HomeMy WebLinkAbout012892 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 29816 PUJOL
JANUARY 28, 1992 - 7i00 PM
EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:00 PM - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9 (b} and (c) to discuss potential litigation.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-01
Resolution: No. 92-02
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding
Invocation
Pastor Harris Mullen - Seventh Day Adventist Church
Flag Salute
Councilmember Mur~oz
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation - January 29~ 1992 - Ronald J. Parks
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members 0f the public can address the Council
on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on: the Consent Calendar. Speakers are
limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item
not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak" form
should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
NOTICE TO THE PUBILIC
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 iitems be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
2/e~enda/Oe 1290 I 01123/92
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 14, 1992.
3
Resolution Aporovina List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT
A
4
Changes in Policy Guidelines for Old Town Historic Review Board
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt the amended policy guidelines to the Old Town Historical Review
Committee Operational Guidelines.
5
City Treasurer's ReD0rt for the Period Endina December 31, 1991
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Receive and file report.
2/aeenda/061290 2 01122/92
6 Committee APPOintments to General Plan Technical Subcommittee
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Appoint the following individuals to serve on the five general plan
technical subcommittees:
Land Use:
David Christian, Bruce McCandless, Larry
Markham, Ralph Brownell, David Lowry
Traffic/Circulation:
Csaba Ko, Bob Hemme, Max Gilliss,
Sydney Vernon, Chris Martinelli
Community Design:
Marsha Slaven, Nancy Maurice, Bob
Brotherton, Doug Scott, Christina Grina
Economic Develooment:
Allen McDonald, Guy Williams, Jim Meyler,
Howard Chesher, Chuck Cena
Growth Management:
Wayne Balmbridge, Perry Peters, Marc
Grisham, Jay Hoffman, Phil Hoxey
7 Willdan Contract Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Approve an amendment to the contract with Willdan Associates and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.
8 Professional Services Agreement - Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates
(Design services for Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road, southern
portion)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Approve an agreement for professional services for design on the
Margarita Road extension with the firm of Robert Bein, William Frost and
Associates and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
agreement.
Conversion of City Vehicles to Alternative Fuel Sources
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Approve conversion of three (3) vehicles to propane.
9.2
Amend the FY 91-92 budget by $5,000 for the cost of the conversion.
2/ageride/061290 3 01/23/92
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.
10
Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 23372 - Buie Corporation - Margarita Villaae Specific
Plan
(Continued from the meeting of January 14, 1992)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23372
10.2
Approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23372, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
11
Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 23373 - Buie Corporation - Maraarita Village Specific
Plan
(Continued from the meeting of January 14, 1992)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23373
11.2
Approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23373, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval
12
Change of Zone No. 5631, Tentative Tract MaD No. 25320 - Bedford Properties
(Continued from the meeting of January 14, 1992)
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1
Continue Change of zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 25320 to the meeting of February 11, 1992.
21~er~d~Oe 1290 4 01/22/92
COUNCIL BUSINESS
13
FY-1991-92 Mid-year Budget Review
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve the Mid-year budget as set forth in Attachment "A".
13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
14
Avenida de la Reina Study
RECOMMENDATION
14.1 Evaluate the impact of the temporary six-month closure.
15
Community Services Funding Reauests
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve or revise the recommendations for the Community Services
funding requests.
16
Appointment of Public Safety Commission Member
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Appoint a member to the Public Safety Commission to fill the unexpired
term of Commissioner Kevin Ruddy.
17
Status Report on French Valley Airport
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Receive and file report.
2/egende/Oe 12gO 5 01/22/g2
18 Ordinance to Reauire Fire Resistive Roof Coverinas
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Set a Public Hearing for Tuesday, February 25, 1992 to consider the
adoption of an ordinance to require Fire Resistlye Roof Coverings.
18.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
AMENDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457, "UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE" ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, BY
AMENDING SECTION 3203 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING FIRE RESISTIVE
ROOF COVERINGS.
19 City Promotional Proaram
(Discussion item placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mu~oz)
20 Consideration of Site Selection and Establishment of Senior Center
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Consider selection of one of the two proposed sites for operation of a
senior center;
20.2 Appropriate funds from the noted source (dependent upon the site
selected - see fiscal impact) to provide for the establishment of a Senior
Center.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: February 4, 1992, 7:00 PM, Special Meeting to be held regarding
Improvement and Flood Control of Murrieta Creek - Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol
Street, Temecula, California.
Next regular meeting: February 11,7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol
Street, Temecula, California
2/eOende/O61290 6 01123192
TEMECULA: COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING- (To be held ~ 8:00);
Next in Order:
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
President Ronald J. Parks
Ordinance: No. 91-
Resolution: No. 91-
DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should
present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state
your name and address for the record.
1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of January 14, 1992.
2 Analvsis of Bond Proceeds
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and file the schedule of Use of Bond Proceeds report.
DISTRICT BUSINESS
3 Mid-vear Review of FY 1991-92 Budaet
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
3.2
Approve the Mid-year budget as set forth in Attachment "A"
Adopt a resolution entitled:
CSD RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN ESTIMATED REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS.
2/a~enda/081280 7 01/22192
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting February I 1,1992, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula
Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 91-
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson J. Sal Mur~oz presiding
AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mur~oz, Parks,
Moore
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a
completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you
are called to speak, please come forward and state your name
and address for the record.
AGENCY BUSINESS
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of January 14, 1992.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:
Next regular meeting February 11, 1992, 8:00 PM,
Community Center, 28816, Temecula, California
Temecula
2/eeend//081290 8 01/22/92
PROCLAMATIONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
The City of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, California was duly incorporated on December 1,
1989; and
WHEREAS, the voters of the newly incorporated City of Temecula elected Ronald J.
Parks to serve as a member of the City Council by the highest number of votes cast for a single
candidate; and
WHEREAS, his fellow memberS of the City Council elected Ronald J. Parks to serve
as the first Mayor of the City of Temecula on December 1, 1989 and re-elected him to serve
in that position for a second term in December of 1990; and
WHEREAS, Ronald J. Parks has served in the capacity of Mayor of the City of
Temecula for a period of two years with great distinction, wisdom and patience;
NOW, THEREFORE, I Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City
of Temecula, in honor of this important citizen, distinguished colleague and friend, proclaim
January 29, 1992 to be:
RONALD J. PARKS DAY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 281h day of January, 1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM
ITEM
2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD JANUARY 14,1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:38 PM in the Main
Conference Room, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT 4
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz,
Birdsall
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko,
City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Birdsall declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a) Poltev. City of Temecula, (b) and (c) regarding Potential Litigation at 5:34
PM.
The meeting was reconvened in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street,
Temecula California, in regular session at 7:08 PM by Mayor Birdsall.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Reverend Joan Rich Egan, Church of Religious Science.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Jr. Girl Scout Troop No. 785, Kathie Miller Leader, made a presentation tO the City Council
and led the audience in the pledge of allegiance.
Mayor Birdsall announced that the scheduled proclamation would be postponed until the
meeting of January 28, 1992.
PUBLIC FORUM
Barbara Pearson, 30150 Via Monterey, representing the Town Association, welcomed the City
Council back to the newly rebuilt Community Center and presented the Mayor Birdsall with
a pair of overalls, with "Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall" embroidered on the front.
Ninutes\l\l/,\f2 -1 - 01/17/~2
City Council Minutes January 14. 1992
David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of the Village Association representing the
Board, read a statement regarding the problem of sedimentation from the Palomar Village
Shopping Center and its affect on the Villages property and Long Valley Wash. He requested
that the City take whatever action is appropriate to assist the Villages in securing
reimbursement of $43,000 in expenses for cleaning up the run-off damage and in further
requiring the owners of the shopping center, Bedford Properties, to remove the dirt and silt
which has accumulated in the basins under their property.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans requested staff place this matter on the agenda of January 28,
1992.
CONSFNT CALFNDAR
Councilmember Mufioz asked questions on the following Consent Calendar Items:
6. Contract A(ireement for Street Address Numberino
Councilmember Muf~oz asked if this is an attempt to put addresses on all property in
the City. Mark Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager, explained this is to standardize
the numbering system within the City.
Solicitation of Public Bids for the Construction of Sidewalks at Rancho Elementary
School. Vail Elementary School and Temeculq Elementary School along with Street
Imorovements on Maroarita and Moraga Road adjacent to Temecula Elementary School
Councilmember Muf~oz asked why these improvements were not done at the time the
schools were built. Planning Director Gary Thornhill explained that the County did not
condition these sites for these improvements at the time of build-out.
10. Selection of Financial Advisor to Evaluate Bond Caoacitv
Councilmember Mu~oz asked for a brief explanation of the services a Financial Advisor
would provide the City. Mary Jane Henry stated two studies will take place, one for
CSD and one for RDA. She explained the financial advisor will study the capacity of
those two entities to bond.
City Manager Dixon explained that underwriters as well as rating agencies, require a
report issued by an "expert" on Bond Capacity, certifying to the capacity of the entity
to bond. He explained this is a requirement of all underwriters.
!qinutes\1\1/,\92 -2- 01/17/~)2
City Council Minutes January 14. 1992
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1-10.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Birdsall
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
Minutes
2.1
2.2
Approve the minutes of Decemt~er 1 O, 1991 as mailed.
Approve the minutes of December 17, 1991 as mailed·
Resolution Aoorovinq List of Demands
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
City Treasurer's Reoort for Period Ending November 30. 1991
4.1
Receive and file report.
Comoletion end Acceotence of Siqnal Construction at Towne Center and Rancho
California Road: City Proiect No, PW 91-02
5.1
Accept the traffic signal at the intersection of the Towne Center
Driveway and Rancho California Road ~s complete and direct the City
Clerk to file the Notice of Completion;
Minutes\l\14\92 -3- 01/17/92
City Council Minutes
5.2
5.3
5.4
Januarv 14. 1997
Release the Performance Bond and accept a one-year maintenance bond;
Authorize the release of the construction retention 35 days after the
filing of the Notice of CompletiOn and upon the filing of an adequate
warranty;
Authorize the release of the Material and Labor seven months after the
filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed.
10.
Contract Agreement for Street Address Numbering
6.1
Approve a contract agreement with Mr. Franklin Stuart to provide
address numbering services on an as-needed basis.
Acceotance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 21340-3
7.1
Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 21340-3, authorize the
reduction of street, sewer and water bonds, accept the maintenance
bond in the reduced amount, approve the subdivision agreement rider
and direct the City Clerk to So advise the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors.
Solicitation of Public Bids for the Constructign of Sidewalks at Rancho Elementary
School. Vail Elementary School and Temecul$ Elementary School alone with Street
Imgrovements on Maroarita and Moraoa Road adjacent to Temecula Elementary School
8.1
Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the
construction of sidewalks at Rancho Elementary School, Vail Elementary
School and Temecula Elementary School, along with the construction of
ultimate street improvements on Margarita and Moraga Road adjacent
to Temecula Elementary School;
Award of Bid to Remove Sediment in Emoire Creek from I-15 to Murrieta Creek
9.1
Award a bid for removal of sediment and restoration of Empire Creek
Channel to Lewis Valley Contractors for the sum of $58,643.00.
Selection of Financial Advisor to Evaluate Bond Capacity
10.1
Approve the $4,500 advance to the Redevelopment Agency for a bond
capacity study.
Ninutes\1\14\92 -4- 01/17/92
Citv Council Minutes January 14, 1992
PUBLIC H;ARINGS
11. Change of Zone 19 - Exoansion of Old Town Historic Area Boundaries
Gary Thornhill, DireCtor of Planning presented the staff report, outlining the proposed
Expansion of Old Town Historic Area Boundaries. He reported that 12 letters of
protest have been received and two letters in agreement. He reported over 800
notices were mailed out on this project.
Councilmember Mufioz asked if those originally opposed to the Redevelopment Agency
had been contacted. Mr. Thornhill explained this does not affect the RDA and those
people have not been contacted.
Councilmember Mufioz asked for an explanation on the rationale for the expansion.
Planning Director Thornhill explained the intent of this expansion is to provide an entry
statement for the Old Town Area, by creating a transitional type zoning.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 7:40 PM.
Keith McCann, 43121 Margarita, addressed the City Council objecting to the
expansion. He explained the area on Front Street from Santiago to Hwy. 79 is
cluttered with mixed uses and this expansion: would further complicate the problem.
He stated his concern that expansion of this area would make development of property
too costly.
Nancy Hughes, 43300 spoke in opposition to the area south of Santiago being
included. She asked that the public hearing be continued to give property owners the
opportunity to further voice their opinion.
R. A. Normandin, 28801 Pujol Street, stated he owns 27 parcels on Pujol Street. He
said his property will not fit in Old Town Development Plan, and stated he is opposed
to this expansion.
Nell Cleveland, 28465 Front Street, #321, owner of the Western Lumber Building at
the corner of Front Street and Santiago. He stated he is confused as to what
involvement property owners would have by being included in the historical district and
asked how this will affect property in the future. He requested a continuance for
further clarification.
Bruce Stein, 28250-28322 Front Street, spoke in opposition to the expansion. He
also expressed concern for future requirements which might be imposed on property
OwrterS.
Mayor Birdsall read a letter of opposition to the expansion from Hayat Haddat.
Minutes\1\16\g2 -5- 01/17192
City Council Minutes
January 14, 1992
Nancy Hughes questioned if the 50% of letters in opposition, necessary to prevent the
expansion, includes the existing Old Town Area.
City Attorney Scott Field stated it must be 50% of the affected area being proposed
for expansion of the zone. He suggested closing the public hearing and continuing
consideration of the expansion.
Councilmember Mufioz stated he would like to have the public hearing continued.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked staff to prepare a report explaining the possible
impacts to property owners of this expansion. He further stated he is in favor of
cutting off everything south of Santiago from the proposed expansion area, and agreed
that too large of an area would take away from a quaint Old Town area.
It was moved by Councilmember Muftoz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
continue the public hearing to February 11, 1992.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz, Birdsall
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 8:00 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the
Community Services Meeting at 8:38 PM.
Mayor Birdsall stated Public Hearing Items 12 and 13 would be heard concurrently.
12.
Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 23373. Buie Gorooration. Maroarita Village Soecific
13.
Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No. 23373, Buie Corooration. Maraarita Villaae Soecific
Plan
Gary Thornhill presented the staff report on Items 12 and 13. (He distributed copies
of conditions dealing with age requirements.)
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:40 PM.
Minutes\l\1/,\92 -6- 01/17/92
City Council Minutes January 14. 1992
Richard Schulman, 600 "B" Street, Suite 1100, San Diego, representing Margarita
Village Development Company, spoke in favor of granting the first extension of time
for both projects. Mr. Schulman stated he is opposed to the imposition of any
additional fees not contained in the Development Agreement.
Councilmember Mufioz asked if the applicant is willing to accept the Quimby Fees
Condition as a part of the extension. Mr. Schulman stated the applicant's primary
interest is approval of the first extension of time.
Ralph Brownell, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, spoke in opposition to the development due
to high density proposed for the project.
Thomas Bentley, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, spoke in opposition to the extension of
time for both tracts.
Robert Becker, 41559 Chenin Blanc Street, spoke in opposition to the extension of
time based on the high density proposed.
David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, representing Villages Homeowners Association,
spoke in opposition to the extension of time based on the sedimentation problems
created by the project.
Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 8:59 PM.
Mayor Birdsall asked if the density of this project has changed. Director of Planning
Gary Thornhill, stated the City has not changed the density which was approved by
the County of Riverside in 1988.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans stated he is in possession of a title report that states the
project intends to develop a Senior Citizens Planned Community. He also stated that
the project is currently in bankruptcy.
Richard Schulman stated that the only issue before the City Council is the extension
of time. He also stated that Buie Corporation is planning to reorganize and that the
bond issue has not failed. He advised that he has not heard of any inability on the part
of the developer to properly maintain the site.
Director of Public Works Tim Serlet stated that the Public Works Department has
secured installation of erosion control at this site and they are satisfied, at this time,
that the erosion control is adequate.
Councilmember Mur'ioz questioned when the most recent approval for density of the
project was given and questioned the height of the buildings.
Hinutes\1\14\92 -7- 01117192
City Council Minutes
14.
January 14, 1997
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 9:13 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:14 PM.
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill stated the 1988 approval by the County of
Riverside established the existing density.
Richard Schulman, stated the height of the buildings will be two to three stories.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to
continue Items 12 and 13 to the meeting of ,January 28, 1992, and direct staff to
ascertain if a health and safety issue exists as a result of the run-off from the property
to neighboring sites.
Mr. Schulman opposed the continuance stating the property applying for the two
extensions of time has not been graded.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Birdsall
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
Chanoe of Zone 5631 - Tentative Mao No. 29320 - Bedford Prooerties
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 9:20 PM.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans to
continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of January 28, 1992. The motion was
unanimously carried with Councilmember Parks absent.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
15. Conversion of City Vehicles to Alternative Fuql Sources
Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko stated that staff recommends this item be
continued to the meeting of January 28, 1992 since they have received additional
information, regarding mounting of fuel tanks, which needs to be analyzed.
Ninutes\1\1A\92 -8- 01/17/92
City Council Minutes January 14, 1992
It was moved by Councilmember Mur~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue this item to the meeting of January 28, 1992.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
16. Council and Committee Aooointments to General Plan Technical Subcommittee
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill reported that staff has not received nominations
from two Councilmembers and therefore suggests continuing this item to the meeting
of January 28, 1992. Mr. Thornhill asked for direction regarding suggested Council
assignments to these committees.
Mayor Birdsall asked if Councilmember MoOre would be interested in switching
committee assignments. Councilmember Moore stated that since she has been
involved with the League of California Cities on Growth Management, she would favor
changing committees.
Councilmembers Lindemans and Mur~oz stated they were in agreement with
assignments as listed.
It was moved by Councilmember Mufioz, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
continue committee appointments to the meeting of January 28, 1992 as approve
Council assignments as follows:
Land Use - Councilmember Parks
Traffic/Circulation - Councilmember Mufioz
Community Design o Mayor Birdsall
Economic Development - Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans
Growth Management - Councilmember Moore
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks,
Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
Ninutes\1\16\92 -9- 01/17/92
City Council Minutes Januarv 14. 1992
Councilmember Moore requested that the deadlines set by the Council be met by all
members.
17.
Adootion of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. for the Construction of Overland Drive
between Ynez Road and Jefferson Avenue: EA-6
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
17.1
Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
Number 6, the proposed construction of Overland Drive between Ynez
Road and Jefferson Avenue.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Birdsall
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Dixon requested direction as to the meeting on February 4, 1992 with County
Flood Control. Council directed that the slacial meeting to be held on February 4, 1992, be
held at 7:00 PM in the Community Center at 7:00 PMl and that the meeting is to be televised.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
CITY COUNCIL R|=PORTS
Mayor Birdsall stated she will be attending a League of California Cities Meeting in Redlands
.and in regards to a proposed dues increase of approximately ~ 1 O0 she will be voting yes on
behalf of the City. She also thanked the Town Association for making a special effort to
have the Temecula Community Center finished in time for the first meeting of the new year.
She also announced the Temecula Police Department; will be donating their time and labor to
renovate the exterior of the Caboose for the Town Association.
Ninutes\1\1~\92 -10- 01117192
City Council Minutes January 14, 1992
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn
at 9:34 PM to the meeting of January 28, 1992, 5:00 PM at the Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Minutes\l\14\92 -11- 01/17/92
ITEM
3
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN
EXHIBIT A
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
$928,432.10
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 281h day of January, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June :S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/Re~os 229
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
01/10/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
01/17/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
01/16/92 PAYROLL:
$286,435.87
$548,158.49
$93,837.74
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR THE 1/28/92 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
016
019
021
029
052
PAYROLL:
001
019
GENERAL
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND (RDA)
TCSD
TCSD (CIP)
CAPITOL PROJECT-TCSD
SELF INSURANCE
GENERAL (PAYROLL)
TCSD (PAYROLL)
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE
MARK OCHENDUSZKO, ASSlSTAJCrrY MANAGER
$928,432.10
$750,143.72
$4,800.00
$70,572.86
$1,203.78
$7,374.00
$500.00
$834,594.36
$73,442.10
$93,837.74
$928,432.10
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
.HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
01/17/92
Fiscal Year: Z992
City of Teeecula
Check 8egister
Page:
Station:
Check Bate Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Bate Description Gross
Discount Net
00008634 12104191ASSOCF/S ASSOCIATE FISHERIES BIOLOGIST
120391 12/04/91 12104/91 PERNIT FEES FOR CLEANING CRK 53.00
Check Totals:
00008918 01107192 CALING CAL-INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC
1036425'12/01/91 1210119I'LIABIEITYII21179Fi211192 ....
10366~ 12110191 12110191 EQUIP FLOATERI3128191-3128192
1036424 12/05191 12/05191 LIABILITY!t211191-12101192
0.00 53.01
53.00 0.00 5~.00
Check Totals:
00008990 01/11/92 INTCOUN INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF
'011492 .... 01114192 ' 01/14192'ICSC')I~AICFAST~'
~$4,855;~0 O;O0" 34,855'00
30.15 O.OO 30.15
,_o12._oo ..........o.o__o ....... __6,_o12.oo
100,897.15 0.00 100~897.15
30=00' 0.00 '30;00 '
Check Totalu
"' 00008991' OITI4192]NTCOUIf'INTERtlATIONAECOONCIE'O~
011492-1 01/07/92 01/07192 IICGC IDEA EICHANGE
30.00 0.00 30.00
90.00 0.00 90.00
Check Totals1
00008F)2 01114/92 LUNCH&ST LUNCH & STUFF CATERING
22150 01/14/12 01/I~/92 DINNER COUNC]LHERBERS
Check TotaLs:
00009002 01/17/92 AGRICRED AHICHEDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP.
020192 .... 02/01192 0230 .... IOI01191'LEASE TRACTORIFEL* 19~2 .....
'90.00 0;00 ......... 90.04) ....
80.00 0.00 80.00
80.00 0.00 80.00
85&.57 ........ 0.00 .... 85b.57
Check Totals: 85&.57 0.00 856.57
"0000900T01/17192 ALLIED ' ALLIED'BARRICADE ..........................................................
119731-00 12119191 12119191 tubing/no parking 206.35 0,00
119784-00 12123191 12123191DELINATORS 407.10 0.00 407.10
11rl791~00'1212119I' 12124191 RIVETS/TLrBIN6 ....................... 247.83'" 0.00 ' 247.83
Check Totals:
"00009004 OITI7/92'~ERPLAN AHERICAN PLANNING ASSOC ....
~047117 12/31191 12131191 NON PAS SUB. FEE
661.28
...... Check TotaTs: ............... 30,00
00009005 01/17/92 ANTHON-2 PHILIP L ANTHONY, [NC
........... 100291 10102191 10102191 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/AUG. 1991 1,187.50
Check Totals:
00009006 01/17/92 ASCON ASCOH HASLER RAILING SYSTERS
*'720210"01702192 01102192ETER"SETTINGS*211192-4/30192 .....
1,187.50
'187.35
0.00 861,28
O.O0 30,00
..... 0,00 30.00
0.00 1~167.50
O, O0 I, 187.50
.......... 0.00'
187,35
00009007 01/17/92 ASSESSOR COUNTY ASSESSOR
010692 11/04/91
Check Totals:
11104/91 RESEARCH PROPERTY VALUES
" Check Totals:
00009008 01/17/92 CALINS CAL-INSURANCE ASSSCIATES~ INC
10~7013 01/07/92 01/07/92 BONDS
187.35 0.00 187.35
I0.00 0.00 10.00
10.00 ...... 0.00 10.00
350.00 0.00 350,00
00009009 01/17/92 CANYON
4786
Check TotaLs:
CANYON REPROGRAPHICS
11125191 11184 11124191NYLARS; ENGINEERING DEPT.
