Phase II of the Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project as 100% complete. Authorize final retention payment to Assured Electrical Contractors, Contract # 0137 and # 0207, to be released pursuant to section 9-3.1 of the Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction. 3. Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion. BACKGROUND: Phase l of the Sports Park Ballfield Lighting Project consisted of installing lights to three (3) fields on the Rancho Vista area of Sports Park. Phase II consisted of retro-fitting the existing ballfield lights on the North and South fields, and installing lights to the upper south soccer field. Final inspection of the project was conducted by the City's Building and Safety Department for Phase I on April 5, 1991, and Phase II on August 28, 1991. The projects were found to be 100% complete and in accordance with plans and specifications. The Finance Department has been notified of the completion of the projects for Risk Management purposes. FISCAL IMPACT: This project was funded with TCSD Assessments from Fiscal Year 1990-91. The total construction cost for Phase I was $198,988, and for Phase II was $140,352. Both projects were completed within approved budget limits authorized by the Board of Directors. Recording Requested By When Recorded, Mail To: City of Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Notice 1. NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF WORK is hereby given that: The undersigned are Owners representative for the interest of estate stated below in the property hereinafter described. The full name of Owner is: City of Temecula The full address of the Owner is: 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 The nature of the title of the Owner is: In Fee. The following Work of Improvement was made on the property hereinafter described: Rancho California SDOrtS Park, Phase I The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was: Assured Electrical Contractors, Inc. The above named Contractor on, 10/24/91 , executed the attached Contractor's Conditional Waiver and Release Form. The property on which said work of Improvement was completed is located in City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California. The address and assessor's parcel number of said property is: 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA APN 945-050-007 Signature of Representative By David F. Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on (SEAL) Notary Public in and for said City and State RELEASE FORM 3 CONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT (Civil Code 3262 (d)(3)) Upon receipt by the undersigned of a check from The City of Temecula in the sum of $ 1,698.76 payable to Assured Electrical Contractors, Inc. and when the check has been properly endorsed and has been paid by the bank upon which it is drawn, this document shall become effective to release any mechanic's lien, stop notice or bond right the undersigned has on the job of The City of Temecula (Owner) located at Ballfield Lighting Project - Phase I (Job Description) This release covers the final payment to the undersigned for all labor, services, equipment or material furnished on the job, except for disputed claims for additional work in the amount of $ -0- Before any recipient of this document relies on it, the party should verify evidence of payment to the undersigned. Dated: October 24, 1991 Assured Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Company Name) by: ~~~# - "' ( President NOTE: This form of release complies with the requirements of Civil Code 3262 (d)(3). It is not effective until the check that constitutes final payment has been properly endorsed and has cleared the bank. OFRC~L SEAL JANET E MILLEI~ Notaft Pul~;~c-Calffomta My Ct,,.,-' ::n Exl}/ss ,July 16, P}93 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24 day of October , 1991. Notary Public in an~for the County of Orange ,State of California. Recording Requested By When Recorded, Mail To: City of Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF WORK Notice 1. is hereby given that: The undersigned are Owners representative for the interest of estate stated below in the property hereinafter described. The full name of Owner is: City of Temecula The full address of the Owner is: 43174 Business Park Drive. Temecula, CA 92590 The nature of the title of the Owner is: In Fee. The following Work of Improvement was made on the property hereinafter described: Rancho California Sports Park, Phase II 7. 8. 9. The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was: Assured Electrical Contractors, Inc. The above named Contractor on, 10/24/91 , executed the attached Contractor's Conditional Waiver and Release Form. The property on which said work of Improvement was completed is located in City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California. The address and assessor's parcel number of said property is: 42775 Margarita Road, Temecula, CA APN 945-050-007 Signature of Representative By David F. Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on (SEAL) Notary Public in and for said City and State RELEASE FORM 3 CONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT (Civil Code 3262 (d)(3)) Upon receipt by the undersigned of a check from The City of Temecula in the sum of $ 14,035.22 payable to Assured Electrical Contractors, Inc. and when the check has been properly endorsed and has been paid by the bank upon which it is drawn, this document shall become effective to release any mechanic's lien, stop notice or bond right the undersigned has on the job of City of Temecula (Owner located at Ballfield Lighting Project - Phase II (Job Description) This release covers the final payment to the undersigned for all labor, services, equipment or material furnished on the job, except for disputed claims for additional work in the amount of $ -0- . Before any recipient of this document relies on it, the party should verify evidence of payment to the undersigned. Dated: October 24, 1991 Assured Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Company Name) by :~),es/ident~ NOTE: This form of release complies with the requirements of Civil Code 3262 (d)(3). It is not effective until the check that constitutes final payment has been properly endorsed and has cleared the bank. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24 day of OcTober , 1991. Notary Public i for the County of Orange ,State of California. ITEM 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON NOVEMBER 12, 1991 AWARD OF BID - RECREATION BROCHURES PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Award contract to The Californian to produce two (2) issues of the Community Services Recreation Brochure. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost to produce two (2) issues of the Recreation Brochure will not exceed $11,000.00. Unencumbered funds exist in account #019-190-999- 42-5222. DISCUSSION: A Request For Proposal (RFP) was released by the City to solicit proposals for the development and professional production of two (2) issues of the Community Services Recreation Brochure. The winter/spring issue will be distributed city-wide on January 6, 1992 and the summer/fall issue on June 5, 1992. The brochures will include 16 pages with a glossy, full color, eighty-weight outer cover, and glossy, seventy-weight paper on the interior pages. Services provided will include camera ready art work, type setting layout, final printing, and delivery to the U.S. Post Office for bulk direct mail delivery. A total of four (4) proposals were submitted to the City for consideration. The proposals were submitted as follows: 1. The Californian $10,820.00 2. Maurice Printers 19,826.00 3. Sir Speedy Printing 23,970.00 4. Fred Lamb Design Associates 28,886.06 It is staff's recommendation to award contract to the lowest, qualified bidder. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement was made and entered into this 13th day of November 1991, by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and The Californian, a Corporation CConsultant"). The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 2. Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described t~erein. 3. Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant in an amount that will not exceed St 1.000 for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Courtcil; provided that the City .'Manager may approve additional payment not to exceect ten percent (10%) of the Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000. Consultant will submit invoices monthly tbr actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services provided in tlne previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. 4. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. 5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services performed. 2/forms/ARC-05 I Re;' iscd 8/23 ,'91 7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and agains~ any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City. its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon tlnem for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultants acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City. 8. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the Citv for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall i~ot be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising OLl[ Of performing services hereunder. 9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on November 13, 1991, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed. but in no even~ later than June 30, 1991. 10. Subcontracts. The Consultant shall not enter into any subcontracts for services to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of this Agreement without the consent of the City. At all times, The Californian shall be primarily responsible for the performance of the tasks described herein. Upon such notice, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement. Consultant's sole compensation shall be for the value of service rendered to the City. l 1. Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the pertbrmance of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default. Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final. 2!formstARG-05 2 Revtsed 8123/91 Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration l~earing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. 12. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal sen'ice on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: a. City: Attention: City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 The Californian 27450 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 9259 The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal Service. 13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. 14. Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder tbr City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees. and representatives for all claims or losses the City may stiffer resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant. 2/Con'n,s/ARG-05 3 Revised 8/23/91 Consultant shall secure workman's compensation insurance. Upon request of Consultar~t, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workman's cornpensation policy and the Consultant to the City's workman's compensation policy and the Consultant shall reimburse the City for the cost Of said insurance premiums. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT By: Title ATTEST: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney 2,'forms/ARG-05 4 Rcv i~,ed i, 23 ,'91 October 10, 1991 EXHIBIT Request for Proposal The Community Services Department of the City of Temecula is currently soliciting proposals for the complete development and professional production of two issues of the Community Services Department recreation brochure. Your company is invited ~o submit a proposal for providing this service. It is rec~uested that your pro0osal be completed and received no later :ban Friday, October 25, 1991, ate:00 p.m. If you feel there are important items tha: should be inctucjed in the specifications, please include [hem in your proposal. Following an initial screening, the firm found to be the most qualified will be contacted for an interview. If you require additional information, please call 694--64-80. Sincerely, CITY OF TEMECULA Herman D. Parker Recreation Superintendent October 1 O, 1991 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The Community Services Department of the City of Temecula, hereinafter referred to as the City, is inviting proposals from qualified consultant firms experienced with developing Recreation Brochures. The City would like qualified firms to prelaare a proposal for the development of two (2) sixteen (16) page recreation brochures. The purpose of this project is to provide the City of Temecula with a guide to city leisure services. It is envisioned that the end result of this project will be used to inform the general public of all leisure, sports, special events, social and cultural services available through the Community Services Department. SPECIFICATIONS: (a) This brochure will be distributed January 6, 1992 and June 5, 1992. (b) The brochure will be 8-1/2" X 11" (c) A minimum of 16,000 copies of each issue will be required for distribution. (d) The brochure will