$50,00 0,00 350.00
125,42 0,00 125.42
Check Totals:
125.42 0.00 125.42 ,
00009010 01117/92 CHEVRON CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.
01/17/92 City Qf Teeecula Page:
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date Vedor Nan
Invoice Date P/O Date Description. 6ross Discount Net
120491 121HI91 12104191 FUEL CHGS./OCT, NOV. 412.35 0.00 412.""~
00009011 01/17/92 CONfiERCE CONRERCE CENSUS
011592 01/15/92
'CG'~E[*Totil~'E
412.55 .... O;OO .......
01115192 COST ESTIlMTES FOR SPEC CENSU
125.00 0.00
412.35
125
Check Totals:
00009012 01/17192 COtlNTYPU COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE/SUPPLIES
~39~4"~213Ii9~'i1106"12103191 BENERAS'OFF'ICE SUPPLIES
139708 01102192 1110~ 1210~191 6ENEAAL OFFICE SUPPLIES
125.00 0.00 125.0e
192~]5 0~00 ...... 192.15"
13.1~ 0.00 1~.1~
Chi~k'TStilsa
00009013 01117192 CPRS CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY
011392 01113192 01113192 REFERENCE RATENIAL REC ACTIV.
011492~01714192 01/141t2PRE;REGISTRATZOR CPRS*CUNF;
'205;28 '0;00 205:28'~
88.17 O.O0 88.17
~300';00' 0;00 ~O0.OO '
~0000901T01717192 DATAPR[N'DATA*'PRINT~'
194477/F03 01103192 11140
Check Totals=
12103191 PEN SETISHADIN6 FILNIERASER
388.17 0.00 ~88.17
283.82 0.00 283.82
'C~c'lCTGt;1~
00009015 01/17192 DAVLIN DAVLIN
89-23:140 01101192 10942 09127191 TAPE STOCK
89:23:142'01101192*I0943'**0912719~'TAPE STOCK
89-23:144 01/01192 10992 1010R/91 TAPE STOCK
89-23114~ 01101192 11001 10106191 TAPE STOCK
892~140'*' 01/01192 ....... 01101192 TAPE*STOC[ ..........
89-23:14~ 12119191 t0992 10/08/91 TAPE SAFETY CONI~ISSIQNI12119
"283,82
0.00 ......... 295.82"
15.12 0.00 15,12
................. 3.78 '0:0~ ~.70
3.78 0.00 3.78
3,76 0.00 ~,78
* 76.&4' 0.00 76,""
130.00 0.00 1~0.~.
' 'Check"Totili:' 2r3;1o ...... 0.00 ........ 233.10 '
0000~016 01/17192 DYMAI~IC DYNANIC 6RAPHICS~ INC.
239193 12/01191 11059 12101191 4-SEASOE 8OOKSICTY CLERKS 228.75 0.00 228.75
· Check Totals: 228.75 0.00 228.75
00009017 01117192 ENTERPAU ENTERPRISE AUTOHQTIVE
..... 011492" 01114192 ........ 011141t2 REFUHDIPERRIT ................. 60.00 0.00 ' ' 60.00
Check Totals:
"'00009018 01/17192 6AS8 ...... 60VERNRENT ACCGUIIT[IIG ....................
011392 01/13192 01113192 IRPLENENTAT/ON GUIDE
*Chi'ck'Tota'lii
00009019 01117192 6TEDILL 6TE
69535398 12128191 12/28191 71469535391DEC. CHGS
...... 16260438 12/16/91 ' 12/16/91 714162~043/DEC. CHGS"
&992~098 12/28/91 12/28R1 71469923091DEC. CliS
19758548 01101192 01/01192 7141975854/DEC. CHGS
&998~328 01107192 "' 01/07192 714-&99-B&32/DEC. CHGS
60,00
20.00
2O;~O
2,830.80
31.40
2,57~.37
19.76
0.00 60,00
0.00 20.00
0800 ........ 20.00
0.00 26.~
0.00 2~830.80
0.00 31.40
0.00 2,57~.37
0.00 19.7~
Check Totats:
00009020 01/17/92 HYATT HYATT REGENCY
011492 01/14/92 01114/92 RESERV. CSAC
011492-1 01/14/92 01/14192 RESERV. CSAC
5,461,66 0.00 5,48LG&
86.40 0.00 96.JZ~
86.40 0.00 8&
00009021 01/17192 [NLANDDI INLAND DISPQSAL~ INC,
2~7989-1 01101192 01/01/92
Check Totals:
1 UNIT/SAN HICKS/3AN
172,80 0.00 172.80
49.78 0.00 49,78
UiI~I/~ ~[y Ot lelec~l& ~&ge|
Fists; Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date Vendor
Invoice
Hale
Date P/O Date Description
Gross Discount Net
238049 01101192 01101/92 10 UNITS/JAN CHBS
238362 01/01/r2 01101/92 1 UNIT/JAN SERU.
144192 12/30191 12/30/91' GERV:~i713:12/30
236251 10111191 10111191 SERVICES OCT.
238401 12116191 11108 11/27/91 RENTAL OF TOILETS
238388'1211~79f I~I08"~*l*/27/gL*RENTRCOF'TQILETS
238386 12/26/91 11104 11/27/91 RENTAL OF TOILETS
238195 01101192 01101192 01101192 3 CONTAINER$/KIDDLE
Check Totals:
00009022 01/17/92 INTERNAT 1NTERNATL CONF. OF BLDG. OFFL
011392~01713192 0111~I92'*I992'AIe, UAE'DUES
739,75 0,00 739.75
49,78 O.O0 49.7t
' 79.64 0.00' 79.64
57.50 0.00 57.50
440.00 0,00 440.00
120,00 0;04 120.04
180.00 0.00 180.0e
149.33 0.00 149.31
1,865.78 0.00 1,865.78
50'700 0.00 50,04
Check Totalst
'00409023'01717192'L&LGARDE'E'&'E GARDENIN6 SERVICE
011692 01/16/92 01/16/92 REFUND IPER~IT
50.00 0,00 50,04
30.00 O.OO
Che'~lCT~taLs= 30',00 '~:OO 30,OO"
00009024 01117192 L&NEERTZ L & H FERTILIZER
57789 12117191 11132 12105191 SERVICE & PARTS ART 55.45 0.00 55.45
Check Tots|s: 55.45 0.00 55.45
00009025 01117/92 LINFIELD THE LINF[ELD SCHOOL
'010892 .... 01108192 .......... 01~08192'REFUND ......... 271:04 0.00 '271.04
Check Totals: 271.00 O.OO 271.00
'0000902[01/17192 HARILYNS'HARILYN'SCOFFEE*SERV[CE ...........
1926 01106192 11173 12117/91 9REAr3OOH SUPPLIES 40.90 0.00 40.90
1921 12/~0/91 11173 12117191 8REAICHOOR SUPPLIES 58.00 0.00 58.00
1930"'01113192'1117["'12117191 ~REAI[ROON SUPPLIES ..................... 89.72 ....... 0.00'" 89.72'
Check Totals=
"'00009027 01117/92 HARTIN1 'HARTIN'I'HOUR PHOTO ..............
0443 01/02192 11114 12103/91 PHOTO FINISHING t FILR
188.62 0.04 188.62
62,73 0,00 62.73
...... Check Total~i ....... 62.73
00009028 01/17/92 NCCANN RCCANII PRINTING SERVICES
0~3 12123191 11133 12111191 NEIGH HATCHI12123191 307.09
.... 0~16 ..... 12112191 1115~ ..... 12112191'DECERBER NENSLETTERIPOL[CE ...... 307.09
0.00 62.73
0,00 307.09
0.00 307,09
Check Totals:
..... 00009029 01/17/92'HCGAVRAN'LORRI*ANN'HEGAVIIAH
123191 12131/91 12/31t91HILEAGE REIHB/FUEL
614.18 0.00 614,18
52.10 0.00 52.10
Check Totals~ 52.10
00009030 011~7192 NCTIGHEJ 30NN NCT16HE & ASSOCIATES
920112 12/05/91 0296 10/24/91 STUDY FOR COST RECOVERY PROG. 95.00
920113 12/31191 0296 "IO/I4/91"STUDY FOR COST RECOVERY PROG. 40.33
0,00 " 52.10
0,00 95.00
O.OO 40,33
00009031 01117192 NECHAN GILL NECHAN
010192 01101192
Check Totals=
01/01/92 CONSULTZNG/aANUARY
Check Totals:
00009032 01117/92 HICROAGE HICRO AGE CONPUTER CENTER
R1500 01/07/92 11198 01103192 REPAIR LASERJET I]I PRINTER
135.33 0.00 135,33
3~500.00 0.00 3~500,00
3~500,00 0.00 3,500,00
76,55 0.00 76.55
01t17t92
Fiscal Year: 19$2
City of Teme~ula
Check Register
Page:
Station:'
Check Date Vendor Naoe
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross
Discount Net
00009033 01/17/92 RO8[L ROB[L
93037912 '12[11191
Check Totals= 76.55
12111191'FUEECHGSIOCT NOV: ........ 305.11"
0.00 76 ""
0.00 ~85~11
Check Totals: 385,11
'00009034'01/17192 NATLCOUN'MAT[OMAL'COUNCIL'OIrA6[I~' '
25247 12/22/91 11185 12/22/91 SEN]OR CENTER STANDARDS iRKBE 27.50
0,00 385.11
0.00 27.$0
Chi~i'TOtilSC .................. 27.50"
00009035 01/17/92 PERSRETI PERS E~LOYEES' RETIREHENT
2PERR.65 01116192 01116192 iloraal P/R, 1/16/92 253.17
011692"0~11t19z O[T~5192*PERS'RETIREMENTIIIzf!92 '138158;97
'" 0~00 ......... 27,30
0.00 253.17
.... O000903FOI/171t2'PETTYC "'PETTYCASH'
011492 01114192
Check Totals:
01114192 CASH REIM8. 1216-119
13,412.14 0.00 13,412.14
213.46 0.00 213,4~
00009037 01/17/92 PHOTOTRO PHOTO TROPHY
007058 I2120191 11155
00009038 01/17/92 POSTI~ST POSTMASTER
"'111591"'10131191
121391 12113191
'Check'Totils: ................. 213.46'
12117191GllO CERTIFICATE FRAES;C,H, 193.95
Check Totals= 193.95
~0131791'924462110119;11115 ............... 87.40'
12113191GERV. 11/1~-12/1~ 233.15
' 0800' ....... 213,4&'
0.00 193.~5
O.O0 193,95
' '~ O.O0~ ....... 87,40 '
0.00
00009039 01/17/92 PRESSENT PRESS ENTERPRISE
3706-4009 12108191 10927
..................... Check'Totals= ................
00009040 01/17192 RAD[OTVR RADIO TV REPORT
010192"01101192'~
10102191
ADV.EMPLOYENT POSITIONS
Check Totals:
0U01192 TRAINING FILM ' - ............
320.55' " 0.00 320 ~
328.35 0.00 328,35
328.35 0.00 328.3S
"98.02 ...... 0.00 ..... 98.02
.... 00009041 01/17/92 RAN-TEC' RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP fiB'
O06592 01114/92 11199 01109192
0006591 01114/92 11194 01/02192
............ 006590 01114R2 11196 .... 01106192
00530I 10101/91 10298 06130191
006550 01106192 11157 12/11/91
00009044 01117/92 RANCHIfiR RANCHO MATER
I06279002E 12110/91 .....
102450002E 12/09/9t
107600771E 12111/91
107600761E 12111191
131501111E 11/25/91
124000202E 11/25/91
1077007~2E 12111191
107600092E 12/11/91
104&30852E 12/10/91
104620002E 12/10/91
104010802E 12/10191
104010692E 12/10/91
106272003E 12/10/91
12/I0191
12/09/91
12111191
12111/91
11/25191
11125191
12111191
12111191
12/10191
12/10/91
12/I0/91
12/10191
12110191
Check TotMs: 98.02
flAREBADGES; 13.47
MMADGES;INK 44,18
HAlEPLATES FOR 8XNBERS;C.C. 52.80
STAItPS FOR MEN CXTY HALL 237.50
MANE IADGES;CXTY EHPLOYEES' 35.83
0,00 98.02
0,00 13.47
0.00 44,1l
0.00 52,80
0,00 2~7,50
0.00 35.83
Check Totals: 383,78 0.00
383.78
11/12-12/10 17.90 0,00 17.90
1118-12/09 449,11 0.00 449,11
11/13-12/1i 303.18 0.00 303.18
1111~-12111 * "
254.37 0,00 254.37
10/28-11125 383.79 0.00 383,79
10124-11/25 30.33 0,00 30.33
11/13-12/11 4%01 0.00 47.0~
11/13-12/11 554.27 0.00 554,-2~
11/12-12/10 280.47 0,00 2St
11/12-12110 72.03 0.00 72.03
11/12-12/10 46.39 0.00 4&.39
11112-12/10 20.66 0.00 20,6&
11/12-12/10 51.81 ~.00 51.81
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Stati.n: 5569
Check Da~. Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date DescriRtion Sross Discount Net
--~;;~:__~ ...... .~ ..... ~ ...... ~ ..................... ~ .................. ~ .....................................................
104145110E 12/10/91 12/10/91 11/12-12/10 21,26 0.00 21.26
104040151E 12110191 12110191 11/12-12/10 54.28 0.00 54.28
108001511E'12/'12/91 ..... 12/1219f111!:~-i2/12 ........... 72.58 ........ 0.00 .... 72.58
111704051E 12116191 12116191 11/18-12/16 124.56 0.00 124.56
110503842E 12/15/91 12/15/91 11/14-12/15 125.76 0.00 125.76
"IIOSO~852E'~21L~/gF ....... L2115191'11114-12115 ................... 7~.28 ....... 0.00 75.28
111700022E 12116191 12116191 11/18-12/16 183.57 0.00
111700012E 12/16/91 12116191 11/18-12116 234.79 0.00 234.79
................. 111700032E"12116191 12116~9i'~1ji8=i2i16 ........ 507.~'7 0.00
1117~0092E 12/16/91 12/16191 11/18-12116 223.06 0,00 223.06
111702502E 12116191 12116191 11/18-12/16 262.58 0.00 262.38
115030101['I[72119[' '1[121~91'10121~11121 "99~87" 0:00 99.87"'
124006002E 11125/91 11/25191 10124-11125 165.09 0.00 165.09
124007522E 11125191 11125191 10124-11125 143.41 0.00 143.41
124460001E'11/25/91 11/25191'10724:11/25' ~342.5~
124025001E 11/2~/91 11125/91 10124-11/25 507.74 0.00 507.74
124465001E 11/25/91 11/25/91 10/24-11/25 184.15 0.00 184.15
131215012E'11/25/9[ ........ Ill251911012F11125 '81:7~ .......... 0.00"' 81;71
151170052E 11/25191 11/25191 10128-11/25 298.17 0.00 298.17
124019181E 11125/91 11/25/91 10/24-11125 170.22 0.00 170.22
.... 124000902E"11125/91 ..... 11125191'10124~11125 ................. 241.57 ....... 0':00 ........ 241.57
124009709 11/25191 11125191 10124-1112~ 72.16 0.00 72.16
115001012E 11/21191 11/21/91 10121-11121 561.05 0.00 561.05
115015002E'i1/21/91 ...... 1112119t"10121'11i21 ................ 249.93 ....... 0.00 .......... 249.93
124000152E 11125191 11/25191 10124-11/25 156.10 0.00 156.10
124000022E 11125191 11/2519110/24-11125 145.19 0.00 145.19
' ...... 116036431E 1112119I .... 11/21191 10/23-11/21 ............. 67.55 ' 0.00' "67.55
1160~5311E 11/21/91 11/21/91 10/25-11121 621.10 0.00 621.10
00009045 01117/92 RBEDY REEDY TEMP
R579550 12/29/91 11159 12/16/91
00009046 01/17/92 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
......... 0799E' ' 01104~92 .... 011041~2
0807E 01104192 01104192
C~e'C~ TbtiI~.
8,299.31 ........ 0.0~ .......
TENPORARY RECEP,12/20-12/22
Chock Totals:
BAll
47980200000107991DEC CHGS ....... 204.59
4798020000010807/DEC. CHGS. 118.00
6L84 0.00
63.84 0.00
· 0.00 '*
0.00
8,299.51
6~.84
63,84
204.59
118,00
00009047 01/17/92 SETON SETOIl NAME PLATE COMPANY
79688 01/10/92 11188 01106/92
Check Totals:
00009048 01/17/92 SO CAL-2 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPNONE CO.
Check Totals: .......... 522.59
PEEL OFF LABELS;BLD6.&SAFETY 102.65
102.65
5457425E 01107192 "01107192 714~457425/DEC CHGS 66,15
7458550E 01/07/92 01/07/92 714-745-8550/DEC. CHGS 117.56
5493458E 01107/92 01/07/92 714~4954581DEC CHGS 82.25
.............. 00098[ 01105/92 11102 11125191 CELLULAR PHONE; CSD " 269.58
3495459E 01/07/92 01107192 71454934391DEC CHGS 45,17
5457419E 01/07/92 01/07/92 7143457419/DEC CHGS. 51.67
54~54~6 01/07/92 01/07/92 71434954~61DEC, CHG8 48.27
5493457E 01/07192 01/07/92 71454954371DEC, CHGS 60,66
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
522.59
I02,6S
102.6~
66,15
117,56
82,25
269,38
45.17
51.67
48.27
60.66
00009053 01/17/92 SOUTHCED SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
8797029F 01/10/92 01110192
208566940F 01108/92 01/08192
Check Totals:
55771267901050005112105-01106
5~778006235020003/12102-01/02
741.09
9.60
9.~0
0.00
0.00
0.00
741.09
9.60
9,30
01/17/92
Fiscat Year: 1992
City of Te~ecula
Chec~ Register
Pa~e:
Station=
Check
Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date PIO Date Description
6ross Discount
Net
208366957F 01108192 01102/92
308517678F 01/09192 01/09/92
308517677F '01/09/92 .......... 01/09/92
208360425F 01/09192 01109192
PB260029~F 01108/92 01108192
801008342F'0~708/92 01/08/92'
85768549F 01/10/92 01110192
53778006659030007112102-01102 9,30 0,00
54778286505020000112104-01106 9,90 0,00
5477828650302o002112i04-01/06" 9,90 ........... 0,00
5477828V104020002112t4-01/06 18.43 0.00
537781~1120030004112i02-01103 1,022.17 0.00
537781~2104010004112102-01105 ..... 1,103.~ 0.00
55771260500020004/12!05-01106 9.60 0.00
306343275F 12111191
85082944F'~212'6i91
6685178F 12/~0191
NIT012628F 12130191
2084~4~11F"01'/08/92
~08404531F 12119191
20H46989F 12116191
9,%
9~90
18,43
1,022,17
'1,i05.33"
9,60
12/11191 56777559900020007111i06-12106 19,57
12)2619i'~777958462030009illi2o:12119 ..... '66,53"
12/~0/91 5177905900102O005111i27-12/30 282,~0
12130/91 51779051802O10004111127-12130 79,86
01708192"5377800[401020000712102'01102 ......
1211919153778061811030007110i31-1210~ 9,90
12116191 39774162~07020006111108-12110 211.01
"' 53100917F *' 12/16/91' ......... 12116191' 59777994085030006/11/08:12/10 .........
308~9381fF 12/16/91 12/16/91 597780254220,10000111108-12110
3113466F 12116191 12/16/91 59778025414030000111/08-12110
..... 308476~69F 12116791 1211'6191'597780~1021030001111108;12110' .....
308517~)F 12117191 12/17191 60774110011020000111109-12111
0.00 19,57
0,00 66,~
0,00 282,~0
0.00 79.86
0~00" 32~,59"
0.00 9,90
0,00 211,01
10,55 ................0;00 ....... 10,55"'
9.60 0.00 9,60
10,90 0.00 10,90
9;60' 0;00 9,60"'
9.60 0.00 9.60
N17012628 11/27191
'8814825F~12131191'
85674508F 12/27/91
203005624F 12/26/91
208345810F '12/26/91
208432101F 12/26191
N17012012F 12/26/91
11/27/91 51779051802010004110129-11127 67.2O 0,00 67.20
"12131191'69776781651020002111123-12126 .... 272.80 0;00 ...........272.80
12/27/91 6777863941402O002111121-1212O 241,37 0,00 241,~7
12/26/91 6677795991302O00~111120-12119 234,67 O.O0 234,67
12/2619~'6677585090002000~/~ii20-12/20 .... 217.63 ...... '~.00 ...... 217.63
12/26191 667740510400200081111~19-12120 233,82 0,00 233.82
12/26191 667740506770200001111~9-12120 228.04 0.00 228.04
85767812F"121~0191 ...... 12/3019~
85767812E 11/27/91 11/27/91
85759055E 12111191 12111191
8579~292E' 11116191 ...... 11116/91
8573711&E 12131/91 12/31/91
$08517677E 12109191 12109191
308517678F12109/91 12109/91
NI0518466E 12/26191 12126191
208342807D 11/15191 11115191
......... 208342007E 12117191 ....... 12/1719['
308517215E 12/17191 12117/91
~09020270 12/~0191 12/30191
Y71717614E 12126191 ............ 12/26191
308465420E 12/10191 12/10/91
51779053200020007111127-121~0 200,27 ' '
51779053200020007110129-11127 172,96
~777551975010003111106-i2106 18.58
59774164505010003108119;11116' 665,39
69776780107020004111123-12126 9.90
5477828650302O002/11101-12/04 9.90
54TIB2865050200001II/O'F12104
!~777958080040000111120-12119 17.73
6077411109~0~0008fi0109-11109 9,$0
6077411109~030008111109-12/11 ' 9.60
60774117H902O005111109-12111 9.60
51779050101020003111127-12130 84.60
66775855056010003111120-1212O "' 830,61
5577126754~040006111104-12105
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
9.90 .......... 0.00'
Y~6710011E 12126/91
Y71750733E'121'26191"~
Y71739917E 12/26191
Y71742898E 12126191 12126191
...... Y71744950E 12/26/91 ..... 12126191
Y71750833E 12/26/91 12126/91
Y71750830D 12/26/91 12126/91
85767810E ~01~1191 101~1191
85767809E 11/~0191 11130191
N10518569E 12/31/91 12/31/91
85762004E 121~It91 12/31/91
85759054E 12/51/91 12/31191
NlO518602E 12/31191 12/31/91
2035656E 12/~1/91 12/$I/91
85674507E 12/~I/91 12/31/91
8685179E 12/~1/91
85572155E 12/~1/91 12/31/91
12/26191 &6775858067010004111120-1212O 410.53
'1212~191'~775858064010007111120-12120 ........ 322:47
12126191 66775850068020002111120-12120 155,42
6677585806&020004111120-12120 514,87
66775858055010008111120-1212O 864,93
66775858060010001/11/20-12/20 479.47
66775858063010008/11/20.-12/20 65,23
4377077650002t09/30-10/31 ~4,99
4377077518502110131-11130 41,88
4~770775347021111~0-121~1 1~1.48
4377077534901111130-12131 20.17
4377077524801111130-12/31 101.92
4~770775157021111~0-121~1 44.22
4377077136~021111~0-12151 40.96
4~770775342O21111~0-121~1 39.63
4~770TI5270021111~0-121~1 39.70
4~770775269021111~0-121~1 42.05
200,'
172.9o
18.58
" 665,39"
9.90
9.90
9.90
0.00 17.T3
0.00 9.50
0.00 9.60
0.00 9.60
0.00 84.60
0.00 830.61
0.00 3,84
0.00 410.53
0.00 ....... 322.47"
0.00 155.42
0.00 514,87
0,00 864.93
0.00 479,47
0.00 65.25
0.00 54.99
0,00 41.89
0.00 151.48
0.00 20.17
0,00
0,00 44,
0.00 40.96
0.00 59.65
0.00 39.70
0.00 42.05
0i/17/92
Fiscal Year: 1992
City of Teeecula Page: 7
Check Register Station: 5369
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date
208446988E 12/31/91 12/~1/91
208434543E 121~1/91 12131/91
'208436569E"12/31/91 .......... 12131191
857678100 11/30/91 11/30/91
2084345408 10131/91 10131191
Description Sross Discount Net
43770775159021111~0-12131 46.19 0.00 46.!9
43770775160021111~0-~2131 43.60 0.00 43.60
4377077516202111130-~21~1 .... 45.21 0.00 45.21
43770776500021101~1-11130 39.88 0.00 39.88
437707751580219130-10131 5,483.55- 0.00 5J83.5~-
00009054 01117192 SUMDANCE SUMDANCE STAGE LINES, INC.