have sixteen pages. (e) The brochure will have a glossy, full color, eighty-weight outer cover. (f) One color of ink will be used within the brochure. (g) The brochure will be timely prepared for distribution by direct mail. (h) Internal pages shall be white, glossy, seventy\weight paper. (i) The Contractor shall: 1. Coordinate and complete production of the brochure, including: o Provide photography for outer cover of brochure o Provide camera ready art work o Coordination of entire project o Arrange for the com01etion of design, typesetting layout and paste-up of all art work, and pages to be camera-ready for printing; Page 2 Request for Proposal Recreation Brochure O Submit adequate proofs for approval by the Community Services Department prior to printing; Provide printing of approximately 16,000 copies per issue, for a total of two issues; and, Divide brochure by postal route, label, and deliver to the U.S. Post Office for bull< direct mail delivery, and to the Community Services Department office. The Community Services De0ar:ment shall: o Provide a typewritten copy of all activities for the brochure in a timely manner. o Promptly review and respond to all proofs suiamitteq; anc~, o Reserve the right .:o review and reject any printed material that does not comply with guidelines. SELECTION CRITERIA: The prospective contractors will be evaluated based on the following submitted to the City: 1. A statement regarding the contractors experience and qualifications to successfully complete the specifications. 2. A sample of related projects and client references. 3. The names of any outside consultants or subcontractors to be utilized, along with their experience. 4-. The fees associated with this project shall be submitted as follows: January 6, 1992 publication cost $ June 5, 1992 publication cost $ Total cost not to exceed $ Page 3 Request for Proposal Recreation Brochure A statement indicating proposing company has carefully read and submits this proposal for consideration of the Request For Proposal. The City reserves the right to select the appropriate firm based on the most qualified, lowest proposal. TIME SCHEDULES: The prospective contractor snail indicate the total time frame proposed :o complete the project. The time required To complete each task identified in the contractor's scope of work shall also be presented. This section, preferably, should be presented in graphic form. It is envisioned that the total time necessary for the Oroject should not exceed 31 working days. The following is the City's tentative schedule for selection of the contractor: Request for proposals mailed to interested firms Deadline for filing RFP: Staff review of proposals: Staff recommendations forwarded for approval City Council awards contract October 10, 1991 October 25, 1991 October 28, 1991 November 1, 1991 November 12, 1991 Prior to 4:00 p.m., October 25, 1991, proposals shall be submitted to: City of Temecula Attention: City Clerk's Office 4-317a, Business Park Drive Temecula-, California 92590 Page 4 Request for Proposal Recrea[ion Brochure General Information: 1. The proposal shall be signed by an authorized official of the firm. 2. The proposal shall be valid for a minimum of 90 days. 3. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. ,4-. Please refer any questions regarding t~is request for proposal specification to Herman Parker, Recreation Superintendent at 714-) 694-6480. 5. Contractor is obligated to provide evidence of ~nsurance ',iability and abide by the City's Risk Management Procedures. Sincerely, CITY OF TEMECULA TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD OCTOBER 8, 1991 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 9:11 PM in the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Chairperson Peg Moore presiding. PRESENT 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Moore ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Parks Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, and City Clerk/Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments offered. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Birdsall to approve the minutes of September 24, 1991 as mailed. The motion was unanimously carried with Member Parks absent. 2. Regulations and Selection - Old Town Advisory Committee Executive Director David Dixon requested that the Agency continue this matter off calendar to allow staff additional time to look at possible alternatives for selection of this committee. Agency Member Lindemans said that if the historical area is extended pursuant to the Planning Commission's recent recommendation, he would like to negotiate that the area designated in the stipulated judgement be changed to reflect the extended historical overlay area. It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Lindemans to continue this matter off calendar. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Parks absent. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Dixon reported that an Executive Session needs to be scheduled in the near future to discuss purchases of specific properties. Minutes\l 0/08/91 - 1 - 10/17/91 Redevelol~ment Aclencv Minutes October 8.1991 GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT No report. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS No reports given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Birdsall, seconded by Member Lindemans to adjourn at 9:10 PM to a meeting to be held October 22, 1991, immediately following the City Council meeting at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Peg Moore, Chairperson June S. Greek, City Clerk/ Agency Secretary Minutes\l 0/O8/91 -2- 10/17/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD OCTOBER 22, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:54 PM. PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks, Moore ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Recording Secretary Susan W. Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Dixon reported that RFQ's have been requested for the Old Town Master Plan, and the best qualified firms will be asked to submit proposals. He also reported that the City has been approached by a number of businesses in Old Town regarding upgrading of buildings by use of facades, parking lots, etc. He stated that within 45 days, staff will have a number of these programs for the Agency's review. GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Birdsall to adjourn at 8:56 PM to a regular meeting on November 12, 1991, at the Temporary Temecula Community Center at 7:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Peg Moore, Chairperson June S. Greek, Agency Secretary 4\RDAMIN\102291 -1- 10/28/91