"'010792 "'01/07/92 01/07/92 ROSE PRADE'TRiP
Check Totals: 4,83~.52 0.00 4,833.52
290.00 ....... O.O0 ' "290.00 '
'O0009055'OII17192'T~PIPFTEECll~*VliEY'PIPE"
20688 12112191 11079 11/12/91
Check Totals: 290,00 0.00 290.00
IRRIGATION & NISC. EI)UIP.CSO ;.83 0.00 3.83
"Check'Totals= ...............
00009056 01117192 TOIlCTR TOil CENTER STATIONERS
2141-0 10101191 10101191 RICRO CASSETTE 8.98
'I341T-O'I212719FI1144'12109191CALENDERS;~IELS;PRIMTIlEELS .....
0,00 8.98
0~00 ........ 71.52 '
Check Totals: 82.50 0.00
'00009057 01/17/92 UNIGLQBE"UNI6LODE DUTTERFIELD'TRAVEL' ..........................................
1236191 12/31/91 12/31/91TRAVEL/OAYiAGO 68.4)0 0.00
82.50
68.00
Check Totals: .........
00009058 01/17/92 UNITED UNITED NAY OF THE INLAGD
2UMIT.&O 12105191 12105191 Nor. Payroll, 12/05
.............. 2UM[T.61 12119191 ........ 12119191'Norma! P/R 121~9
2UNIT.b3 01t02192 01/02/92 Nor. Payroll 112192
2UNIT.65 01116/92 01116192 Normal P/R, 1116192
Check Totals:
00009059 01/17/92 USCN USCN
.......... 2PTRT.65*' 01716192 .......... 01/IG/92*Norma] PIR; 1/16/92 '
$PTRT.65 01/16/92 01/16/92 Normal P/R, 1/16/92
0.00 ......... 68,00'
20.00 0.00 20.00
20.00 O.O0 20.00
114.00 0.00 114.00
11R.00 0.00 118.00
272.00 0.00 272.00
..... 69.39'
69.39
0,00 "' 69.39
0.00 69.39
Ch~ck TOtaim:
00009060 01/17/92 MASTENGN NASTE NAIIAGENENT INC.
238387 12116191 11162 12116191 2-PORTABLE TOILETS;
138.78 '
00009061 01/17192 NHITECAP NHITE CAP
120,00
Check Totals: 120.00
F115288"11/12191 '1102I"1012B/91' EtERGENCY TOOI. S & E~IPENT ...... 89.54
F115682 L1121191 21041 10/28/91ENERG.TOOLS PUBLIC NORKS DEPT 350.27
F115830 11/26/91 11041 10/28/91ENERS.TOOLS PUBLIC tORtS DEPT 32.28
0.00 158.78
0.00 120.00
0.00 120.00
0.00 89.54
0.00 350.27
0.00 32.28
00009062 01128/92 ALLCITY
1190
1207
Check Totals: 472.09
ALL CITY NANAGENENT
12117191 0293 10/08/91 TRAFFIC CONTROLl1211'12114 .... 5,386.39
12128191 0293 10/08/91 TRAFFIC CONTROLI12115-12128 5,448.83
0,00 472.09
0.00 5,586.39
0,00 59448.85
Check Totals:
00009065 01/28192 CALIFLAN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
3085112 12/05/91 0252 08/28/91 LANDSCAPE MAINT./DECEHBER
8,835.22
29,026.40
0.00 8,835.22
0.00 29.026.40
00009064 0112G/92 CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN
09967 12/50/91 10626
Check Totals:
07/01/91 LEGAL NOTICESI12127f91
29,026.40
56.53
0.00 29,026.40
0.00 56.53
01117192
Fiscal Year: 1992
Check
Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date PIO
City of Tesecula Page:
Check RESister Station:; 336
1806830112 12/I0/91 11125
17996301 12101191 111/8 11126/91 DISPLAY AD CONffiJNITY NOR[SHOP
011392 ...... 01/13/92 11100 ..... III26/91*PRODUCE*RECREATION !iROCHURE'
· D~te. Description. 6ross Discount Net
12104/91AD;BREA[FAST tlTH SiITA;12114 244.65 O.OO 244
353.97 O.O0
5,410.00 .......... 0.00 "' 5,410.00
Check Totals:
'00009065'0i728192 CENTRALC CENTRAL* CITIES'SIEN*SERVICE"
4382 12113191 11149 12113191 SIGNS & POSTS;TRAFFIC ENSIN.
......... ChiE[TG'tils:
00009066 01/28/92 COUNTSUN COUNTS UNLIMITED
_ 2017 01/07/92 11127 11/27/91 CAR COUNTIll;ElliNEERING DEPT
6,065.15 0.00 6,065.15
9,852.28 0.00 9,852.28
9,852~28'
0:00' ....... 9,852.28
2,280.00 0.00
Check Totals: 2,280.00 0.00
00009067 01/28/92 FIRSTIRP FIRST INPRESSIONS
* 91048"'01/07192 11128'* 11112191'SATIN'ANARD'/ACKETS[ CSD .......... 3;268:0~ ........... 0.00 ....
910462 01/07/92 01/03/92 T SHIRTS 417.53 0.00
910455 01/07/92 11129 11/27/91 T-SHIRTS;21) PLACE 371.74 0.00
0.00
........ 0:00"'
Check Totals: 4,057.~
0000~0~8 01128/92 6EQTECNN 6EOTECHNICAL & ENUIRONNENTAL
'1161 ...... 1011019[05~2 .... 10110/91 SERVICES THRU 91271fi ......... 1,950.00
2,280.00
2,280.00
Check Totals: 1,950.00
00009069 01/28/92 GLEIIIES GLENNIES OFfiCE PRODUCTS ...............
137271-0CR 10101/91 10101191CRSDITIITE~ RETURNED 38.57-
137271-0 I0/01191 10794 09112/91 CARD FILES;FOLDERS;STMPS 361.49
...... 77483-0' 01/03/92 11107 *' 11119191 CORK AND DIRECTORY 9OARDS;CSD ' 803.08
58352-0 10/06191 10925 10104191 4-DRAIIER FILE;NIYORS OFfiCE 171.32
4482 12101191 11206 12/01191 El HOLDER/CALENDARS 63.46
5~669-0 I2101191'1120& '* 12101191'D[VIDER .............. 218.32
62380-0 12101191 11206 12101191 INK STEPS 12.52
......... 58918-0 12/01/91 11206 12101191 FOLDERS 35.02
59993-0 .....12/01191'11206 1210119111N~ERS/DIVIDENS .............. 62.98
60228-0 12/01/91 11206 12/01191 NIGHLITERS 3.79
58070-0 12101191 1120~ 12101191 FOLDERS 58.02
3;268.06
417.fi
371.74
4,057.~J
"'1,950.00
0.00 1,950.00
0.00 38.57-
...... 0.00 361,4t,,,
0,00 803,
0.00 171.32
O.O0 63,46
0.00 ' 218.52
0.00 12.52
0.00 35.02
Check Totals: 1,751.63
00009070 01i28/92 GOLDENST 6OLDEN STATE TRADING CO.
13881 ..... 12/1919111101' 11118/91CONPUTER CDRPOENTS ' 1,740.35
Check Totals: 1,740.35
0000907~ 01/28/92 6RAI!IER 6RAIttER .............................................
4416027540 01/08192 11130 12109191 BATTERIES;CONTROLLER CLOCK
+ ' Check Totals:
00009072 01/28/92 NACKENZI NACKENZIE LANDSCAPE
007631 12/20/91 11165 12/19/91 12 BOXED TREES;INSTALLATION
00009073 01/28/92 NEYERS
12931
THE REYERS GROUP
12/16/91 11174
Check Totals:
12/16/91 AERIAL PHOTO'S OF CITY
699.90
699.90
1,260.00
1,260.00
4,038.47
Check Totals:
00009074 01/28/92 HUNIFINA HUN[ FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
9~656CR 10/01/91 0166 06130/91 CREDIT REND
91656 1010119l 0166 06/30/91DEVELOPE AN ADRIN SOFTRARE
4,038.47
900.00-
3,22~.00
.......... 0.00 ...... 62.98
0.00 $.79
0.00 58.02
0.00 1,751.65
0.00 1,740.35
0.00 1,740.35
0.00 699.90
0.00 699.90
0.00 1,260.00
0,00 1,260.00
O.O0 4,038.47
0.00 4,038.-,
0.00 900.00-
0.00 3,225.00
vl/llt~Z g%ty OT memec~i Page:
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net
Check Totals: 2,325.00 0.00 2,325.e0
00009075 01/28/92 NEET,JOH JOHN P NEET,
122691 ..... 12/26/91 0305"' 11107/9i' APPRAISAL;PAUBA RD. SITE 2,000.00 ......... 0.00' 2,000.e0
Check Totals:
'0~09076 01i28/92 ONESTEP"ONE STEP MAINT:' & CLEANING CO
123191 12/31/91 0324 12/12/91JANITORIAL SERV. DEC.
2,000.00 0.00 2,000.~0
1,871.00 0.00 1,875.00
c~ft~aii]- .............. 1,87100-
00009077 01128/92 ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVIC
0019387 12/31/91 11182 12/17191 PAINTIN6 & LININ6;LEGENDS 985.00
' O019291'*'I2117191~I182"'1211779FPAINTIN6 t'LINING;LEGENDS 790;00
0.oo .........r, en.oo
0.00 985.00
'0.00" 790.00
"'O0009078'01128192'PETROEAN'PETRGLANE '-'
274596 11121191 10977
Check Totals:
10114191 CONVERT TRUC[8 TO PROPANE
1,775 ._o0 ............[. 0_% ......._l; 7Z5".
1,051.96 0.00 1,051.96
......................... Chmck'TOt~lS~
00009079 01/28/92 RANCHOBL RANCHO BLUEPRINT
38997 01/09192 11011
"*~9002"'01/09/92'I1011"
~8889 01/08192 11011
38978 01/08/92 11011
38805 .... 12/3119~'11193
1,051.96 ........ 0.00
10124/91 OPEN ACCT;BI. UEPRINTS;PUB.NRKS 48.48
10124191' OPEN ACCT;BLUEPRINTS~PUD,NRKS ..... 39:57"
10/24191 OPEN ACCT;BLUEPR]NTSIPUB,NRKS 186.56
,o,.,.
"12/2519i' L 1,205.78
1,051.96
0.00 48.4B
0~00 ...... 39.57
0.00 188.5b
0.oo 8.57
0.00 ...... 1;203.71
Check Totals:
"'00009080' 01128/92 RANCHOHI'RANCHO HIGHLAND H;OZA, ..............
011592 01/15192 01115/92 REIMD FOR UTILITIES
1,488.96 0.00 1,486.96
2,984.37 0,00 2,984.37
Chec[ Totals:" 2,984,$7
00009081 01128/92 RANPAC RANPAC EN6IKEERIN6
1159 10/01/91 0144 06110191EM6INEERIN6 SERV.PROa.190-O01 2~070.00
0.00" 2,984.37
0.00 2,070.00
00009082 01/28/92 SHERIFF
06466 "'
010392
Check Totals:
COUNTY OF RIVERS[DE
11130191 11130191 NOV; LAg ENFORCEENT ' '
11/~0191 11130191 EXTRA DUTY
............. Check' Totals:
000090~3 01/28/92 SYSTEM SYST~ SOURCE, INC.
50999 1111~191 10809 09/11/91 5-DRAgER FILES
'50970 .... 12/06/91'10999" L0101191 SIGNAGE AND BRACKETS
50998 11/13191 10909 10101/91 PLAN RAC[INANEPLATES
51000 11/13/91 10784 07/26/91 PLAN 8INSIFILE TOPS=MANEPLATE
2,070.00 0.00 2,070.00
261,890.51 ' O.OO 261,890.51
2,632.50 0.00
264,52~.01 O.OO 264,52L01
S,598.00 0.00 3,598.00
680.33 0.00 680.33
120.81 0.00 120.81
350.19 0.00 ~50.i9
00009084 01/28192 VANDORP
4500
VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATION
11130/91 11/30/91
Check Totals:
PLAN CHECKS/NOV. CHGS
4,749.33 0,00 4,749.$~
1,001.52 0.00 1,005.52
00009085 01/28/92 NILLOAN ilLLOAN ASSOCIATES
4004160 11/18/91 11/15191
4004138 10/25/91 10/07/91
4004090 I0/01/91 10101/91
Check Tatsis:
CDUNTY TRANSFER CASES/NOV.15
COUNTY TRANSFER CASES/OCT. 7
~ULY CHAR6ES
1,001.52 0.00 1,005.52
2,740.51 0.00 2,740.51
4,703.90 0.00 4,703.90
3,691.72 0.00 3,691.72
Check Totals:
00009086 01/28/92 NINDSORI NINDSOR PARTNERS-RANCHO IND
11,136.13 0.00 11,15&.11
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register
Check
Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date PIO Date Description
020192 02/01/g2 02/01192 FEBRUARY RENT
020~t2-1 021Q1/92 0255 07/Ol/tl RENT/FEBRUARY
...... 111591' 11/15/91" lI/15Rl DELAY'TIER'
Check Totals:
Report Totals:
Gross Discount Net
28,87%$0 0.00 28,877.30
200.00 0.00 20¢''~
.......... 100.00 ' 0.00 ......... lOQ.vu
29,177.~0 0.00 29~177.~0
548,158.49 0.00 548:158.49
01/17/92
Report Nriter
~oucner Detail
CHECK LISTING BY FUND
Station: 3369
FUND CHECK NURBER CHECK DATE
VENDOR NARE DESCRIPTION
A~OURT
---00r-00008634 .... 12104191 ........... ASSOCIATE FXSHERXES'BXOLOGIST
001 00008918 01107/92
001 00008918 01117192
~Or'OOOee91R'01107192
001 00008990 01114/92
001 00008991 01114/92
o01'00006992""01'/[4192
001 00009003 01117/92
001 00009003 01117192
.001'00009003'01/17192
001 00009004 01/17/92
001 00009005 01117192
PERHIT FEES FOR CLEARING CRK '
CAL-INSURARCE ASSOCIATES, IRC EQUIP FLUATER/3/28191-3128192
CAL'INSURARCE ASSOCIATES~ INC LXAB[LXTYI1211191't2101192
CA[:INSURARCE'ASSOCZATES'~'INC .............. LIABILITYI1211iRf;~2ii792
ZNTERNATXONAL COUNCIL OF
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF
LUNCR'['STUFFCATERXN6
ALLIED SARRICADE
ALLIED BARRICADE
'ALlIED*BARRICADE"'
ARERXCAR PLARNIN6 AS50C
PHILIP L.ARTHONY~ ]NC
[CSC BREAKFAST
IICSC IDEA EXCHANGE
DINNER COIJNCtLENBERS"
RIVETS/TURIN6
tubing/no parking
DELINATORS
NON PAS SUB. FEE
SPHERE OF ZNFLUENCEIAUG. 1991
53.00
30.15
66,012,00
$4,855.00
30.00
90,00
"S0.00
247.83
206.35
407.10
30,00
1,187,50
'00L"0000f00F"'0F/1719z
001 00009008 01117192
001 00009009 01117192
o01"00009010~01117/92
001 00009011 01117/92
001 00009012 01117192
'001'00009014"01'117192~
001 00009015 01117/92
001 00009015 01117192
00F'00009015"01117192
001 00009016 01/17/92
001 00009017 01/17192
'~001'000090t8"'01717/92'
001 00009019 01/17/92
001 00009019 01/17/92
-- 001"00009019 .... 01117/92
001 00009019 01/17/92
001 00009019 01/17/92
'OOr"OOOOBOlV~'Ot/17/~'
001 00009020 01/17/92
001 00004/021 01/17/92
...... 001'00009021" ' 01117192
001 00009022 01117/92
001 00009023 01117/92
ASCOK'HASLER RAILING'SYSTBS ' '
CAL-INS~ANCE ASSOCIATES~ INC
CAlffUN REPRORRAPHICS
CHEVROM't.~;ATINC,
CORERCE CENSUS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE/SUPPLIES
DATA PRINT
DAVLIN
DAVLIN
DAVLIN
DYNARIC GRAPHICS, INC,
ENTERPRISE AUTONOTIVE
RETER*SETTIN6S'211192;41~O!92 ........... 187.35 "'
BONDS 350,00
NYLARS; EN61NEERIN6 DEPT. 125,42
"'FUEL'CHGS:'IOCT7 NOV, 237,~ '
COST ESTIRATES FOR SPEC CENSU 125.00
6EHERAL OFFICE SIJPPLIES 205,28
PEN SET;SHADINO FILR;ERASER ......... 283.82
TAPE STOCK 80,42
TAPE SAFETY CONNISSIUN!12119 130.00
TAPE STOCK ................... 18,90
4-SEASOl6 9DSKS;CTY CLERKS 228.75
REFUNO/PERRIT 60,00
6OVERMENT ACCOUNTIN6 .................. IRPLERENTATIOR GUIDE .............
6TE
GTE
....... 6TE
6TE
6TE
'GTE
HYATT RE6ENCY
INLAND DISPOSAL~ INC.
INLARD'DISPQSALTINC;
INTENNATL COlIF. OF SLOG. OFFL
L & L 6ARDENIHE SERVICE
20,00
71469535~9/DEC, CHOS 26,33
714-6~9-G&121DEC, CHGS 19.76
71419758541DEC; CHGS ........... 209,37
71469923091DEC. Clt 31.40
71419758541DEC, CHO5 2,364.00
71416260431DEC; CllS .......... 2,830,80
RESERV, CSAC 172,80
I UN[TIJAR SENV, 49,76
SERV;'11713-12130' ................... 79,64
1992 AleIJAL DUES 50,00
REFUND/PERnIT 30,00
'~001' 001 00009026 01117/92
001 00009027 01117192
'00~'00009028 .... 01117192
001 _00009028 01/17192
001 00009030 01/17/92
~0['0000903~'~01117192
001 00009032 01117192
001 00009033 01/17/92
' 00I" 00009034 ' 01/17/92
001 00009015 01117192
001 00009035 01117/92
001 00009035 01117192
001 00009036 01/17192
001 00009037 01/17192
001 00009038 01/17192
00! 00009038 01/17/92
~*' ~01 00009038 01/17/92
001 00009038 01/17/92
001 00009038 01/17192
001 00009039 01117/92
001 00009040 01117192
01/17192' ........ TIE'LII~IELD'SCHO0[ .................. REFUND
RARIL~'S COFFEE SERVICE
ltRTIN I HOUR PHOTO
NCCARIfPRINTIN6 SERVICES ...........
KCARN PRINTIN6 SERVICES
~OHN RCTIGRE & ASSOCIATES
BICC'RECHAR ....
RICRO A6E CORPUTER CENTER
~B[L
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON AGING
PERS ERPLOYEES' RETIRERENT
PERS ERPLOYEES' RETIRERENT
PERS ENPLOYEES' RETIRERENT
PETTY CASH
PHOTO TROPHY
POSTRASTER
POSTRASTER
POSTNASTER
POSTRASTER
POSTRASTER
PRESS ENTERPRISE
RADIO TV REPORT
271,00
BREAKHOOR SUPPLIES 188,62
PHOTO FINISHIN6 & FIUN 62,73
DECERDER NEMSLETTER;POLICE 307.09
NE[6H NATCHII2123191 307.09
STUDY FOR COST RECOVERY PRO6, 135.33
CONSHLTIIiI~ARUARY .............. 3,500,00
REPAIR LASER3ET Ill PRINTER 76.55
FUEL CHGS/OCT NOV, 274.05
SENIOR CENTER STAR~DS NRKBK 27.50
PERS RETIRERENTII/16192 3,892.09
Noraa! PIR~ 1/16/92 253.17
PERS RETIRERENTIllIGI92 6,773.79
CASH REIR9. 1216-119 213.46
8XlO CERTIFICATE FRARESIC.R. L93.95
SERV, 11116-12113 71,75
924462110119-11115 57.55
SERV, 11116-12113 141.50
924462110119-11/15 9.95
SERV. 11/16-12113 9.95
ADV.EMPLOYRENT POSITIONS 328,35
TRAINING FILN 96.02
Re~ert ~riter
CHECK LISTING DY FUND
Station: ~69
FOND CHECK NONDER CHECK DATE
VENDOR NANE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
"00I'0000904F'01117192
001 00009041 01117192
001 00009041 011171922
oOFOOOO904F"01117192
001 00009041 01/17192
001 00009045 01/17/92
o01"00009046""017171rZ
001 00009046 01/17192
001 00009047 01/17192
'00*['00009045'~01117192'
001 00009048 01/171~
001 00009048 01/17192
u01"00009048'01I~7192
001 00009048 01117192
001 00009048 01117192
~'001"0000905'E"'01117192'
001 000090~ 01117192
001 00009053 01/17192
RAN:rEC'RUSIER'b"TANP ~ ........................ STANPS F1)R NEW CITY HALE'
RAN-TEC R~R STANP NF6
RAN-TEC RUBBER STAIg~ fib
RAW=TEC'RUBBU"~ANP'IF6
RAN-TEC RUBBER STANP fib
REMEDY TEHP
5EHJRI1TPACIFIC'IITIONAU~AR
NARE]IADBES;
NANE BADGES;CITY EMPLOYEES
MANEBADGES;INK
MANEPLATES FOR 9INDUS;C.C.
TEFORARY RECEP.12/20-12/22
4799020000010HT/DECTCHGS.
SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN
SETON NANE PLATE COI~PANY
SO;CACIFORNIKTELEPHONE CO,
SO.CALIFORN[A TELEPHONE CO,
SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHOE CO.
SO.'CAEIFORNiA ibL~rHO.,[ CU.
H.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
4798020000010799/DEC CHGS
PEEL OFF LADELS;DLH.&~FETY
'~7143457419/DEC CHBS.
714~457425/DEC CHGS
714149~436/DEC. CHGS
714~4934~9/DEC'CHBS
714349M:38/DEC CHBS
714~493437/DEC. CHH
SOUTHERN'CAI~IF' EHSON ......
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
2~.50
13.47
44.x6
52.80
6~.84
116.00
204,59
102.63
51,67
64.~5
48.27
45.17'
60.64
.............. 64775856067010004111120-12120 ........... 410,5~
667758560550100HI11120-12120 864.9~
66775858060010001111120-12120 479.47
001"0000905'~"~' 01117192 ........ SOUrHUN CALIF EOISON ........
001 0000905~ 01/17192 SOUTHEPJI CN. IF EDISON
001 '000~0H 01117192 SOUTHERN CAt. IF EDXSON
001'*"00009053 .... 01117192 BOUTHL=RN'CAHF'E1)ISON
001 OOOO90~ 01117/~ SOUTHERN CALIF EDISOR
001 000090~ 01117192 TONN CENTER STATI~
............ 667758580~d020004111/20=12/20" ........ 514.67
~7758550.%010003111120.-12/20 830.61
66775856064010007/11/20-12/20 322.47
.............. ~775656063010008111120:12/20 ...... 65.~
667758580680200021t1120-12120 155.42
CALENDUS;LARELS;PRINTWHEELS 75.52
O0F'0000905~"011L7192
001 00009057 01117192
001 000090~ 01/17192
'00~'00009050 .... 01117192
001 00009056 01/17192
001 00009058 01/17192
001'00009059~' 01117/92
001 00009061 01/17192
001 000090bl 01117192
~"001'*00009061"'01117192
001 00009062 :01128192
001 00009062 01128/92
"'001' 00009064 "01128192 ....
001 00009~5 01/28/~
001 00009066 01/28192
~001"00009069 .... 01128/92"
001 00009069 01/28/92
001 00009069 01128192
"00~'00009069'01/29192
'TICENTER STATIONERS ..................... MICRO CASSETTE
~IOLOBE BUTTERFIELD TRAVEL TRAVEL!OAKLAND 68.00
ONITED MY OF THE llLANi) NOrmal PIR 12/19 10.00
ONUUWAY'OF ~*UILARD ............... NorlaI* PIR~1116192 ................ 104,,9,00 '
Nor. Payroll 112192
Nor. Payroll, 12105
................ Normal' PIR ;' [I 16192 ............
ENERS.TOULS PUBLIC WORKS ~PT
BERBENCY TOOLS t EgUIPENT
EERG.TOOLS PUBLIC WORKS DEPT"
TRAFFIC CONTROL/L2/I-12/14
TRAFFIC CONTROL/12/15-12/28
'* LEGAL NOTICES/12!27/91
5196 & POSTS;TRAFFIC EN6IN.
CAR COONT[NG;EN6INEU[N6 DEPT
I[E:I HOLDER/CALENMARO .........
INK STANPS
CREDIT/ITUS RETURNED
4-DRAHER FILE;MAYORS OFFICE
DIVIDER
FOLDUS ................
DINDERSID[VTDERS
HIGHLITERS
CARD FILES;FOLDERS;STAHPS '
CO~UTER CO~OENTS
12 BOXED TREES;[~TALLATION
AERIAL PHOTO'S OF CITY
DEVELOPE AN ADMZN SOFTMARc,.
3ANTTORIAL SERV. DEC.
PAINTI~ & LINING;LEGENDS
CONVERT TRUCKS TO ~ANE
OPEN ACCT;BLHE~INTS;PUB.~KS
NOV. LAW ENFORCEHE!ff
001 00009069 01128192
001 00009069 01128192
001 00009069 01/28192
001 00009069 01/28192
001 0000~069 01/28/92
.... 001'00009069 01/26/92
001 00009070 01/28192
001 00009072 01/28/92
001 *00009073 01/28/92
001 00009074 01/28/92
001 00009076 01/28/92
" 001 00009077 01/28/92
001 00009079 01128192
001 00009079 01/2R/92
"001" 00009092 ' 01128192
ON[TED WAY OF THE INLAND
ONXTED MAY OF THE INLAND
' USCH'
NNITE CAP
WHITE ClIP
NHTTE'CAP"
ALL CITY NANANE!tENT
ALL CITY MAMABEHENT
CAL*/FORNIAN
CEi(TRAL CITIES SIGN SERVICE
COUNTS UNi. IMITED
' ' 6L.E!IiIIES" OFFICE PRODUCTS
OLENN[ES OFFICE PRODUCTS
6LERNIES OFFICE PRO~CTS
'GLENN[KS*OFFiCE' PRODUCTS
OLERNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
OLUN]ES OFFICE PRODUCTS
GLENHIES OFFICE PROOUCTB
OLENNIES OFF]CE PRODUCTS
6LERNES OFFXCE PRODUCTS ..........
6OLDEN STATE TRADIHE CO.
MACKENZIE LANDSCAPE
THE HEYUS GROUP
MONZ FINANCIAL SUVICES~ INC.
ONE STEP NAINT. & CLEANING CO
ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERV[C -
PETROLAHE
RARCHO BLUEPRINT
COUHTY OF RXVERSIDE
14
10.00
96.92
~50.'27
89.54
32.28
~,446.83
56,53
9J52,28
2J80.00
63.46
~2.52
38.57-
58.02
171.12
218.52
35.02
62.98
Z.79
361.49
IJ40.35
1,260.00
4,0~8.47
78~.54
1~051,96
285.18
58,241.48
~eport
FUND CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAME
CHECK LZSTIN6 BY FUND
DESCRIPTION
Station: 3369
AMOUNT
...... 001"00009082
001 00009082
/~- 001 00009083
'001"000090~
001 00009083
01/28/92 ......
01128/92
01128192
' 01/28192
01128192
COUNTY OF RiVERSiDE ...............
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SYST~ SOURCE~ [NC.
'SYSTEM'SOURCET"INC.
SYSTB SOURCE, INC.
"EXTRA DUTY ........
2,632.50
NOV. LAM ENFORCEMENT 203,648.8~
PLAN RACK;NANEPLATES 21.60
"PLAN 8IILS~FILE'TOPS~NANEPLATE 350.19
PLAN RACK;NANEPLATES 99.21
001 00009083
001'00009083 ....
001 00009084 01128/92
001 00009085 01/28192
~['00009085' ' 01/28/92
001 00009085 01/28/92
001 00009086 01/28/92
o0I'0000908F""01728/92
001 00009086 01/28192
..... 001 ......................
01/28/92 SYSTEM SOURCE, INC.
01/28192 ........... SYSTEM SOURCE;"INC;
VNeORPE CHOU ASSOCIATION
MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
..... MILLDAN'ASSOCIATES'
MILLDAM ASS0CIATES
MINDSOR PARTMERS-RANCHD IMD
'IIINDSOR'PARTNERS'-IINCI. IFTND
MINDSOR PARTNERS-RANCHO l!iD
Ol& 00009075 01128192
0i9 00009002 011i7192
019 00009007 01117192
'019"*00009010"'0[117/92
019 00009013 01117192
019 00009013 01117/92
'019"'00009015 .... 01117192
019 00009029 01117/92
019 00009021 011171~
"'019' 0000902Z"' 01117/92'
019 00009021 01117/92
019 00009021 01/17/92
"119"00009021'01'II7/92
019 00009024 01/17/92
019 OOO09O2t 01117192
.... 019' 000090~1 ' '
019 00009035
019 00009038
.... 019"'00009038 - -
019 00009044
019 00009044
.... 019' 00009044 .....
019 00009044
019 -.00009044
"019"00009044--
019 00009044
019 00009044
"019"'00009044' '
019 00009044
019 00009044
"019'00009044
JOliN P lEE'T,
5-DRAIER FILES 3,598.00
SIEMAGE'AND'BRACETS 680.; '
PLAN CHECKS/NOV. CH6S 1~003.52
COUNTY TRANSFER CASES/NOV.L5 2,740.51
COUNTY'TRANSFER'CASESIOCT~'7 .......... 4~703.90
JULY CHAR~ES 3,691.72
RENT/FEBRUARY 200.00
DELAY'TINrd( 100.00"
FEBRUARY RENT 28~877.30
APPRAISAL;PAUBA RD. SITE
479,519.97
2~000.00
019 00009044
019 00009044
019 00009044
019 00009044
019 00009044
019 00009044
019 00009044
019 00009044
019 00009044
AORICREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP. LEASE TRACTORIFEL 1992
COUNTY ASSESSOR RESEARCH PROPERTY VALUES
CHEVRUN'U.S.A'~IMC.' .................... FUE['CHGSC/OCT;* NOV; ...........
CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY PRE-REBISTRATION CPRS COtIF.
CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY REFERENCE MATERIAL REC ACTIV.
DAVEIN
INLAND
INLAND
INLAND
INLAND DISPOSAL~ INC.
'INLANDIlSPOSi'~'~INC;
L & M FERTILIZER
LORRI ANN NC6aVPAN
TAPE' STOC[
D[SPOSAL~ INC. RENTAL OF TOILETS
DISPOSAL, INC. I UNIT/SAN flICKS/JAN
DISPOSAL'7[NC7 ......................... 0i/01/92 3 CONTAINERS/RIDDLE"'
DISPOSAL, INC. SERVICES OCT.
RENTAL OF TOILETS
.... 10' UNITS/JAN' CH6S
SERVICE & PARTS ANT
MILEA6E REIgn/FUEL
01/17/92 ....... leRlL ............................................. FUEL'Cli6S/OCT NOV; ......
01117192 PERS E~PLOYEES' RETIRENEE
01/17/92 POSTMASTER
01117~92 ...... POSTMSTER
PERS RETIREMENTI1116192
SERV. 11116-12113
......... 924462110119-11115 .......
10124-11125
11/18-12/16
"' 10124-11125" '
11114-12112
Ii112-12/10
.................... 11/13-1211i ................
I1/16-12/16
10124-11/25
........... tlI12-12110 ..............
11/14-12113
1116-12/09
11112-12110
11/14-12/13
10/24-11/25
I1/18-12/16
10/28-11/25
10123-11121
11/13-12/il
10126-11125
10124-11125
10/21-11/21
01117/92 RANCHOMATER
01/17192 RANCHO MATER
01117192 ..... PANClIO MATER ........
01/17/92 PANCHO MATER
01/17/92 RANCHO MATER
01117192' RANCHO'IlRTER
01/17192 RAMCHO MATER
01117192 RANCHO MATER
'01/17/92 RANCHO MATER ...........
01/17/92 RANCHO MATER
01/17/92 RARCHO MATER
01117192 ......... RANCHO MATER
01117192 RANCHO MATER
01/17192 RANCNO MATER
01117/92 "RANCliO MATER
01/17/92 RANCHO MATER
01117192 RANCHO MATER
01/17/92 RANCHO MATER
01/17/92 RANCliO MATER
01/17/92 RANCNO MATER
01/17/92 RANCHO MATER
856.57
10.00
175.22
300.00
88.17
3.78
120.00
49.78
149.3I
57.50
620.00
......... 7~.75
55.45
52.10
' 111.06
2,495.09
9.95
19.90
66S.64
223.06
145.19
72.36
21.26
254.$7
1~3.69
-' 54.28
125.7&
449.11
20.&6
73.28
184.15
307.93
383.79
554.27
298.17
315,73
56!.03
Q,Lt~-tl 1z ¥~jut. il{~l WC'LWi~.~
Report Nriter CHECK LISTING BY FUND Station: ~&'
FUND CHECK NUNGER CHECK DATE VENDOR MANE
"'019'00009044 "'01117192 'RANCNO*MATER ......
019 00009044 01117192 RANCliO MATER
019 00009044 01117192 RANCHO MATER
0~9~44 01117192 RANCHO'WATER"
019 00009044 01117192 RANCHO MATER
019 00009044 01117192 RANCHO MATER
~[9~00009044'~192 RANCIN)'IIATER
019 00009044 01117192 RANClIO WATER
019 00009044 01117192 RANClIO MATER
019 00009044 01'7~7/92 RANCliO'MATER
019 00009044 01117192 RANCHO NATER
019 00009044 01117192 RANCHO MATER
"019"'00009044"01717192 RANCHO'WAIER
019 00009044 01117192 RANCliO MATER
019 O0009~D 01117192 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
"01T'OOOODO4B"01*I17192 'SO.CAL1FORII[A TELEPHONE CO.'
019 00009053 01/17192 SOUTHERN CALIF ED/SON
019 00009053 01/17192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
019'0000905~"'01117192 .......... SOUTHERII'CALIF*EDISOII"'
019 00009053 01/17192 SOUTHERN CRLIF EDISON
019 0000905I 01117/92 SOUTHERN CALIF ED%SON
'019'00009053'0'1117192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON"
019 00009053 01117192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
019 00009053 01117192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
DESCRIPTION
ANOUNT
11/12-12110
10/23-11/21
11/IB-12/I&
....... 1012i-~1/21 ..................
I0/24-11/25
10/28-11/25
1i112;12i10
10/24-11/25
11112-12110
10124-11/25
11/12-12/10
1171:F'1'2711
11/18-12116
CELLULAR PHONE; CSO
.... 714-745;85,50iDEC;'CHGS'
53778061811030007110131-12103
537780062~020003112102-01102
'54776286503020002112104~01'106
6&TI4050677020000111119-12120
51779051200020007111127-12130
6077411109~030008111709;12111"'
51779053200020007110129-11127
59778025414030000/11108-12110
280,47
67,55
342.51
81.71
72,03 '
200.55
98.20
249.93
143.41
17.90
~50:19 '
25,t.79
269.38
"' LLT.h
9.90
9.30
228.04
200.27
9,60
172,9&
lO.90
'019"00009053~01'117192
019 00009053 01/17192
019 00009053 01117192
' '019"000090.%*""01117192'*'
019 00009053 01/17192
019 00009053 01117192
'019'0000905T"'01117192
019 00~9053 01/17192
019 0000905~ 01/17192
~019'00009053"' 01117192"
019 0000905~ 01117192
SOUTHERN'CALIF ERISOI("
SOUTHERIe CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
...... SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CAL/F EDISOII
................. 5577126754304000KI1~04:12105"'
54778286505020000111101-12104
59778025422030000111108-12110
........ 51TI9051802010004111127-12130'
4377077527002111130-12131
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
'SOUTNERN CALIFEDISON .....
SOUTHERII CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF ERISON
SOUTHERN'CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
5177905010t020003/11/27-12/30
"5;$778006659030007112/02;01102'
547782B~503020002111101-12/04
4377077515902111130-12/$1
6677795991~020003111120-12119
69776780107020004111123-12126
019 00009053
019'00009053
019 00009053
019 0000905I
'019'0000V053
019 _.00009053
019 00009053
01117192 SOUTHERN CALtF EDISON 51779059009020005111/27-12/$0
01117192 ........ SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON ................. 4~77077518502110131-111~0""
01117192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 4~770775342021t1130-12131
01/17192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON FA776286505020000112104-01106
01/17/92 ......... SOUTHERN CALIF'EDISON .............................. 597780510210~0001111108-12110
01117192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59T/4t62307020006111108-12110
01/17192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 5977799408503000&!11108-t2110
'~019'00009053" 01/17192'
019 00009053 01117192
019 00009051 01/17192
.... 019"00009053 01/17/92
019 0000905~ 01117192
019 00009053 01/17192
019 00009053 01/17192
0~9 0000905~ 09117/92
019 00009053 01/17/92
0~9 0000905~ 01/17192
019 0000905~ 01/17/92
0~9 00009053 01/17/92
019 00009053 01/17/92
019 OOO09O53 01/17/92
019 0000905~ 01/17/92
019 00009053 01/17/92
SOUTHERN'CALIF'EDISOli
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON"'
SOUTHERN CAL[F EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
............. 4377077138~021111~0-12131
56777551975010005111/06-12106
5577~267901030003112105-01106
4377077515702111150-121~1
607741110930~0008110109-11109
43770775249011111~0-12151
SOUTHERN'CALIF* EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CAL]F EDISON
SOUTHERN CAL[F EDISON
~6777958080040000j11/20-12/19'
51779051802010004110129-11127
4~77077650002109130-10131
4377077534702111130-12131
4377077515802191~0-10131
69776781651020002111123-12126
5~778131120030004112102-01103
677786~9414020002/11/21-12120
60774110011020000111109-12/11
4377077534901/11/30-12/~i
:$,84
9.90
9.60
........ 79.8&
84..60
9.30
9.90
46.19
2:$4.67
9.90
262.;50
41.69
9.90
9 .&e
211.01
10.55
40.96
18, 58
9.60
4&.22
9.30
101.92
17.7~
67.20
34.99
1,~. ~.17
241.:~7
9.60
20.17
Report Writer CHECK LISTING BY FUND Station:
019 00009053 01/17192
019 00009053 01/17192
'01x/'OOOODOF"01/17/92
019 00009053 01/17/92
019 00009053 01/17192
019 000090F01717192
019 00009053 01117/92
019 00009053 01117/92
~19'00009053 .... 01117192'
019 00009053 01/17/92
019 00009053 01/17192
ulD"OOOODOS'J""O1717792
019 00009053 01117/92
019 00009054 01117/92
*~019'*00009055""'01II7192--
019 000090,58 01/17/92
019 00009058 01117192
FUND CHECK NUNBElt CHECK DATE VENDOR NANE DESCRIPTION ANOUHT
'019" 00009053'" 01117R2 ....... SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON ......... 59TI4164505010003108/19-11116 ...... 665.39
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERIfl:ALIF'EDISON
SOUTHERN CALJF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN'CAL1F'EDISON'
SOUTHERN CAL[F EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF ED]SON
SOUTHERN CA~IFEDISON'
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERlr*CACTF'EDISOn
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SUMBAKE STAGE LINES, INC.
IbRECULA'VALLETPIPE
UN/TED MAY OF THE INLAND
UNITED HAY OF THE INLAND
019'00009058 .... 01117192 .......... UNITED'MAY OF'THE'INLAND
019 00009058 01/17/92 UNITED MAY OF THE INLAND
557712&0500020004112105-01106 9.60
43770775269021111~0-12131 42.05
...... 4~770775[&20271[/30:ZZ/31 '7"' 45.21
66777VSB462030009111120-12119
4377077650002110131-11130 39.88
437'/07'/5161027IUSFIZr51 '4I.&O'
60774117649020005/91/09-12/11 9.60
5~778132104010004/12/02-01/03 1,10133
53776001401020000/12702:01102 32~.59
66775850900020001111/20-12/20 217.6I
54778266404020002/12/4-01106 18.45
~61/155990002000TIITIOF12'!06 19.57'
66774051HOO200081111ZD-12120 23~.82
ROSE PRADE TRIP 290.00
IRRIBATION'I'HISCTEgUTP.CSD'
Nor. Payroll II2192 14.00
Normal P/R~ 11161~2 14.00
HoP; 'PiStilS712105 ....... 10.00 '
Noru! PIR 12/19 10.00
__019 00009059 01/17192 USCN Normal P/R, 1116/92
019"00009060'0II~7192 HASTENANAGERENT'TNC7 ........................ 2-PORTABLE TOILETSi
019 00009063 01128192 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE liAINT./DECEHBER
019 00009064 01128192 CALIFORNIAN AD;BREALTAST N[TH SANTA;12/14
019"00009064"01128/~2 ............... CALIFORNIAN
.......... PRODUCE RECREATION BROCHURE
CALIFORNIAN DISPLAY AD CON!iUN[TY HaRKSHOP
FIRST INPRESSIONS T-SHIRTS;2ND PLACE
FTRST'INPRESSION~
019 00009064 01128192
019 00009067 01128192
019~00009067""01/28192
019 00009067 01/28/92
019 00009067 01/28192
'019"00009067'01/28192'
019 00009067 01/28/92
019 00009069 01/28192
FIRST IHPRESSIONS
FIRST INPRESSIONS
'FIRST INPRL~IO::S
FIRST I!IPRESS[ONS
6LENIIIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
"019' 00009071"'01/28/92 .......... 6RATNGER
019 00009074 01/28192 NUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES~ IMC,
019 00009074 01/28/92 NUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES, [NC.
"'0It'00009080 01128192
T SHIRTS
SATIN AWARD 3ACKETS; CSD
'*T SHIRTS"
SATIN ANARD ~ACKETS; CSD
CORK AND DIRECTORY 8OARDS;CSD
.......... BATTERIES;CONTROLLER CLOCK .....
DEVELOPE AN ADNIN SOFTHARE
CREDIT HERO
RANCHO'HIONLAND H~O;A; .................. REIRS FOR UTILITIES
41.86
120.00
29,026.40
244.65
5,410.00'
353.97
371.74
361.27
69.58
711.16
~47.95'
2,191.6~
803.08
699.90
2,443.46
900,00-
2,954.37
019
021 00009079 01128/92 RANCHO BLUEPRINT
"'029'00009065"'0Ii28192 "6EOTECHNICAL' & ENVIRONNaTAL'
029 00009081 01/28192 RANPAC ENGINEERIll
61,414.74
N. UELINES;RCHO OVERCROSS]N6
1,203.78
SERVICES THRU'9127/91 ........... 1,950.00
ENGINEERING SERV.PRO0.I90-O01 2,070.00
- -- 029 --
4,020.00
0!Ii0/02 City .s~ Temecuia Page:
Fiscal Year: i992 Cnec~ =zegister Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description 8ros~ Discount Net
00008917 01/06/92 RIVERHAB RIV. CO. HABITAT CONSERVATION
010392 !2/31/91 12/51/91 K-RAT DECEMBER 1991 8,502.00 0.00 8,502.00
Check Totals: 8,502.00 0.00 L502.00
00008919 01/07/92 CARE C.A.R.E.
125091 12/30/91 12/30/91 MEMBERSHIP 1/17/92 10.00 0.00 10.00
Check Totals:
00008920 01/07/92 SOCAWAST SO. CA. WASTE MGMT. FORU~
010~92 01/0~/92 01/06/92 JOE HREHA/CONFERENCE
10.00 0.00 10.00
60.00 0.00 60.00
00008921 01107/92 CPRS
010792
Check Totals:
CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY
12124/91 12124191 DEPOSIT FOR CPRS CONFERENCE
60.00 0.00 60.00
100.00 0.00 !00.00
00008922 01/07/92 LEAGUE
010792
Check Totals:
LEAOUE OF CALIF. CITIES
01/07R2 01107/92 AMERICANS W/DISAB. WRK SHOP
100.00 0.00 I00.00
95.00 0.00 95.00
00008923 01/07/92 CITY/COR CITY OF CORONA
010292 01/02/92
Check Totals:
01102/92 BIRDSALL/CONFERENCE 1/8192
95.00 0.00 95.00
12.00 0.00 12.00
Check Totals:
00008924 01/08/92 USPOSTAL U. S. POSTAL SERVICE
010292 01/08/92 01/02/92 BULK MAIL/BROSHURES
0000892~ 01/i0/92 ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTE ASPHALT
4165 12/50191 111~8
Check Totals:
12115/91 ASPHALT PATCH
12.00 0.00 12.00
iJB9.05 0.00 1~38~.05
1,589.05 0.00 1.580 05
454,06 0.00 454.06
00008927 0i/10/92 ASSESSOR COUNTY ASSESSOR
120991 10/22/91
Check Totals:
10122/91 lO/17-10122IPARCEL MAPS
454.0a 0.00 ~54.0~
30.00 0.00
Check Totals:
00008928 0i/I0/92 BOGRAPH! BOGRAPHICS PRINTING
¢)10592 01103/92 01/0~/92 UNIFORM SHIRTS
052091 11/26/91 10593 07t01/91 2000 PREPRINTED ENVELOPES
30.00 0.00 S0.o3
280.15 0.00 280.15
115.02 0.00 !15.02
0000892~ 01/I0192 CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN
998/I0843 12/27/91 1062a
Check Totals:
07101/91 NOTICES/12127/91
395.17 0.00 3~5.17
37.56 0.00 37.56
00008~50 Oi/ln'P CARE C,A.R.E.
010672 01/0U92
010~92-1 01/0U92
Check Totals:
01/06/92 LINDEMANS/CONFERENCE/1/17/92
01/0U92 OlXON/MEETING/~AN
37.% 0.00 57.56
i0.00 0,00 10.00
10.00 0.00 10.00
Check Totals:
00008~i 01/10/92 CARLWARR CARL NAR~EN & CO.
92747 i~.~i/o 1 ...... LAKE VILLAGE ASSOC,
00008~52 01/I0/~2 CORONET
Check Totais:
CORONET/~TI FILM & VIDEO
11/15/9i 11055 10/02/91 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS-VIDEO
20.00 0.00 20,00
581.75 0.00 581.7~
581,75 0.00 5~L.75
575.69 0.0¢ ~'" ~
01/I0/'92 City of Te~ecula Page:
Fiscal Year: 1972 Check Re~s*e, Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net
Check Totals: 575.69 0.1)0 575.6?
00008953 01/10/92 COSTCO COSTCO WHOLESALE
121291 12/12/91 12/12/91 MEMBERSHIP FOR CITY 35.00 0.00
Check Totals:
00008954 01/10/92 COUNTYAD COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
010392 OllO~R2 01105/~2 FEE FOR ENV. ASSESSMENT NO.6
~5.00 0.00 35.00
25.00 0.00 25.00
00008955 01/I0192 DAHLINGR DAHLIN GROUP
010392 01t05192
Check Totals:
01/03/92 PLAN PROCESS SEMINAR
25.00 0.00 25.00
50.00 0,00 50.00
00008936 01110192 DAVLIN DAVLIN
89-23:141 12116191 10~42
Check Totals:
0~/27/91 PLANNING COMMISSIDN/12/I&
50.00 0.00 50.00
130.00 0.00 130.00
000089~7 01/10/92 DAYTIME
010292
DAY-TIMERS, INC.
01/02/92
Check Totals:
01110/92 DAYTIMERS REFILL
130.00 0.00 130.00
n6 08 0.00 26.09
00008?38 01/I0/92 DIXON DAVID F. DIXON
121891 12llB/gl
Check Totals:
12118/91CONFERNECE/12/Ii-12/15
26.09 0.00 26.09
570.60 0.00 570,60
00008939 01/10/92 GENERALB SENERAL BINDING
11486202 10i01/91 10414
Check Totals:
07/11/91 SPIRAL COMB BINDERS
370.60 0.00 370.60
54.66 0.00 34.66
00008940 01/10/92 GETPAGED GET PAGED
089808!-IN 12/12191 10987
0808081
. IN 12/10/91 0219
08980811N1 12/10/91 0246
O~80BIIN2 12/10/9! 0228
Check Totals:
I0/07/91PAGER RENTAL DEC.
07115/91PAGER RENTAL/DECEMBER
09/0~/91 PAGER RENTAL/DECEMBER
07/01/91PAGERS/DECEMBER
54.66 0.00 34.66
12,50 0.00 i2.50
37.50 0,00 37.50
12.50 0.00 12,50
150,00 O,O0 150,00
00008941 01/10/92 GFOA
010992
Check Totals:
GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC.
01/09/92 01109192 PURCHASE PUBLICATIONS
212.50 0,00 212.50
61,95 0,00 61,75
00008942 01110/92 GREEK GREEK? JUNE
121991 12119/91
122491 12/24/9!
Check Totals:
12/19/91 EXPENSE REIMB.
12/24/91 EXPENSE REIMB/LEAOUE CA CITY
6!.95 0.00 61.95
27,24 0,00 27.24
35 ~ 0.00
00008945 01/10/92 HYDRO!RR HYDRO IRRIGATION
510265 12/26/91 11097
Check Totals:
11/12/91 ANNUAL RYEGRASS SEEDS;SPT.PK.
65.16 0.00 63.16
237.05 0.00 ~" 0~
OrJOrj8944 01/10/92 INLANDUN INLAND UNIFORM
010~92 01/0~/92
Check Totals:
01/09/92 PATCHES FOR POLICE SHIRTS
00008945 0i/!r:/92 !NTCOUN
0!/07/92
GI07'.~2
Check Totals:
INTERNATIONAL ~n,iNP, OF
01/07t92 02101/92 DIXON/I/'5~ BREAKFAST
01/07/92 01/07/92 !CSC CONFERENCE/2/27/~2
237.05 0,00 257,05
125.37 0.00 i25.57
i25.37 0.00 125
2n. 0
~ ~ 0.00 2A.OF
90. O0 O. O0 9':!.
01/10/92 City oT lemecuia
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Descriotion Gross Discount Net
Check Totals: 110.00 0.00 IIO.F~
00008946 01/10/92 JENSENTE JENSEN TEST EQUIPMENT
562669402 11/26/91 10954 09/20/91 CIRCUIT TESTER;MIRROR!B&S 70.95 0.00 ?0.95
Check Totals:
00008947 01/10/92 KIDSPART KIDS PARTIES,ETC.
122591 !2/23/91 12/2333/91 CLOWNS FOR MDMMY & ME
70.95 0.00 70.95
60.00 0.00 60.00
00008948 01/!0/92 LEAGUE
010292
Check Totals:
LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES
01/02/92 01102/92 BIRDSALL/1116/92 MEETING
60.00 0.00 aO.O0
20.00 0.00 20.00
00008949 01/10/92 LIBERTY
2447
2445
Check Totals:
LIBERTY AUTO CENIER
t2/20t91 l!laa 12/19/91 WINDSHIELD;TRUCK IDIE280137
12/19/91 I0988 10/08/91 BERV.OF CITY VEHICLES~TCBD
20.00 0.00 20.00
219.17 0.00 219.17
22.26 0.00 22.2&
Check Totals:
00008950 01/10/92 LOCALGDV LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
010792 01107/92 llOB1 I1/IB/91 LAND USE PUBLICATION;CITY MBR
241.43 0.00 241.4~
171.20 0.00 171.20
Check Totals:
00008951 0!/10/92 OFFICEOF OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT
120391 12103/91 12/03/91 MANUAL
171.20 0.00 171.20
B.O0 0.00 8.00
Check Totals:
00008952 01/10/92 PERSRETi PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
010333?2 0!/03/92 01103/92 RETIREMENI FOR 112/92
8.00 0.00 B.O0
13,412.20 0.00 15,412.
00008953 01/10/92 PETROLAN PETROLANE
48.1930 12/20/91 10994
Check Totals:
10/21/91 FUEL B&S/DEC
!3,412.20 0.00 13~412.20
19.72 0.00 !9.72
Check Totals:
00008954 0!/10/92 PETTYC PETTY CASH
12333191 12131/91 12/31/91 REIMB/CiTY 12/9-12/23
19.72 0.00 19,72
219,03 0,00 219.03
0000~955 0i/10/92 RADIO RADIO SHACK
010192 01/01/92
Check Totals:
01/01/92 TRAINING FILM
219,03 0,00 219,03
98,02 0.00 98.02
00008956 01/10t92 RAMBEY
1065
Check Totals:
RAMBEY BACKFLOW & PLUMBING
12/I0191 11113 12/I0/9! SPORTS PK-BACKFLOW INSTALLED
98,02 0,00 98.02
585,00 0.00 585.00
Check Totals:
000089~7 0I/i0/92 RAN-CAL RAN-CAL jANITORIAL SUPPLY
8495 12/06/91 10898 10/01t91JANI.SUPPLIES;PARK FACIL.TCSD
585.00 0.00 535.00
96.B0 0.00 9a.BO
0000S958 01/t0/92 RAN-TEC
006501
Check Totals:
RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MFG
12/.7.0/°I 11158 12/16/91 NAMEBADGES:CITY E~PLOYEES
000-}8959 01/10/92 RANCHOBL RANCHO BLUEPRINT
5~801 !2/50/91 !1~I1
i0/01/91
Check Totals:
!0/24/~I OPEN ACCi:BL~EF=R!NTS:PUB.WPKS
Ic)/01/91FORMALINE
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date VenDor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date DescriDtion Gross Discount Net
00008960 01!10192 REMEDY
377144
REMEDY TEMP
!2122/91 11159
Check Totals:
12116i91 TEMPORARY/WE 12122t91
Check Totals:
00008961 01/1019: RIVERBID RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
103427-0 12/30/91 11055 10/29/91 OFFICE SUPPLiEB; TCSD
103225-0 12/20/91 11160 12/12/91 FORMS AND FOLDERS
Check Totals:
00008962 01/10i92 SHELDON SHELDON EXTINGUISHER CO.
44919 12/17/91 11116 12f03191 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
Check Totals:
00008%3 01t10/92 SO CAL-2 SO.CALiFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
3457419E 12/07/91 12i07/91 714-345-7419IN09 CALLS
00008964 01/I0/92 SPETZ,LI SPETZ, LISA
12309! 12/30191
Check Totals:
12/30/91 MILEAGE REIMB 12/18-12/30
73.23 0.00 73.2;
63.84 0.00 65.84
63.84 0.00 65.84
9.27 O.O0 o ~7
218.{6 0.00 218.46
227.75 0.00 227.73
62.98 0.00 An ~
62..98 0.00 62.98
58.53 O.OO 58.Z~
5G,Z~ 0,00 5S,Z~
12.~9 0.00 H.39
Check Totals:
00008965 01/10/92 STATECOM STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND
3WKCL.aO 12/05/91 12/05/91 Nor. PayroT1, 12/05
5WKMA.60 12105/91 12/05t91 Nor. Payroll? !2/05
3WKOT.60 12/05/91 I2/05/91 Nor. Payroll, !2/05
5WKCL.61 12/19/91 12119/91 Normal P/R 12!19
~WKMA.61 12/lg/91 12/19/91 Normal P/R 12/19
3WKOT.61 12/19/91 12t19i91 NormaX P/R 12/19
3WKMA.62 12/20t91 12/20/91 MANUAL CK 11666/Ii667
01'~592 01/05/92 01/03/92 JANUARY PREMIUM
12.39 0.00 !2.59
284.62 0.00 284.~2
2,778.87 O.OO 2,77B.~7
540.43 c.O0 540.43
278,85 0,00 278,$5
2,393.39 O.O0 2.39~,39
~O.~ O,O0 ~-o ~'
146.90 0.00 146.90
!68.78 O.OO 163.78
00008966 01/I0192 TEM TROP TEMECULA TROPHY
ii008 11/02191
Check Totals:
11/02/91 BRASS PLATES
7,131.09 0.00 7~131.09
9.27 O.OO 9.27
Check Totals:
00008967 01/10/92 TOMARKSP TOMARK SPORTS, INC.
8115 12/~1/91 11092 11/19/91 ANCHOR GROUND STAKEI CBD
00008968 01110/92 TOWNCTR
i5261-1
13261-0
Check Totals:
TOWN CENTER STATIONERS
12/23191 11145 12/06/91 RUBBER BANDS:DATE STAMP
12/20/91 11145 12/06/91 RUBBER BANDS;DATE STAMP
00008969 0i/10/92 VALLEY
12555
Check Totals:
VALLEY OFFICE PRODUCTS
12/27t9! 11161 12/04191 CALCULATOR;SCALES;FOLdERS
Check Totals:
00008970 01/I0/92 WESTERNH WESTERN HER!TABE INSURANCE CO
01C:792 ,';l In7 ~* 0!/07/92 "' ..............
9.27 0.00 9.27
270.43 0.00 270.45
270.43 0.00
20.52 0.00 20.52
69,t8 0.00 69.19
89.70 0.00 89,70
632.91 0.00 632.91
652.91 0.00 632.9!
500.00 0.00
00008971 c'/10/92 iEE
~7!58850
Check Totals:
ZEE MEDI. CAL SERVICE
12/23/91 111~3 12/05/91 TRUCK FIRST AID KITS
500.00 0.00 ~0<!.0!"!
262.75 0,00 ':~'2,7~
01/1:.'92 ulL- u~ ~emecuxa rage:
tear: 1992 C~eik Reoister Station:
Chec~ Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date 'F'/O Date DescriDt:on Sroes Discount Net
00008972 01/!0/92 ZiMMERLE STEVE Z!MMERLE
122091 12/20/91
Check Totals:
12/20/91 MILEAGE REIM8 II/20-!2/20
262.75 0.00 262.7[
42,14 0,00 42.i4
Check Totals: 42.14 0.00 42.14
0000897,., 01/10/72 LEAGUE LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES
r'1029'-'-1 01/02/92 nl/':*'lDo CTY MANAGER FPT MEET 2/5-2/7 200.00 0.00 ~00.00
Check Totals: 200.00 0.00 200.00
00008974 01110/92 LEAGUE LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES
010792-1 01/07/92 01/07/92 26TH ANNUAL EMPLOYEE REL. INS 320.00 0.00 33320.00
Check Totals:
00008975 01t28/92 BURKE,WM 8URKE~ WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
6333500 11/30/91 11/30/91 NOVEMBER SERVICES
07752 11/30/91 11/30/91 GENERAL
07750 11130/91 11130/9! RDA NOV SERVICES
613500-1 11/130/91 11/130/91PROI:ESS!ONAL SERV./NOVEMBER
320.00 O.OO 520.00
3,150,00 0.00 3,150.0o
385.52 0.00 395.52
29.00 0.00 29.00
14J~1.77 0,00 14,731.77
Check Totals:
00008976 01i28/92 BEOTECHN BEDTECHNiCAL & ENVIRONMENTAL
1~41 12/1~/91 0310 11/05/91CIP PROJECT ~129;RCHD VISTA
18,296.29 0,00 18,296,29
2,133.00 0.00 2,133313.00
00008978 01/28/72 HANKSHAP HANKS HARDWARE
120455 12/113191 109913
10/16/91
1211~7 12/18/91 1099333 10i16/91
119122 12/06/91 10993 10116i91
11833391 12/02t91 10993 I0/16/91
11848333 12/03/91 1099333 10/16/91
'2'4% l~lo'~l 10993 i0/!6/91
121584 12/19/91 10993 10/16/91
121561 12/19/91 1093333 I0/0~/91
12037.5, 12/12/91 1091333 10/04/91
120254 12/12/91 109313 10/04/91
118696 12/04/91 1091313 10/04/91
119008 12/05/91 1093333 10/04/9I
119042 12/05/9i 1033 10/04/91
119493 12/07/91 10933 10/04/91
1193333356 12/06/91 10933 10/04/91
1223~2 12/27/91 10933 10/04/91
118917 12/04/91 1091313 10/04/91
11~218 12/06/91 10933 10/04/9i
Check Totals:
STREET MAINT.SUPPL!ES;PUS.WKS
STREET MAINT.SUPPLIES;PUB.WKS
STREET MAINT.SUPPLIES:PUB.WKS
STREET MAINT.SUPPLiES;PUB.WKS
STREET MAINT.SUPPLIES;PULWKS
STREET MAINT.SUPPLiES:PUD.WKS
STREET MAINT.SUPPL!ES;PUB,WKS
REPAIR & MAINT. ITENS;TCSD
REPAIR & fiAINT. ITEMS;TCSD
REPAIR & MAINT. ITEMS;TCSD
REPAIR & ~AINT. ITEMS;TCSD
REPAIR & MAINT. ITEMS:TCSD
REPAIR & HAINT. ITEMS;TCSD
REPAIR & HA!NT. ITEMS;TCSD
REPAIR & ~AINl. ITEMS;TGS)
REPAIR & MAINT. ITEMS;TCSD
REPAIR & MAINT. ITEMS;iCS9
REPAIR & MAtNT, ITEMS;TCSD
2,i53.00 0.00 2,15333.00
80.09
25.52 0.00 23.5,
61,61 0.00 6i.61
138.14 O.OO 38.14
333.40 0,00 333.40
415.24 0.00 41124
12.26 0.00 12.26
7.05 O.OO 7,05
218.19 0.00 2!8.1~
14.I0 O.O0 14.10
67.31 0.00
9.04 0.00 9.0~
!6.26 0.00 !6.2~
8.80 O.OO 8.80
10.76 0.00 I0.76
16,138 0.00 !6.38
8.68 0.00 8.68
11.135 O.O0 11.3335
Check Totals:
00008979 DI/28/92 JFDAViDS J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES.INC.
3333401 10/27/91 10/27/91PRDFEGGIONA~ SERV./9/30-10/2?
3340iCR !0/27/9! 10/27/91 CREDIT MEMO/PLAN NOT SIGNED
33591 12/27/9! 12,'27/~1 PROFESS. SERV. 11/20-12/27
1,020.18 0.00 1.020.18
10,052,135 0,00 10~052.55
' 617.35- O.OO 1.617 ~-
2,800.00 0.00 2.80~.99
:)1/28/~2 jRFREEHA J. R. FREEMAN CO.. iNS
42,".-29 12/20/91 11151 12/04/91
Check Totals:
19M TYPEWRITER;PLANNING DEPT.
iBM IS:TYPEWRITER; BLDG.&SAFT
11,2135.00 0.00 1i.255.00
524.74 0~00 524.~
544.14 0.00 514.i4
Check Totals: 1,068.88 <;.00 !,Ca:E.'BE
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O
Date Descri~tio~
00003981 0!128/92 KLEINFEL KLEINFELDER
?01~5 11/22/91
00008982 01128i92 NEET,JOH JOHN P NEET, MAI
12%91 12/2&/91 0505
Check Totals:
11107/91APPRAISAL;PAUBA RD. SITE
00008985 01/28/92 ORANGE
0019388
Check Totals:
ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERV!C
12131i91 031& 12/06/91 FURNISH AND INSTA GUARDRAIL
00008984 01/28R2 PEATHAR PEAT HARNICK
20%4 10/01/91 0270 07/01/91
Check Totals:
AUDIT COMPREH.ANNUAL REPORT
00008985 01/28/92 RAHTEK RANTEX
3818 10131i91 033& 1210~191
5870 12/1&R! 0282 10114191
3852 12/06R1 0336 12/06191
5862 12/Oq/g! 0282 10/14/91
5862-! 12/09/91 0304 10/28RI
3844 1210~t91 033~ 12/06/91
5846 12106/91 0556 12/06/91
3851 12/0&191 035Z: 12/0&1~1
5873 12/2&/gl 0282 10/11RI
3858 12/09i91 0282 10114/~1
Check Totals:
DRAINAGE FACILITIES~AINT.
STREET NAINTI12/3-12/4
DRAINABE/11/18-11/22
PALA CHANNEL REPAIR
REPAIR;PALA RD,CHANNEL
DRAINAGE HAINTIllI11-lII12
DRAINABE/11/11-11/15
DRAINAGE/!I/20-11/22
STREEl NAINI/12R-!2/17
STREET MAINT/11/25-il/27
0000898~ 01/28/92 RBA
9161
Check Totals:
ROBERT BROTHERTON ARCHITECTS
1112&ig! 0314 IlI%/91STRUCT.ENGINEERING;SPORTS PRK
Check Totals:
00008987 01128!92 STE!NY&C STEINY & CO. INC.
847>I 11/~0/91 0288 10/01/91PROJ.iPN 91-02;TOWN CNTR SBNL
00008988 01/28/92 WiLLDAN
4004137
Check Totals:
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
i0/01i~1 10/01/91 PLANNING/SEPT SERVICES
Check Totals:
ReOort Totals:
Gross
7,000.00
7,000.00
2.800.00
2,800.00
2j44.00
2,744,00
5,~15.~0
5,&15.~0
6,959.11
B,79t85
5,204.39
22.945.%
3,2!0.28
11,376.15
~ ~60.40
8.166.35
1,22!.00
1,221.00
71,&17 '"
71.617.~2
49,325.27
4t~25.27
2BL435.87
Discount
Net
0.00 7~000.00
0.00 7~000.00
0.00 2,800.00
0.00 2.800.00
0.00 2,744.00
O:O0 2.744.00
O.O0 5.~i5.~0
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.00 8,799.85
O.O0 5,204.39
0.00 22,945.%
0.00 3,210.28
0.00 11,~7&.15
0.00 2.660.40
0.00 8.1~.55
0.00 2.29&.58
0.00 75.626.90
0.00 1.221.00
0.00 1,22!.~0
O,OO 71,617.32
O.O0 71.6!7.32
0,00 49,325.27
0.00 49,325.27
0.00 286,4~5.87
01110/92 Voucher Detail Page:
Report Writer CHECK LISTING BY FUh: Station;
FUND CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
001 00008917 01/06192 RIV. CO. HABITAT CONSERVATION K-RAT DECEMBER 1991 8.502.00
~1 00008919 01t07/92 C.A.R.E. MEMBERSHIP !/17/92
vO1 00008920 01/07/92 SO, CA. WASTE MGMT. FORUM JOE HREHA/CONFERENCE
00i 00008922 01/07/92 LEAGUE OF CAL!F. CITIES AMERICANS W/D!SAB. WRK SHOP 95.00
00i 00008923 0i/07/92 CITY OF CORONA BiRDSALL/CONFERENCE 1/GR2 12.00
001 00008~26 01/10/92 ABSOLUTE ASPHALT ASPHALT PATCH 454.0~
001 00008928 O1/IO/g2 BOGRAPHICS PRINTING UNIFORM SHIRTS 280.!~
001 0000G929 01/10/92 CALIFORNIAN NOTICES/t2/27/91 57.5~
001 00008930 01/10/92 C.A.R.E. LINDEMANS/CONFERENCE/1/17/92 10.00
001 00008930 0i/i0/92 C.A.R.E. DIXON/MEETING/JAN 17 I0.00
001 00008951 01/I0i92 CARL WARREN & CO. LAKE VILLAGE COMM AS80C. 581.75
001 00008932 01/I0/92 CORONET/MTI FILM & VIDEO FIRE EXTINGUISHERS-VIDEO 575.~9
001 00008933 O1/IOR2 COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP FOR CITY 35.00
001 00008934 01/!0/92 COUNTY DF RIVERSIDE FEE FOR ENV. ASSESSMENT NO.6 25.00
001 00008935 01/10/92 DAHLIN GROUP PLAN PROCESS SEMINAR 50.00
001 00008936 01/10/92 DAVLIN PLANNING COMMISSION/12/16 i50.00
001 00008937 01/10/92 DAY-TIMERS, INC. DAYTIMERS REFILL 26.09
001 00008938 01/10/92 DAVID F. DIXON CONFERNECE/12/11-12/13 370.60
001 00008939 01/10/92 GENERAL BINDING SPIRAL COMB BINDERS
001 O000Bg40 01/10/92 GET PAGED PABER RENTAL/DECEMBER 57.50
001 0000894'0 0i/!0/92 GET PAGED PACERS/DECEMBER 75.00
001 00008940 01/10/92 GET PAGED PABER RENTAL/DECEMBER 12.50
001 00008940 01/10/92 GET PAGED PASER RENTAL DEC. 12.50
001 00008941 01110/92 BOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC. PURCHASE PUBLICATIONS 61.95
001 00008942 01/10/92 GREEK, JUNE EXPENSE REIMB/LEASUE CA CITY ~5.92
001 00008942 01/10i92 GREEK, JUNE EXPENSE REIMB. 27.24
nO1 00008941 01/10/92 1NLAND UNIFORM PATCHES FOR POLICE SHIRTS
i 00008945 0!/10/92 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF DIXON/!I!5/92 BREAKFAST 20.
00! 00008945 I)'~'O/o~ INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF ICSC CONFERENCE/2/27/92
001 00008946 01/10/92 JENSEN TEST EQUIPMENT CIRCUIT TESTER:MIRROR:B&S 70.~5
OOl 00008948 01tI0/92 LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES BIRDSALL/!/1U92 MEETING 20.00
001 00008950 01/10192 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS LAND USE PUBLICATiON:CiTY MGR 171.20
001 00008951 01/10/92 OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT MANUAL
001 00008952 01/10/92 PEPS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT RETIREMENT FOR i/2/92 10 ~77.S
001 00008953 0~/I0/92 PETROLANE FUEL B&S/DEC !g.72
001 00008955 01/10192 RADIO SHACK TRAINING FILM
001 00008958 01/I0/~2 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MFG NAMEBADGES:CITY EMPLOYEES 15.46
001 0000875~ 01/10192 RANCHO BLUEPRINT FORMALINE 2.~0
001 00008959 01/10/92 RANCHO BLUEPRINT OPEN ACCT;BLUEPRINTS;PUB.WRKS
001 00008%0 01/10/92 REMEDY IENP TEMPORARY/WE 12/22/91 ~.84
001 00(/18%1 01/10/92 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY FORMS AND FOLDERS 21~.46
001 O0008%~ 01!10/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 714-345-7419/NOV CALLS 58.5:
OOl 00008964 0ii!0/92 SPETZ, LISA MILEAGE REtMB 12/18-12/30 12.39
001 00008%5 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R !2/19 121.~
001 00008965 0i/10t72 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payroll, 12/05 127.51
001 00008965 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND MANUAL CK 11666/11667
00i 00008%5 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R 12/19 286.i7
00i 00008965 01/i0f92 STATE COMPENSATION IHS. FUND Nor. Payroll, !2/05 !i.~7
001 00008965 01iI0/92 STATE COMPENSATION iNS. FUND Normal PtR 12/19 172.~7
00i 00008965 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payroll. 12/05 ~7.~:::
00! 00008%5 01/i8/92 STATE COH?ENSATION INS. FUND Normai P/R 12/1~
001 00008965 01/!0/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Pavro!l. !2/05 I~.~:
"! 0000~96~ rJl,'!'!/g2 STATE CO~PENSATIO~ INS. FUND Normal P/R 12/17 '
i 0000~965 ¢i/i~/c?
. CO?ENSATION INS. FUND Nor. ~ ........' !27(!~ ....
.... ~,~vo.~., ')b' STATE CnMPE~SATION INS. FUND 75:.~.~
00i 00008%5 ""~10/~2 STATE CObPENS ID INS. Nor. Payroll, !2/05 75:.::!')
~., AT mN FUND
001 OOOrj8%5 01/'i{;/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R 12/19 ~.?~
001 00008965 01/!{!/92 STATE CO~ENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Paytoil, !2/05
01/10/92 Voucne- Detai! F'aae:
Report Writer CHECK LiST,'.G BY FUND S;ali~n: TT==
FUND CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
001 00008965 01/10t92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R 12/19
001 00008965 OIIlOR2 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Pavro!l, 12/05
00). 00008965 01/i0t92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FOND Normal P/R 12/19 565.19
001 00008965 Ol/IOR2 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payrolls 12/05 412.43
001 00008965 01/I0/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND MANUAL CK 1166~/1!667 4~.87
00i 00008965 01110192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R !2/19
001 00008965 01/10t92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payrolls 12/05
001 00008965 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P!R !2/19
001 00008965 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payroll, 12/05 285.14
001 00008965 01/I0!92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal PiR !2/19 578.05
001 00008%5 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payroll~ 12/05 41.52
001 00008965 01/i0192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal PIR i2/19 474.05
001 00008965 01/I0192 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND JANUARY PREMIUM
001 00008965 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R 12/19 199.44
001 00008965 01/I0/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payroll, !2/05 469.2~
001 00008966 01/10/92 TEMECULA TROPHY BRASS PLATES 9.27
001 00008%B 01/!0/92 TOWN CENTER STATIONERS RUBBER BANDS;DATE STAMP 89.70
001 00008969 01/10/92 VALLEY OFFICE PRODUCTS CALCULATOR;SCALES;FOLDERS 632.91
00! 00008972 01/10/92 STEVE ZiMMERLE MILEAGE REINS 11/20-12/20 42.!a~
001. 00008973 01/10/92 LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES CTY MANAGER DEPT MEET 2/5-2/7 200.00
001 00008974 01/10/92 LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES 26TN ANNUAL EMPLOYEE REL. INS
001 00008975 01/28/92 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SDRENSEN NOVEMBER SERVICES 3.!50.00
001 00008975 01/28/92 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN GENERAL 585.52
001 00008975 01/28/92 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN RDA NOV SERVICES 21.00
00! 00008975 01/28/92 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN PROFESSIONAL SERV./NOVEMBER !4,19~.77
001 00008978 01/28/92 HANKS HARDWARE STREET MAINT.SUPPLIES;PUB.WKS 632.25
001 00008971 01/28/92 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES,INC. CREDIT MEMO/PLAN NOT SIGNED
001 00008979 01/28/92 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES,iNC. PROFESS. SERV. 11/20-12/27 2,800.00
001 00008979 01/2-8/92 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES,INC. PROFESSIONAL SERV./9/SO-lO/27 10,052.~5
001 00008980 01/28/92 J.R. FREEMAN CO., INC IB~ TYPEW~iTER~PLANNIN8 DEPT.
001 00008980 01/28/92 J.R. FREEMAN CO., INC IBM 15;TYPEWRITER; BLDG.&SAFT
001 00008981 01/28/92 KLEINFELDER SERVICES 10/26-11/22 7,000.00
001 00008983 01/28/92 ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVIC FURNISH AND INSTA GUARDRAIL 2,744.00
001 00008984 01/28/92 PEAT ~ARWICK AUDIT COMPREH.ANNUAL REPORT 5,615.~0
00! 00008985 01/28/92 RAMTEK STREET MAINT/11/25-11/27 2,296.58
001 00008985 01/28/92 RAMTEK REPAIR;PALA RD.CHANNEL 22,945.~a
001 00008985 01/28/~2 RAMTEK STREET MAINT/12/?-12/17 8,166,~5
00! 00008985 01/28/~2 RAMTEK PALA CHANNEL REPAIR 5,204.~9
001 00008985 01/28/92 RAMTEK DRAiNAGE/t1/20-11/22 2,660.(0
001 00008985 01/28/92 RAMTEK DRAINAGE FACILITIES MA!NT. 2,007.85
001 00008985 01/28/92 RAMTEK DRAiNAGE/11/18-11/22 8,799.~5
001 00008985 01/28/92 RAMTEK DRAINAGE MAINT/11/11-11/12 5,210.28
001 00008985 0!/28/92 RAMTEK STREET MAINT/12/3-12/4 6.959.1I
001 00008985 01/28/92 RAMTEK DRAINABE/I1/11-11/15 11.576.15
001 00008987 01/28/92 STE!NY & CO. INC. PROJ.tPW 9!-02:TOWN CNTR SGNL
001 00008988 01/28/92 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES PLANNING/SEPT SERVICES 49,325.2?
001 .270.623.75
016 00008982 01/28/92 JOHN P NEET, MAI
"~lq 00008921 0!/07/92 CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY
"~19 00008924 0!/08/92 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
..,19 00008927 0i;10/92 COUNTY ASSESSOR
0!9 00008928 0!/!0/92 BOGRAPH!CS PRINTING
0!9 00008940 01/10/92 GET PAGED
019 0000895 01/10/92 HYDRO iRRIGATiON
019 00008947 01/I0/'~2 KID8 PARTIES,ETC.
APPRA!SAL)PAUBA RD, SiTE
DEPOSIT FOR CPRS CONFERENCE
BULK MAILIBROSHURES
10/!7-10/22/PARCEL MAPS
2000 PREPR!NTED ENVELOPES
PAGERS/DECEMBER
ANNUAL RYEGRASS SEEDS;SPT.PK.
CLOWNS FOR MOMMY & ME
2. ~ 00. 00
I !} {,. 00
, .3E':..':)~
!I~ .02
75. O(~
{~i,'i,>'~2 Voucher Detail
ReDart Writer CHECK LISTING BY FUND ""'
FUND CHECK NUMBER C~[CK DATE VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
17 00008940 0i/i0/92 LIBERTY AUTO CENTER WINDSHIELD:TRUCK ID#E280i~7 21~
0i9 00008952 01/10/92 PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT RETIREMENT FOR I/2/92 2,454.~7
~'j!9 00008954 01/10/92 PETTY CASH REIMB/CITY 12/9-12/25
(ii? 0000895~ 01110/92 RAMSEY BACKFLOW & PLUMBING SPORTS PK-BACKFLOW INSTALLED 585.06
0!? 0000895Z 01/10/92 RAN-CAL JANITORIAL SUPPLY JANI.SUPPLIES:PARK FACIL.TCSO 9~.8{,
019 00008958 01/!0/92 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MFG NAMEBADSES;C!TY EMPLOYEES 16.17
0i~ 00008961 01/10/92 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES; TCSD
0i9 00008962 01/i0/92 SHELDON EXTINGUISHER CO. FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
0i9 000089~5 01/10~92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Paytoil, !2/05 52.54
0i9 00008965 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R 12/19 539.2~
019 00008965 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. PayrolI, !2/05 540.43
019 00008965 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R 12/19
019 00008965 Ol/IOR2 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Nor. Payroll, 12105 440.0S
019 000089a5 01/10/92 STATE COMPENSATION INS. FUND Normal P/R 12/19 444.20
019 00008967 01/10/92 TOMARK SPORTS, iNC. ANCHOR GROUND STAKE; CSD 270.4~
019 00008971 01i10192 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE TRUCK FIRST AID KITS 2a2.75
019 00008975 01/28R2 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN PROFESSIONAL SERV./NOVEMBER 536.00
019 00008978 01/28/92 HANKS HARDWARE REPAIR & MA!NT. ITEMS~TCSD 387.92
019 .. - ................
o 158.12
0000897a 01/28/92 BEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CIP PROOECT #129;RCHO VISTA 2.1~.00
O000BgBa 0!/28/92 ROBERT BROTHERTON ARCHITECTS STRUCT.ENGINEERING;SpORTB PRK 1,221.00
~.54.00
....
2 gnoO897r, 01/10/92 WESTERN HERITAGE INSURANCE CO DEDUCTABLE/~ELL
029
029
286,4J5,87
ITEM
NO.
4
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Councilmembers
Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager
January 28, 1992
POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE ALTERNATE
TOWN HISTORIC REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEMBER
OF THE OLD
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the provided amendments to the Old Town Historic Review Committee
Operational Guidelines.
DISCUSSION:
At the meeting of December 10, 1991, the City Council asked staff to draft revisions
to the Policy Guidelines for the Old Town Historic Review Committee which describe
the role of the alternate committee member. The City Council's request was that the
alternate member's role include the following provisions:
1)
that the alternate serve a three year term similar to that of other
committee members;
2) that the alternate member vote in the absence of any one member;
3) all meetings be attended by the alternate member; and ~
4)
that the alternate member be permitted to vote on an item in the
instance where a committee member has abstained from voting.
The first three responsibilities have been included in the revised Operational
Guidelines. It is not recommended that the alternate be permitted to vote when a
committee member abstains because the act of abstention is considered a registered
position on an item.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Pro. //003 Admin
Date 8/13/91
Dept. City Manager
CITY OF TEMECULA
Policies and Procedures
Old Town Temecula Historic
Review Committee Operatio{~ai 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
to the area and consistency to the Specific Plan for all proposed developments within the
boundaries of the Temecula Historic District.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Number of Members. This committee shall consist of five (5) members, and one
alternate member who will serve in the absence of any one member.
Qj~ali~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
(4/5ths) 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 and the alternate member 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 and the alternate member for terms
of one (1) year. Said terms to be determined by drawing of lots. At the completion of
any term, a committee member may be reappointed pursuant to the procedures set forth
in this Policy and Procedure.
Policies and Procedures
Administrative Pro. ~)03
8/13/91
Page 2
s
Vacancies. Vacancies on this Committee will be filled pursuant to the procedures
established in Administrative Policy No. #002, approved by the City Council June 12,
1991.
Meeting, s/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 higher
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.
Comi~nsation.
no compensation.
Unless otherwise required by law, committee members shall receive
Role of Alternate Member. The aiteruate member shall attend all meetings and may
enter discussions regarding agenda item(s) and serve as a voting member in the absence
of any one regular committee member. The alternate member may only vote on item(s)
carried over from a previous meeting if the alternate member had artended the meeting
in which said item(s) were previously discussed.
ITEM
NO.
5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
January 28, 1992
City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1991
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's
report as of December 31, 1991.
DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment
portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government
Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in
compliance with the Code Sections as of December 31, 1991.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENT:
City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1991
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
As of December 31, 1991
Cash Activity for the Month of December:
Cash and Investments as of December 1, 1991
Cash Receipts
Cash Disbursements
Cash and Investments as of December 31, 1991
Cash and Investments Portfolio as of December 31, 1991:
Type of Investment
InstitutiOn
Yield
Maturity
Date
Demand Deposits
Treasury Service Shares
Petty Cash
Certificate of Deposit
Deferred Comp. Fund
LoCal Agency Investment Fund
Security Pacific
Pacific Hodzons
N/A
Overland Bank
ICMA
State Treasurer
N/A
4.570%
N/A
5,250%
N/A
6.523%
N/A
N/A
N/A
02/21/92
N/A
N/A
Cash and Investments as of December 31, 1991
(1)-This amount includes outstanding checks.
Per Government Code Requirements, this Treasurer's Report is in compliance with
the City of Temecula's Investment Policy and there are adequate funds available
to meet budgeted and actual expenditures for the next thirty days of the City
of Temecula.
Prepared by Alicia Almanza, Senior Accountant
$ 12,217,679
1,996,078
(1,179,362)
$ 13,034,395
Balance
as of
December 31, 1991
(129,257) (1)
276,896
800
100,000
73,766
12,712,190
13,034,395
0 0
ITEM 6
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
January 28, 1992
Councilmembers Appointments to serve on General Plan Technical Subcommittees
PREPARED BY:
John R. Meyer
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve nominees to General
Plan Technical Subcommittee.
DISCUSSION
This item was continued from the Council's January 14, 1992 meeting to allow additional Council
assignments to be made. Attached is a completed appointee matrix showing the Council
assignments, staff recommended Commission assignments and Council nominations. Per Council
direction, this item has been placed on the Consent Calendar. Staff has also attached the January
14, 1992, staff report for the Council's reference.
M~YERJR%SELECT.M3P
IZ 0
r~ ·
IAI ~
N
c
0
,+_ ._
0
E
E
f-
x
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
January 14, 1992
Appointment of Councilmembers to serve on Committees
PREPARED BY:
John R. Meyer
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve nominees to General
Plan Technical Subcommittee.
DISCUSSION
At its December 17, 1991, the Council discussed appointments to the five General Plan technical
subcommittees. Each subcommittee will focus one of the following topics:
Land Use
Traffic/Circulation
Community Design
Economic Development
Growth Management
It was agreed that each Councilmember would individually recommend one nominee to each
subcommittee. The Council will then act upon the nominees as a whole. At this time the
nominations are still being received. Once all of the nominations are received, staff will provide the
City Council with a completed appointee matrix. In addition to listing the nominees for each
committee, the matrix will contain staff's recommendations relative to each Councilmember's
assignment on the five subcommittees. Please note that the attached matrix contains only the
names of Councilmembers and Commission assignments. Staff's recommendation are based on
the attached 1992 Committee Assignments as approved by the Council in December of 1991. The
Council assignments are recommendations only, and the Council may change assignments as they
desire.
Staff has also made recommendations relative to the subcommittee assignments of the various City
Commissions (Parks, Planning, Traffic, Parks and Safety). As before, staff attempted to best fit
the interests and responsibilities of each Commission. However, the Council may elect to make
Commission assignments to whatever subcommittee it deems appropriate. Commissions will
appoint representatives to the technical subcommittees during their January meetings.
attachments
MEYERJI~SELECT,M2P
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
1992 Committee Assignments
Commission Liaison (One Member)
Parks and Recreation Commission:
Planning Commission:
Public Safety Commission:
Traffic and Transportation Commission:
Patricia H. Birdsall
Ronald J. Parks
Karel Lindemans
Sal Mu~oz
Committee Assignments One or two members)
Administration Committee:
Airport Committee:
City Promotion/Economic Development Committee:
Cultural Preservation Committee:
Design Standards Committee:
Finance Committee:
'General Plan Committee:
Integrated Waste Management Committee:
JPIA Committee:
K-RAT, JPA:
Legislative Committee:
Old Town Specific Plan Committee:
Old Town Advisory Committee:
Public Works/Facilities Committee:
RCTC:
RDA Committee:
Regional Transit Authority Representative:
Sister City Committee:
Sphere of Influence Committee:
WRCOG Representative
Ron Parks
Peg Moore/Sai Mu~oz
Karel Undemans/Peg Moore
Pat Birdsall
Peg Moore
Karel Undemans/Peg Moore
Ron ParksiSal Mu~oz (Peg
Moore, Alternate)
Karel Undemans, Peg Moore
Peg Moore
Ron Parks, Sal Mu~oz
Peg Moore
Ron Parks, Karel Lindemans
Peg Moore
Peg Moore, Ron Parks
Sal Mu~oz
Sal Mur~oz, Ron Parks
Sal Mufioz'
Pat Birdsall, Karel Lindemans
Sal Mur~oz, Ron Parks
Ron Parks, Pat Birdsall
ITEM
7
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
January 28, 1992
Willdan Contract Amendment
PREPARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the attached First Amendment to Willdan's Agreement for City
Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Planning Services, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to sign said First Amendment.
BACKGROUND:
With the addition of City Staff in the Public Works and Planning Departments, several
functions formerly performed by Willdan personnel are now being performed by City
employees. The proposed Contract Amendment eliminates those duties now being performed
by City employees and reduces Willdan's "percentage of fee" billing rate from 75% to 70%.
The major changes are as follows:
City Planning Department Services, Section IV of the original agreement has been
deleted.
Traffic Engineering Services, Section II of the original'agreement has been deleted.
Traffic Engineering is now part of the City Engineering Services and will be
compensated on a "percent of fee" basis.
Section I of the original agreement has been modified to eliminate all permit,
inspection, and bond release duties.
-1- pwO1\agdrpt\92\0128\witldan.amd 0123
10.
The designated responsible individual for Willdan Associates is Gary P. Dysart, and
references to other responsible individuals has been eliminated.
Willdan agrees to assign Robert Righetti and Kris Winchak as project personnel and not
substitute for them without the City's consent.
A progress payment schedule based on plan check progress has been included. The
schedule is consistent with the amount of work that will be completed prior to billing.
In no event will Willdan be compensated unless the City has collected the required fees
first.
The City will receive 30 days prior notice of any hourly rate increase.
Willdan will terminate the monthly retainer retroactive to June 1, 1991.
All miscellaneous services will be on an hourly basis or at a negotiated amount when
authorized in writing.
If the average fees collected by the City for six consecutive months falls below
$100,000 per month, Willdan reserves the right to re-negotiate the Contract.
The Public Works Department is now performing the administrative, inspection, traffic and
maintenance functions. Willdan is providing staff support for development review and plan
check with oversight being provided by Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This Amendment brings the fees being paid to Willdan in line with the services currently being
provided. As the City transfers more duties from Willdan to "in-house", further amendments
to the Contract are anticipated.
ATTACHMENTS:
First Amendment to Agreement
-2- pw01%agdrpt\92\0128\willdan.amd 0121
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
FOR CITY ENGINEERING, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
AND PLANNING SERVICES
This FIRST .AMENDMENT is made and entered into this __ day of , 1992,
by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation located in the County of
Riverside (hereinafter "CITY") and WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, a California corporation
(hereinafter "CONSULTANT").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered in!to an agreement for City Engineering,
Traffic Engineering and Planning Services dated April 17, 1990, hereinafter referred to as the
"AGREEMENT"; and
WHEREAS, CITY now has the ability to perform portions or all of these services with CITY
employees; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain the services of CONSULTANT to provide specified
services; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT desire to amend the AGREEMENT to provide for the
transition in providing such services.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, benefits and premises herein
stated, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
Section I, entitled "City Engineering Services" of the AGREEMENT is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
A. Development Review Duties
Part I - Administrative Functions
Attend staff level meetings with the CITY staff, public officials,
community leaders, developers, contractors, and the general public.
01/06/92
-1-
A
When directed, review and comment on planning programs and land
development controls.
When directed, provide technical advice to CITY personnel assigned to
public works activities.
Establish working relationships and coordination with other public
agencies, County Departments and private utilities involving engineering
matters affecting CITY.
Part II - Review Functions
Review tentative maps and other submittals for land divisions for proposed
developments, make recommendations as to civil and traffic engineering
matters and attend meetings of the Development Review Committee as
necessary.
2. Check all improvement plans for facilities under the jurisdiction of CITY.
Establish performance, labor and material bond amounts, when required
and require the posting of such securities and other development fees
within the proper time sequence of such development review.
Part III- Traffic Functions
Review tentative maps and submittals for other types of proposed
development projects to assess the potential traffic impacts. Identify
mitigation measures and recommend traffic-related requirements and
conditions of approval. When a traffic impact report is submitted for a
land development project, review the report and make recommendations
for approval..
Upon request, attend Planning Commission, Traffic and Transportation
Commission and Council meetings and make presentations regarding
traffic related matters for proposed land development projects.
01/06/92
-2-
B. Capital Projects
As requested, perform the following services:
1. Prepare plans and specifications for CITY projects.
Provide design survey; construction survey; real property engineering
services; and construction administration and observation for CITY
projects.
Provide special engineering reports regarding such matters as assessment
district formation, annexations, developer fees, and traffic related projects.
4. Coordinate with utility companies in the relocation of affected utilities.
Process the plans and specifications through other agencies for review and
approval in connection with special funding programs and permits when
required.
Section II, entitled "Traffic Engineering Services" of the AGREEMENT is deleted in its
entirety.
Section IV, entitled "City Planning Department Services" of the-AGREEMENT is
deleted in its entirety.
Section VIII, entitled "Compensation to Consultant" of the AGREEMENT is amended
in its entirety to read as follows:
The compensation hereinafter presented is predicated upon the CITY maintaining fees for
private development review and processing no less than those currently in effect.
The compensation to CONSULTANT for the services rendered in accordance with the
FIRST AMENDMENT shall be as follows:
For the items authorized under Section I, City Engineering Services, Paragraph
A, Part I, Administrative Functions, requiring special reports and or the services
of CONSULTANT's staff, the CONSULTANT shall be compensated at the then
current hourly rams as reflected in Exhibit "A", or as they may be adjusted
01/06/92
-3-
C,
D®
annually each July 1 providing there has been at least 30 days prior notice to City
of said adjusted rates, or at a negotiated fee amount.
For services provided under Section I, City Engineering Services, Part II, Review
Functions, compensation to CONSULTANT shall be seventy percent (70%) of
the then current schedule of fees of the CITY for each project.
Such compensation shall be made as progress payments to CONSULTANT for
each project in accordance with the following schedule:
Development Review - payment of 100% following submittal to City
Plan and Map checking:
1st check = payment of initial 50%
3rd check = payment of additional 40%
Sign off of improvement plans by City Engineer = payment of
final 10%
Approval of Final Map(s) by City Council or upon 90 days having
lapsed from date that City Engineer signs off that map is ready to be
presented to the City Council. -- payment of final 10%
The total of all progress payments shall not exceed 100%
For services provided under Section I, City Engineering Services, Part III -
Traffic Functions, relating to review of traffic impact report, compensation to
CONSULTANT shall be seventy percent (70%) of the then current fees collected
by the CITY for review of traffic impact reports. The review of development
proposals where a separate impact report is not submitted shall be compensated
under Paragraph B above. Attendance at Planning Commission, Traffic and
Transportation Commission or City Council Meetings regarding traffic related
matters for proposed land development projects and upon request, providing
assistance on traffic related projects including special studies and reports and
preparation of plans and specifications for capital improvement projects, shall be
compensated at the then current hourly rates per Exhibit A or as they may be
adjusted each July I providing there has been at least 30 days prior notice to City
of said adjusted rates.
For services provided under Section I, City Engineering Services, Paragraph B,
Capital Projects, compensation to CONSULTANT shall be based on the then
01/06/92
-4-
current hourly rates as are set forth in Exhibit "A" , or as it may be adjusted each
July 1 providing there has been at least 30 days prior notice to City of said
adjusted rates, or at a negotiated fee amount. Fees for a project or projects shall
be detailed and confirmed by letter/memorandum agreement between the CITY
and CONSULTANT.
For services provided under Section V, other Miscellaneous Services, of the
AGREEMENT, compensation to CONSULTANT shall be at the then current
hourly rates per Exhibit "A", or as they may be adjusted each July 1 providing
there has been at least 30 days prior notice to City of adjusted rates, or at a
negotiated fee amount.
For any services provided by CONSULTANT on an hourly rate basis, within the
limits of the AGREEMENT and the FIRST AMENDMENT thereof, such
services may be performed by CONSULTANT when authorized in writing by the
CITY's City Manager or his designated representative or a CITY issued purchase
order.
CONSULTANT shall invoice CITY monthly for services rendered and CITY
shall pay CONSULTANT as soon thereafter in accordance with CITY's normal
procedures.
For services provided under Section I, City Engineering Services, Paragraph A,
Development Review Duties, compensation shall be at seventy-five percent (75 %)
of the fees collected by the CITY for all projects submitted for Development
Review prior to the effective date of this FIRST AMENDMENT.
,
Section XI, entitled "Responsible Individual" of the AGREEMENT is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
The designated responsible individual for CONSULTANT shall be Gary P. Dysart,
Registered Civil Engineer No. 16528.
CONSULTANT agrees to commit the services of Robert Righetti and Kris Winchak as
the staff providing Development Review Services in City Hall so long as they are in the
employment of CONSULTANT and will not substitute for them without the prior consent
of CITY.
01/06/92
-5-
,
It is mutually agreed by the CITY and CONSULTANT that the staffing commitment
specified in paragraph 6 above and the compensation for all Development Review
Services rendered in accordance with this FIRST AMENDMENT shall be subject to
renegotiation if the average fees collected per month by CITY for six consecutive months
falls below $100,000 per month.
CONSULTANT agrees that the monthly retainer for CITY ENGINEERING SERVICES
as specified in the AGREEMENT shall terminate retroactive to June 1, 1991.
Except as hereinabove specifically set forth, each and every provision of the
AGREEMENT and the FIRST AMENDMENT shall remain in full force and effect in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, we, the authorized agents of the parties hereto, do hereby execute
this FIRST AMENDMENT as of the date first written in this agreement.
A'I"FEST:
CITY OF TEMECULA
City Clerk
Patricia H. Birdsall
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
·
City Attorney
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
Senior Vice President
01/06/92
-6-
ITEM
8
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY~~
FINANCE OFFIC R
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
January 28, 1992
Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost
and Associates for Design of Margarita Road from Solana Way to
Winchester Road (Southern Portion)
PREPARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer -
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve a Professional Services Agreement for design services on the
Margarita Road extension with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates ("RBF") in the
amount of $26,400.00, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
On November 12, 1991 the City Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a
Professional Services Agreement between the City and RBF for design services on the
extension of Margarita Road between Winchester Road and North General Kearney Road in
the amount of $62,950.00. At that same time, the Council directed Staff to bring back a
second agreement to design the extension of Margarita Road from the Solana Way to the
southern terminus of Margarita Way under the first agreement. The second agreement fulfills
.that direction and brings the total cost of design to $87,550.00.
The key point in both agreements is that RBF is agreeing to front the entire cost of the design
and geotechnical investigations until June 1,1992, or until the bonds for the CFD 88-12 sub-
zone are sold, whichever occurs first. If work on the design extends beyond June 1, 1992
(and Staff does not anticipate this), then monthly payments will be made to RBF up to the
cost of the services provided, not to exceed $26,400.00.
-1- pw01 \agdrpt\92\0128\rbf.agt 0121
Staff anticipates completing the design of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Solana
Way by March 1, 1992. The project will be advertised in March 1992 for a construction
contract awarded in early April and work completed by mid-June or early July. Staff is driving
the project to be completed prior to major construction on Ynez Road this summer.
The staff of Rancho California Water District (RCWD) approached City Staff regarding two
water lines that RCWD is proposing to install from Winchester Road to North General Kearney
Road this year; one potable water and one reclaimed water. The two staffs are endeavoring
to coordinate the two efforts on both the design and construction phases. The potential for
a joint construction project exists, administered by the City, to avoid conflicts in the field
during construction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the design of this project of Margarita Road between Winchester Road and Solana
Way, the southern portion, is limited in this Agreement to $26,400.00. These funds were
originally budgeted in Account No. 001'-163-999-42-5248 (Consulting Engineering). A budget
transfer is requested to move these funds into Account No. 021-165-607-44-5802 (Capital
Projects Funds).
-2- pw01 \agdrpt%92\0128\rbf,agt 0121
ITEM 9
APPROVAl.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECUI, A
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
January 28, 1992
SUBJECT:
Conversion of City Vehicles to Alternative Fuel Sources
Prepared by:
Grant M. Yates, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve conversion of three (3) vehicles to propane.
2. Amend the FY 91-92 budget by $5,000 for the cost of the conversion.
DISCUSSION: The City Council has directed staff to investigate the
feasibility of converting gasoline powered vehicles to propane. Propane is classified
as a clean fuel by the Clean Air Act primarily because propane emits a smaller volume
of harmful exhaust fumes than gasoline in a properly adjusted engine.
According to federally approved studies conducted by the propane industry, propane
converted vehicles have an estimated driving range of ninety percent (90%) of
gasoline powered vehicles. Clean-burning propane keeps spark plugs clean and engine
oil free from dilution or contamination thereby reducing vehicle maintenance costs.
In addition, tests indicate that propane gas engines last up to three (3) times longer
than gasoline engines.
The federal government considers propane gas a safe motor fuel. Vehicle tanks are
made from carbon steel and build under a code developed by the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers.
The cost of propane fuel is substantially lower than gasoline. The current price is
averaging sixty-five cents per gallon. Recently the City converted two (2) vehicles to
propane at a cost of $1,428 per vehicle. The conversion was performed by Petrolane,
a local company specializing in this service. Petrolane was the lowest of three (3)
bids received for this conversion and City staff has been satisfied with the
performance of the converted vehicles. Petrolane can also install the propane tanks
inside the body of the truck for an additional cost of approximately $200. This
feature is important because the conversion will not affect the amount of bed space
available in the trucks.
After consultation with all City department heads, it was determined that the City
could convert one vehicle in Building and Safety and the remaining two (2) vehicles
in Community Services District to propane. This would give the City a total of five
(5) converted vehicles out of a total fleet of twelve (12). City Staff is recommending
that the remaining vehicles in the fleet not be converted to alternative fuel sources at
this time. This would give the City a balanced fleet which would help ensure that the
City will be able to obtain fuel for the vehicles in the event of an emergency. The City
will continue to monitor the performance of these converted vehicles and will evaluate
each future vehicle purchase for the opportunity to convert to propane or another
alternative fuel source.
FISCAL IMPACT: Based upon lower fuel and maintenance costs it is estimated
that the City could save approximately $16,000 over the life of the converted
vehicles. The cost to convert three (3) vehicles to propane would be approximately
$ 5,000.
It is possible for the City to utilize funds collected from Assembly Bill 2766 revenues,
which are funds disbursed from the Department of Motor Vehicles to agencies that
adopt ordinances expressing a commitment to spend the revenues to reduce air
pollution from mobile sources. The City has collected $4,616 to date from the
Department of Motor Vehicles for our share of AB2766 revenues. Total anticipated
revenue through the end of fiscal year 1992 is $18,000.
ITEM 10
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER "r
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
DATE:
January 28, 1991
SUBJECT:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, First Extension of Time
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, and;
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, based on the analysis
and findings contained in the staff report, and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Specific plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) was originally adopted by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. At that time Planning Areas 38, 40, and 41 were
approved for 803 dwelling units. Planning Area 39 is a commercial parcel.
Specific Plan No. 199, Amended No. 1, was approved by the County Board of Supervisors
on April 5, 1989. At that time the number of dwelling units in Planning Area 41 was reduced
from 234 to 232 units. At the same time the unit count was increased in Planning Area 40
from 221 to 237 units. This raised the total unit count of the three Planning Areas from 803
to 817.
The two Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (Nos. 23372 and 23373) were tentatively approved
by the County Board of Supervisors on October 5, 1988. The total unit count approved was
817. The current extension of time requests reflect the number of units approved under the
original Tentative Map applications and the approved Specific Plan No. 199 Amended No. 1.
S\PLANNING\23372.CC
Page 2
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, First Extension of Time
As a matter of public record, a substantial amount of public protest has been received.
Residents in the vicinity of the two projects are opposing the granting of time extensions for
both maps. Several petitions are attached to this report.
However, the project is in conformance with the amended Specific Plan, and the originally
approved Tentative Maps. As a result, Staff's recommendation remains unchanged.
vgw
S\PLANNING\23372. CC 2
Mr. Mark Rhoades
City of Temecula
P lannlng Department
;5 1 October 1991
Deer Sir,
We, the undersigned, all residents of the City of Temecula, Vineyard
Development, do to the best of our knowledge and belief, own property and
reside within ;500 feet of Tentative Tracts 2;53;72 and 2;5;57;5 within Specific
Plan No. 199 commonly known as Margarita Village. These Tracts are included
in EA ;52547 and EA ;52548.
We further state, and are willing to so state under oath, that we were not
notified of any public hearing on said Tentative Treats 2;5;572 or 2;5;57;5, by
mail, telephone, posted public notice, or by any means whatsoever including
publication, on or before October 5, 1988, or at any ether time thereafter
until October 25, 1991.
We therefore petition the Planning Department of the City of Temecula to
deny approval of these, or any extensions of Ammendment No. ! on Tentative
Tracts 225;572 and 2;5;57;5 based upon the following facts:
Amendments were tentatively 8pproved on 5 October i 988, based on
conformance to conditions approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on 8 November 1988. This approval wes for a period of two
(2) years, pursuant to both RIverside County and California State Law,
Regulation and codes. The "Conditions of Approval" specifically state that
approval end extensions are subject to County Ordinance, which require
notification to residents In close proximity. That no notice was given,
published or transmitted by any means for either the Amendments of
5 October 1988, or the first extension of 1990.
That the significant increase in density was done without the required
public notice and debate, and therefore is flawed, due to non-compliance
with Riverside County Law, Codes, and Regulations in effect at the time.
That the various shifts and relocations of Land Use, Development Access,
and Dwelling Unit Density were not subject to the required public debate,
and should therefore be subject to re-examination by both the CIty of
Temecula Planning Depatment, and the residents In proximity before
proceedl ng fur that.
We trust that upon examination of the facts stated above, you will agree
that approval of any extension that may, or could lead to Irreversible action by
the developer ts not tn the best interest of your ftduciartes, the Citizens of the
City of Temecula. We therefore expect that upon consideration of the requested
extension to Amendment-No. I to both Tentative Tract 2;5;572 and 2;5;57;5 it will
be firmly and unequivocally DENIFD, allowing for proper re-evaluation of
these two tracts and their relationships to other Plennl~g Areas wlthln Specific
Plan No. 199, commonly known as rlergerita Village.
ADDRE55 NArlE
r.,//.~.':';'C,. _27f,,vt/rf.~Z~2'~'t ,-,,.-
'?'7,/. t, ~- ' ~. , /. r. i ' / ' , ' l t-~ /./~ /.. t ~. .
ADDRE,5,,S
Mr. Mark Rhoades
City of Temecula
Planning Department
October 1991
Dear Sir,
We, the undersigned, all residents of the CIty of Temecula, VIneyard
Development, are wll!lng to so state under oath, that we were not notified of any
public hearing on said Tentative Tracts 2;$;$72 or 2;$;$7;$, by mall, telephone,
posted public notice, or by any means whatsoever Including publication, on or
before October 5, 1988, or at any other time thereafter untli October 25,
1991.
We therefore petition the Planning Department of the City of Temecula to
deny approval of these, or any extensions of Ammendment No. I on Tentative
Tracts 2;$;$72 and 2;$;$7;$ based upon the following facts:
Amendments were tentatlvely approved on 5 October 1988, based on
conformance to conditions 8pproved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on 8 November 1988. This approval was for a period of two
(2) years, pursuant to both RIverside County and California State Law,
Regulation and codes. The "Conditions of Approval" specifically state that
approval and extensions are subject to County Ordinance, which require
notification to residents In close proximity. That no notice was given,
published or transmitted by any means for either the Amendments of
5 October 1988, or the first extension of 1990.
That the significant Increase tn density was done without the required
public notice and debate, and therefore is flawed, due to non-compliance
with Riverside County Law, Codes, and Regulations in effect at the time.
That the various shifts and relacattons of Land Use, Development Access,
and Dwelling Unit Density were not subject to the required public debate,
and should therefore be subject to re-examination by both the City of
Tamerule Planning Depatment, and the residents in proximity before
proceedtng further.
We trust that upon examination of the facts stated above, you will agree
that approval of any extension that may, or could lead to Irreversible action by
the developer is not in the best Interest of your fiduciarles, the Citizens of the
City of Temecula. We therefore expect that upon consideration of the requested
extension to Amendment No. I to both Tentative Tract 2;$;$72 and 2;$;$7;$ It will
be firmly and unequivocally DFNIFI1, allowing for proper re-evaluation of
these two tracts and their relationships to other Planning Areas within Specific
Plan No. 199, commonly known as Mergerira Village.
these two tracts and their relationships to other Plannl.ng Areas within Specific
Plan No. i 99, commonly known as Margarita Ytllage.
NAME ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS
b.- 'rJ..t,4 Use an,4 Deve~-o,',merre:'S'tTrrdx"'eqK~~
l:,Zease refer to
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab)
P~ ann4 nq Standardx
Access into ~1s.-4~] Ires" 4O'vill'be v-~vA~e~' '~or an
access -road t~ the sou~h which connects ~ We4 ~
Parkway. ·
A landscaped buffer is planned bet-~een Planning Aream,':..
38 and 39 ~zo help separaaze
the adjoining commerci~l uses..'
A major recreation and ac=ivit~ cantar..is" N~---.-~". in .-'.
Village "A" adjacent to p~-~w~Xraa' 37'tm ~~e --
residen~s of ~e retire=an= c~~. A variety of
facilities are plannedx the canter may include taxis
coups, lecture halls, sw~~, ~
ties.
A Major Retirement Entry · 1---4'~'~ ~-.--h--t-. is
planned at the entrance =~ pT~wW.-~. Arm~3S*~nx
California Road. (See Fi~' ' ~22' · '~-~) A'
Minor Retirement Ent~ landscape trea~en= is pla~ed
along Xa{~er P~r~ay. {See Fi~s III-24 & III-2~_ )
~utlding height shall not ex~e~ ~ s~o~les, wi~
S~ ect to approval by ~e Fire ~ie~ and
Depa~ent oZ auild~ ~ ~~, . ~e~ ~/~
~trelaces shall be allov~ ~ ~~ .~
a nxba of two (2) f~' So:. ~
encroa~en~s shall be ~i==ed ~n the fron~, side
rear yard excep= as pr~v~ ~or ~n Section 18.19
Ordinuce No. 348.2922.
.~ Note: Numbers in ital lcs
X~'~. Conformsrice number 1.
[ 1 amended by Substantial
J
-143-
Please 'rarer ~o proJe~c-W~ds Design sn~ ~ .Cave~----
use s~andaxds ~'~Y s~~de.
design-related criteria.
,j
-144 -
&O, · R'I xm.t 4 ,g ~ 41.
bo T~na Use an,4 nevelv~.~zLt-S~,z.T~r "'
Please refer to Ora{-""~' NQ_...a4aaszz (see
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab).
c-- p1 a~nin~ StaT~srds-
Access in~ P~ Area' 4r wiIl" b'e pz~vi~ed- ' from '
Kaiser' FarMy and a local aE=eas. rQNi t~ the..
(See Figure II-30.)
A major recreation and act:tvitT carrier is pl-.~e4, in
Village hA" adJacen= ~3 :Elaee,~/:Area 37' t=s-.~erve"b.,
residents of the r.e~ireazen~.'~k .......... {tT~; · vmziet7 of '
facilities are plannedr the can~er. may ~,v-l-,~.- .~nnts
courts, lecture halls, eweweber, ~"m3d a~-{-~l facili-
ties.
A Major Retirement Entry landscape treatment is
planned atthe entrance
~aZ~f~.tl Roa~. {;e; =Igur~ ZII-22 & ZZZ--23.) A
Minor Retirement Ent~
aloha K*{ser parkway. C~v:vla:~u=m~v-r'r_2&.;
gutldingheight shall nvr'excee~ S StaTiCS, Wit~
~' m~tm~ heigh~ of 40
ad
* ~3 ec~ to approval by ~he Fire Chief n
Depamen= of Building and Safety, chi~eys and/or
fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach into sidey~
a maxim~ of two ( 2 ) fee~. No other stricture1
encroa~ents shall be. p~~ ~ ~ ~L~ side
rear yard except as pr~~ =~ ~-~~ ~.~
Ordin~ce No. 348.2922.
. ~e maxim~ ra~io of ~o~ area ~o lo~ area shall not
be geater ~an ~wo ~ ~, no~ including basem~
floor area.
Note: Numbers in italics
Conformance number 1.
amended by Substantial
J
-I45-
~. -4~'q--mmlatad czitarla,.
-I46-
I
&O.,. :9'~-.,wwl.g A.t'ta 4,1.
b-. T..~nd Use and Bevel...,,.,.--.~d.. ;t.,o.,;p,,Icc,.&. '- "'
Please refer to Orsin,"°'' N~..a4a~ag~ (sae s~ --~-
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab).
Access in~ Pla~ Area' 4I' w~rl" h'e ~~ed- ' from TM
Faiser' Farkwmy and a local access-r~a~L ~J~ ~he.-. ~.~h~
(See Figure II-30.)
A major recreation and ac~ivit-F center is p~-...-4 . in
Village nan adJacen= ~3:NTmrm~/:..{aT~ 37'~3'.SmrFe"tbm .:
residents of the retire'--- .......... ~'F;- · v~ of '
facilities are planne~7 ~le cen~er. ma3~ {~-T-a.- .tennis -.".
courts, lecture halls, sw~w-~r~/, ~"au=l A4.4r~/facili-
ties.
· ~Bu~lding height sha11. n~='excwe~3~es, w~t~ a )
~'~'~"" maximum height of 40 ~-~- -
w ~Ject to approval by ~e Fire ~ief and ~e
A Major Retirement Entry landscape treatment is
planned at the entrance ~Ja p~m--ir~Arma~8
Minor Retir~ent En~ ~'~'~'.*'
Department of Building and Safety, chimneys and/or
fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach into sideyar~s
a maximum of two (2) feet. No other structural
encroachmen~s shall be.permit~edia=he Z~&~ s~de or-
rear yard except as pr~vi~e~L Z~r in. Sac~ton lS.lS o=
Ordinance No. 348.292lo
The maximum ratio of floor area to lot area shall not
be greater than two ~ oam, not including hasemetic
floor area.
Note: N~ers in italics
Conformance number 1.
amended by Substantial
-i45-
J
J
-14.6-
MCDONALD, HECHT ~B¢ SOLBEi~O
ATT(DRNIrYG AT LAW
~OO "B" ST~CCT
SAN DIGS, CAMFO~ZA 9~O1
November 4, 1991
TtrLrl~MONer
(619) 239-34.44
TrLICCOImlrl:l
VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY
Mr. John Hoagland, Chairman
City of Temecula Planning Commission
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Extension of Tentative Map: 23372 and 23373,
Planning Commission Agenda of 'November 4. 1991~
Dear Chairman Hoagland and Planning Commission Members:
This firm represents Margarita Village Development Company
(MVDC) the owner and developer of the property, involved in the
above tentative map extensions.
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with our
written objections concerning the staff recommendation to impose a
"park fee" as a condition to the extension of the Tentative'Maps.
Tentative Maps 23372 and 23373 are part of a package of development
entitlements which were granted by the County of Riverside prior to
the incorporation of the City of Temecula (City). These
entitlements include the Margarita Village Specific Plan and a
Development Agreement granted pursuant to state and local law. The
City, as successor to the County, is limited in its authority to
impose new fees or regulations on tentative map extensions (Develop-
ment Agreement Section 3.10).
Notwithstanding that the Development Agreement establishes
certain contractual rights and obligations on the City relating to
the property, we believe the City is also limited by applicable case
law in its authority to impose new conditions to tentative map
extensions (El Patio Permanent Rent Control Board [1980] 110
Cal.App. 3d 915). The holding in E1 Patio, when considered with the
Development Agreement, precludes the City from now imposing new park
fees as a condition of tentative map extension.
The imposition of new fees bn this project may result in this
project being unable to proceed with development. Furthermore, we
question whether or not the provisions of Government Code § 60000,
Mr. John Hoagland
November 4, 1991
Page 2
et seq. have been met by the City prior to the adoption of the fee
and its imposition on tentative map extensions. We respectfully
reserve the right to further review the application of Government
Code § 66000, et seq. to the fee being proposed.
We ask that your Commission grant the request to extend
Tentative Maps Nos. 23372 and 23373 without the imposition of new
fees.
A representative of MVDC will be present at your hearing in
order to address this issue and to answer any questions you may
have.
Sincerely yours,
Charles R. Gill
MCDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG
CRG/m,h
CC:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
James A. Resney
Joseph A. Delaney, Esq.
IIAUL [. ROBINSON*
DAVID W. IAGLI'Y. IIe
C[-IARI. e'S R, ~,lLLe
JIL. L P. WOI,.IrB'NION
November 4, 1991
Ve'l.,tleNONE
Ve'L.I:CORiI:Iel
VIA PERSONAL DET.IVERY
Mr. John Hoagland, Chairman
City of Temecula Planning Commission
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:
Extension of Tentative Map: 23372 and 23373,
Plannine Commission Acenda of November 4. 1991
Dear Chairman Hoagland and Planning Commission Members:
This firm represents Margarita Village Development Company
(MVDC) the owner and developer of the property, involved in the
above tentative map extensions.
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with our
written objections concerning the staff recommendation to impose a
"park fee" as a condition to the extension of the Tentative Maps.
Tentative Maps 23372 and 23373 are part of a package of development
entitlements which were granted by the County of Riverside prior to
the incorporation of the City of Temecula (City). These
entitlemerits include the Margarita Village Specific Plan and a
Development Agreement granted pursuant to state and local law. The
City, as successor to the County, is limited in its authority to
impose new fees or regulations on tentative map extensions (Develop-
ment Agreement Section 3.10).
Notwithstanding that the Development Agreement establishes
certain contractual rights and obligations on the City relating to
the property, we believe the City is also limited by applicable case
law in its authority to impose new conditions to tentative map
extensions (~1 Patio permanent Rent Control Board [1980] 110
Cal.App. 3d 915). The holding in E1 Patio, when considered with the
Development Agreement, precludes the City from now imposing new park
fees as a condition of tentative map extension.
The imposition of new fees'on this project may result in this
project being unable to proceed with development. Furthermore, we
question whether o[ not the provisions of Government Code § 60000,
Mr. John Hoagland
November 4, 1991
Page 2
et seq. have been met by the City prior to the adoption of the fee
and its imposition on tentative map extensions- We respectfully
reserve the right to further review the application of Government
Code § 66000, et seq. to the fee being proposed.
We ask that your Commission grant the request to extend
Tentative Maps Nos. 23372 and 23373 without the imposition of new
fees.
A representative of HVDC will be present at your hearing in
order to address this issue and to answer any questions you may
have.
Sincerely yourS,
Charles R. Gill
MCDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG
CRG/mh
co: Scott F. Field, City Attorney
James A. Resney
Joseph A. Delaney, Esq.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
January 14, 1992
First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
'EXISTING ZONING:
Mark Rhoades
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
RI:^FRRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, and;
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, based on the analysis
and findings contained the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Buie Corporation
Margarita Village Development Company
First Extension of Time for a 66 lot condominium map for
apartment or a congregate care facility with 469 total
dwelling units on 46.9 acres.
Northerly of Rancho California Road, on the west side of
Kaiser Parkway
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
S~STAFFRP'~23372VTM,CC 1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant.
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
N o. of Lots:
Planning Area 40:
Planning Area 41:
Total Site Density:
46.9
66
25 D.U./AC.
6.2 D.U./AC.
10.66 D.U.,'AC.
BACKGROUND
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372 and 23373 are portlens of the Margarita Village Sl:ecific
Plan No. 199. The two maps were tentatively aiDproved by the County of Riverside in
November of 1988, The City of Temecula Planning Commission recommended approval of
the First Extension of Time on November 4, 1991 by a vote of 5-0,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is an application to subdivide 46.9 acres of land into
a 66 lot condominium project which will include senior citizen apartments or a congregate care
facility, with a unit total of 469. The project is located northerly of Rancho California Road,
on the west side of Meadows Parkway. The project includes Planning Areas 40 and 41 of the
Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199. The project is Surrounded on the north. south and
west sides by vacant land. To the east is an existing Single-family residential tract. The
proposed product will be limited to senior citizen residents.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Issues which were raised by the Planning Commission relative to the project included parkland
and erosion control. The park issue is mitigated, as a result of the aiDproiDriate condition of
approval for fee payment. Erosion control measures for the proiDosed project were coml~leted
prior to the item being scheduled for a City Council hearing.
S%STAFFRPT~23372VTM.CC 2
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The current SWAP designation for the proposed map is Specific Plan. The project is in
conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 and therefore will likely be consistent with the City's
future adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Riverside County Environmental Assessment No. 32547 was previously adopted for the
proposed project. It is recommended that the City Council re-affirm the previous
environmental assessment.
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
zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
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 I~ublic 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.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due
to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the
subject site.
S\$TAFFRFrr~23372VTM. C C 3
10.
The project as designed and conditioned will not;adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the EIR for the plroject, 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 access
points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the CiW
Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easemeints 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.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning Areas 40 and 41 Standards, Specific Plan
Resolution - page 6
Conditions of Approval - page 14
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 16
Exhibits - page 17
Development Fee Check List - page 18
No. 199 - page 5
$\$TAFFRPl"~3372V'rM.CC 4,
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING AREAS 40 AND 41
STANDARDS, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
S%STAFFt:IFl'%23372VTM.CC 5
3g..- ipl~:'Fm'!'ncJ AZta 40
b. v~--d Use en~ Develc~mr~c'
Please refer to Ordtnan=e Se,- :1~,2~2~.
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab).
c, P~annina. Standerds
,
,
Access into ~la~-4-~Ar~a'40'w~I1' be ~.~l~e~'--for an
access r~ad t~ the sou~ whi~ cc~c~
Parlay.
A landsaped ~ffer is pla~ed
38 and 39 ~o help sep~~.~s~...N .:~'-
~e adjoining co~erci~~..~
A major recreation and a~i~~-.~'
Village 'A" adjacent t~ ~~~~'~ ~'~e -
residen~s of ~e re~irem~='c~~. A variety of
facilities are planned~ ~e cen~er may include ~ennis
coups, lect~e halls, SW4mm4mg,
A Major Retirement Entry-lazda~ ~r--~m-.=.
planned at the entrance ~P~'-ew4-F/.~rm.=8
Callfolio Road. (See Fi~"~22't'~-~.) A
Minor 'Re~iremen~ En~ landscape ~rea~en~ is pla~ed
along Kaiser Parlay. (See Fi~res III-24 & III-2S.).
Building height shall no~ exceed 3 s~ories, wi~ a
~x~ heigh~ of 40 fee~.
S~Jec~ to approval by ~e Fire ~ief and
Depamen~ of Buil~g ~~~, c~4~.%)~ ~/v~
firelaces shall be allo~E~~~~
encrca~ents shall be ~i~ed in ~e front, side or
rear yard except as prQv~ =or ~ Section 18.19
Ordinance No. 348.2922.
Note: Numbers in italics .[1 .amended by
Conformance number 1.
Substantial
-143-
Please rmfmr ~o pr~ect-wida Deaig~x
use s~andards ~haC'apply mira-vide-
Please refer
dasign-rala~ad cri~aria.
--I44 -
dezls:l;l-y-.z ~s'E'-' e,l,,p.r,,w~,a,~'r_'.-- 7,7' d;,n.,/a~.: (:Dexxlit~-' '~,,-C'e..H7-.'
EL~r, Dens.t.=~ :Bsm.fa.--,.H,,T .ch~ 'i-~ ..... wr-on,-
aTrus. Ty~icaI building elevations
g-~a-~4,~ are. depicts2 in
h. T.and Use and Deve~ vu~,~L 'S~ml aa- = ~rm
Please refer to Ora{---,.t
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab).
c.- p't a~nir~- Sta. n,d'erds'-'
Access int~ Pla~ATuX' 4I"w~II DW pT~v~ded from
h~ser Parkway and a
(See Fi~e II-30.)
A major relation and
Village "As adJac~t:~u~m~:~:~'~..~.~
resid~ts of the r~c~.-.,, ......... ~: -A.~qof-"
facilities are pla~
coups, lecture h~,
ties.
A Major Retirement Entr~ landscape treatment is
1
panned at the entrance t~ P ---t,,c~'.&m3& onRa..nch~
· Cal~orfit~ ~. {2a~ ~ig~r~ ZII--22 & 111-23.) A
Minor Rettr~en~ Ent~ ~.~-~.--~~
along Kaiser Parlay. [S~~Z--a4.&
Building height shalI. n~"-~~ = ~es, ~th a
m~im~ height of 40 feet.
S~Ject to approval by ~e Fire ~ief and
Depa~ent of Building ~d Safety, chi~eys and/or
fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach in=o aidey~
a maxtm~ of two (2) feet. No o~er s=~c~ural
encroac~ents shall ~e p~~ ~~.~L, s~
rear yard except as prong= ~.t~ ~.~
Ordin~ce No. 348.2922 ....
~e maxim~ ratio of ~o~ area to lot area shall
be ~ea~er ~an =wo ~.u, not including basem~
floor area.
Note:
Conformance number 1.
amended by Substan=ial
-i4S-
-I4 6 -
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-._
S%STAFRqPT%23372V'T'M.CC 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23372 TO SUBDIVIDE
46.9 ACRES INTO A 66 LOT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
LOCATED NORTHERLY OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON
THE WEST SIDE OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said First Extension of ~Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 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 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map on January 14 1992, 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
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS!:
SECTION 1. Rndings.
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 adoDted
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~.3372VTM. CC 7
5
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 generfal plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
(3) The proposed use or actior~ complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and llocal ordinances,
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (heroinafter "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 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent
with the SWAP and meets the requirements sat 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 City Council 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 First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action' complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances,
Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
S\STAFFRPT~,23372VTM. CC 8
That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans,
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development.
That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems.
That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through,
or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be
approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be
provided and that they will be subslantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record
or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Council in approving the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map, makes the following findings, to Wit:
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 comiclies with state planning and zoning laws, due
to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed"
within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
S'~STAFFRPT~23372VTM. CC 9
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 conformsrice with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare, due to the fact thatthe conditions stated in the approval are
based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential
adverse impacts of the project.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the
current zoning of the subject site.
'G.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration 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 toi 8 dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently
proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to
be adequate by the City Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting
street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access
through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact
that this is clearly represented in the Site plan and the project analysis.
Said findings are supported by minUtes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents a.ociated with this application and herein incorporated by
reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report,
Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval.
As conditioned
Tentative Tract
community.
pursuant to SECTION 3, the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
S\STAFFRPT~23372VTM.CC 10
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 the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for the subdivision of 46.9 acres into a 66 lot
condominium project located northerly of Rancho California Road on the west side of
Meadows Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel no. 923-210-014 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVE) AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
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 14th day of January, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
$\STAFFRFP,23372V'rM. CC 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
$\$TAFFRFT'%23372VTM. CC 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
First Extension of Time
Council 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 N0. 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.
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.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubmitted for further review.
The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended
and with the Conditions noted below.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
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.
Delete Condition No. 24 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September, 30,
1988, and replace it with the following:
~ $~STAFFRPl"~3372VTM.CC I 3
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department
of Public Works 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.
An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The installat:ion shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site, conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
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 Rood 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.
e
As deemed necessary by the Department of Publics Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CA'I"V Franchise.
Community Services
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit shell be installed to CATV Standards at time of street
improvements.
Prior to any work being performed in public right.of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shell be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to
any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improv ments and public facilities imposed
upon the property of project, including that for traef?fic and public facility mitigation as
required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
of payment of 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
S%STAFF!qPT%23372V'rM, CC 14
payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided 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 e2.00 per
square foot, not to exceed e 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 from 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; orovided 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:
10.
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.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed per the
approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12. Delete Condition No. 36 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated
September 30, 1988.
13.
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works. Said plans shall include Rancho California Road,
Marpetite Road and all streets conditioned under this subdivision.
14.
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,
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
15.
Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 5.49 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map,
16.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
S\STAFFI=IFT'~3372VTIVI'CC 15
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
"" S\STAFFFtPT~'23372V'rM'CC 16
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1991
Case No.: First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning
COmmiS~iOR:
ADOPT Resolution 91-__ Recommending that the City Council
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23372, contingent upon the implementation of corrective
grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Buie Corporation
REPRESENTATIVE:
Margarita Village Development Company
PROPOSAL:
First Extension of Time for a 66 lot condominium complex
and an apartment or congregate care facility with 469
total dwelling units on 46.9 acres.
LOCATION:
Northerly of Rancho California Road, on the west side of
Kaiser Parkway
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
S\STAFFRFT%23372,VTM 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Proposed Density:
Planning Area 40:
Planning Area 41:
Total Site Density:
46.9
66
25 D.U./AC.
6.2 D.U./AC.
10.66 D.U./AC.
BACKGROUND
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372 was originally approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on November 8, 1988. The First Extension of Time was filed in October of 1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is a portion of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No.
199. The Tentative Map encompasses Planning Areas 40 and 41.
Planning Area No. 40 proposes a 237 unit congregate care and/or apartment facility on 9.6
acres. The overall density of that project would be approximately 25 dwelling units per acre
at buildout.
Planning Area 41 is a 66 lot, 232 unit condominium development on 37.3 acres. The overall
density of Planning Area 41 is approximately 6.2 dwelling units per acre.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is generally consistent with the approved Specific
Plan No. 199. The Southwest Area Plan designation for this project is Specific Plan. It is
likely that this project will be consistent with the future adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 202 was previously adopted by Riverside County for
Specific Plan No. 199. Staff has determined that said EIR still applies to this subdivision.
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 :he
fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the
zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
S\STAFFRFT~23372.VTM 2
10.
11.
STAFF
vgw
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 conditi0ned 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. 23372 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features
provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic
circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due
to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the
subject site.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the EIR 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 access
points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented
in the site plan and the project analysis.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91- Recommending that the City
Council APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon the
implementation of corrective grading and erosion control
measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
the City Counci,I approval, based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
S\STAFFRPT'%23372,VTM 3
Atachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 5
Conditions of Approval - page 10
Staff Report-County of Riverside - page 14
Exhibits - page 15
S%STAFFRPl~23372.VTM 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 9 1 ~
S\STAFFle4~'~23372.VTM 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-109
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23372-A 66 LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION ON 46.9 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 923-210-014.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation 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
November 4, 1991, at which time i,nterested 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
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 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 complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances..
S\STAFFRPT~23372.VTM 6
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (heroinafter "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, safeR, and
welfare of the public. "
The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time
Extension, makes the following findings, tO wit:
(1)
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 amen,ties commensurate
with existing and anticipated residential development standards.
(2)
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.
S%STAFFRPT~3372.VTM 7
(3>
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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
(4)
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 densit"y, 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
conformonce with adopted City standards.
(5)
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.
(6)
Vesting Tentative Treat Mop No,. 2337:2 is compatible with surrounding
land upon. The harmony in soalc, bulk, height, density and oovoragc
areatee o pampatibia physioal rolationohip with adjoining propertics, duo
to thc foot that the proposal is similar in compatibility with surFeunding
ksnd uses; and adc, quatc area nnd dcsign fonturo3 providc far siting ef
pFo;sosod development in terms. of landsoaping and internal traffic
oiroulation. (Per Mark Rheades after the PC mtg. on November 4, 1991 )
(7)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property
because it does not represent a significant change to the present or
planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project
is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site.
(8)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due
to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the
project's Conditions of Approval.
(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 access points from Kaiser Parkway 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 is application and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the
attached Staff Report, Exhibits, 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.
S~$TAFFRPI'~3372.V'TM 8
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission
environmental determination Adoption of EIR No.
(Extension of Time).
hereby determines that the previous
202 still applies to said Tract Map
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby !recommends that the City Council
approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for a 66 Lot
residential subdivision on 46.9 acres and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. subject
to the following conditions:
1. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of NoVember, 1991.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ReSolution was duly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th
day of November 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT:. 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
S\STAFFRPT%23372.VTM 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRFT"%23372.VTM 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
First 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.
e
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the
project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of
compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars
(,~100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
Department of Public Works
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Develoger has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubmitted for further review.
The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended
and with the Conditions noted below.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
e
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.
$\$TAFFRPT~23372.VTM 11
Delete
1988,
e
PRIOR
Condition No. 24 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated Selotember, 30,
and replace it with the following:
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department
of Public Works 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.
An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval, The installation shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The chSrge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of' new development, The charge is
payable to the Rood 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,
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Wster District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise,
Community Services
to Develop. i Standards at time of street
improvements.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the ity Engineer's Office, in addition to
any other permits required,
TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
of payment of 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 col:y of which has been provided to develol:er.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post security to secure
payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be 82.00 per
square foot, not to exceed S 10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may
S\STAFFRPT~aa72.VTM 12
PRIOR
require the Daymerit 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 from 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; orovided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
10.
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.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed per the
approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12. Delete Condition No. 36 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated
September 30, 1988.
13.
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works. Said plans shall include Rancho California Road,
Margarita Road and all streets conditioned under this subdivision.
14.
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.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
15.
Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 5.49 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map.
16.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process,
S~$TAFFRPT~3372.VTM 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT FROM THE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
S\STAFFRPT~3372.VTM 14
.. ' ' -.WUIMrrFALTO THE IO~JID OF SUFEP,..jOlts
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA
FItOH: Pllnntng Department SUIMITTALDATE~ November 8, 1988
SUIJECY: VESTING TENTATIVE and ENTATZVE TRACTS located n the "~.
Iqargartta Vtllage Spec fic Plan ($P 199 Mendment No. 1) - First
and Thfrd: $upervtso lal DIstricts - Rancho California Zoning Area.
RECOMMF-NDED MOTION:
Receive-and Ftle the Planning Comtsston actton of 9,Z8-88 and
· 10-5-88.. for .' ·
APPROVAL of Vesttng Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, Z337Z
Mended NO. 1, 23373 Amended No. 1, 23470 and 23471 end Tracts
22915, 22gZ6, 23100 Mended No. 1, 2310~ 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. I.
'K"k'~'1rt'F'ee~'ei~; pl inning br~ect, or'
mv!lmol COUNTY
& SIMVEY C)F. pARTMENT
Prw. ASh.
Delta. Comments DIaL
AGEND
RIVERSIDE COUNTf PLANNING CORqISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1988
(AGENOA ITEIq$ ~-Z, 5-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE I - TAPE 6, SIDE 1)
VESTING TRACT leAP 23373 ANENDED NO, I - EA 32548 - Rirgartta Vtllage
Development Company - Rancho California Area - FIrst/Third Supervisortel
DIstricts - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 348
units - 31~ acres - $P 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT NAP 23371ANENDED NO, 1'-.'EA 32546 .- RirgarJta VIllage' "'
Development Company - Rancho California Area , FIrst/Third Supervisortel
DIstricts - north of Rancho Cal'tfornta Rd, east of Rirgartta Rd - 1183 units -
398: acres - SP 19g Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT 23372 ANENDED NO. 1 - EA 32547 - Hargartta VIllage Development
Company .- itlncho California Aria - FIrst/Third .$upervisorfal DIstricts - north
of Rancho. C~11fornfa'Rd, west of Katser. PaPkway - 469 unt.ts.on 66 lots - 44~
acres - 5P 199 Zone, Schedule A
The heartngs ere opened it 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m.
STAFF RECOIIqENDATION: Adoptlon of the ne salve declarations for EA 32548, EA..
32546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesting ~rlct Rips 23373 Amended No, 1, 2337l
Amended No. I end 23372 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed condtttons~
Hs. Gtfford also ricemended approval of a ,liver of the length to wtdth ratto
I~tO Rirgartta Village Specific Plan, and would create 1763
residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract
naps to be consistent with the adopted spectftc plan. Ha. Gtfford recommended
several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purvtance asked
about a fiscal tmpact report, and was informed thts report hid been furnished
recently for Amendant No. 1 to the spectftc plan.
Jim Resney, representing the applicant, briefly routewed the development,
advising they were proposing i state-of-the-art adult retirement coaeuntty
which tncluded· chuFtonshtp golf course wttha 37,000 squire foot clubhouse
facility tn the center of the project. He then referred to Condition 33(f)
for all three tract maps, which required fronlylrds to be provtded rlth
landscaping and autoBIt]c Irrigation, and requested that thts requirement
deleted for larger lots, as it ms his opinion that these homeowners would
prefer to do their ore landscaping. The CC&RS would require the to comply
with specific standards. Hr. Resney requested that this condition be sanded
by adding to the end "or shall be Instilled within 75 d~ys after close of
escrow as provided in the CCiRs tn the 45x100 square foot lot areas".
· Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Rip 23371 and Condition 14 for the
other two tract maps requtred a debris retention well where block walls were
requtred it the top of slopes. Nr. Resne~ requested that thts condition be
amended by addtng: "if applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Road Coranisstoner that a Raster Homeowners AsSocIation or other entity w411
satisfactorily mtntatn the slopes, the Road Corantsstoner may, at his optton.
wetve this requirement of a debrts retention well." He thought that tf they
could conytrice the Road Commissioner that there would be no st1~ng problems
and that the 1
s opes would be maintained, the debris retention w;ll would not
53
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~ISSION HINUTES
OCTOBER 5, I988
be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt tt would be better not to have the
small wall.
Road Deparment Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and Condition 15 for the other
t~o tract Nps related to the mt'ntmum 30 foot.garage setback from face of
curb. Hr. Resney felt this condition conflicted with the spectftc plan
development standards ~htch allowed 16 foot driveways wtth roll up doors,
setback etther from the back of curb or the back of sidewalk. He would prefer
to have the specific plan standards applled, INt requested that the hearings
not be continued.
Lee Johnson advtsed the.'slump wall deltneated.tn Road Depirtment Condition 21
was a wall' they had been r~qutrtng for the pastthree'or'four yelrs when the'
Planntng Deparment required a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on
the size of the slope, the Road Department Design Engtneer could require a two
block high wall at the property line to keep the debrts washtng down the slope
from crosstng the sidewalk. They ~muld be willing to consider any other
alternative the developer might suggest, as long as it accomplished the
purpose of this condition. He requested that this. condition be retained.
Commissioner Oonahoe asked whether addtng to the end "or as approved by the
Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provtde an
alternative plan, and Nr. Johnson agreed thlt tt~muld,
Mr. Johnson advtsed the garage setback required by Road Department Condition
22 for Tract 23371 (Condition 15 for Tracts 23372 and 23373) was the minimum
setback requtred by Ordinance 460. He had read the language requested by the
applicant, ~t would prefer to retstn the condition as originally proposed tn
the Road Department letter. Mr. Resney explained they had been discussing the
possibility of providing a 4 foot sideilk, and ~ould 11ke to have a 24 foot
setback.rather than the.26 foot setback requtred by thts condition. However,
tf the Road Department preferred the extstlng language, they would accept it.
stdevm ktn
Jo nson advised the condition ~ould not alter the width of the 1
Mar. h
any way.
Co,:,~sstoner 8earlling referred to Hr. Itesnty's request that front yard land-
scaptn and trrtgettoa aot be req, tred for the
,.,, -.,- ,...,, ,,.
the
condition be rotmined as ortgtnelll ,Tttten.
There was no further testimony, and the heartng ws close at 7:11 p.o.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesttrig Tentative Tract Ips 23371 Amended No. I,
23372 Amended No. I and 23373 Amended No. 1 are located wtthtn Vtllage A of
the taargartta Village Spectftc Plan (No. lgg); the three' tract maps will
provtde 1763 dwelling units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372
Amended No. 1 has been condtttoned wtth the spectftc plan's condition of
approval to mtttgate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts
have been condtttoned to comply with Specific Plan lg9, Chang~ of Zone Case
5107, and Development Agreement No. 52 and a witvet of the lo~ length to width
ratio will be needed for Vesttng Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All
environmental concerns have been addressed tn EZRa 107, 202, and the 1nittel
54
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COlRlalISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1988
studtes for these tract nips, and no significant impacts have been found; the
tract maps am consistent with the Coq~rehenslve General Plan (as amended by
CGPA 150), Change of Zone Case 5107, and $pectftc Plan 199 Amendment No. 1;
and conform to the requirements of Ordanances 460 and 348. The proposed
project wtll not have a significant eflect on the environment.
NOTION: Upon mtton by Comtsstoner Donehoe, seconded by CommfsStoner ErassOn
and unanimously carrted, the Co,mtsston adopted t.~e negattve declarations for
EA 32546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, and approved Vesttng Tentative Tract IMps
23371 Mended No. 1 vtth a mtver of the lot length to vldth ratto, 23372
Mended No. 1, and 23373 Mended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions
amended as follows, based on the above ftndtngs and conclusions and the
recoanendattons of staff'..'
Tract No. 23371
9 - Mend to reflect the September 30, 1988 Road Department letter.
23(2) and 23(3) - Mend to requtre the developer to comply wJth the parkway
landscaping requirements as .shown In Spectftc Plan No. 199
Amnded No. I unless mtntenance ts provided by a
hemowners association or other publlc anttry.
26 - Delete the last sentence ("The ftnal mp for Vesttrig Tract 23371 shall
show the park as a numbered lot").
33(c) - Roof-mounted mchantcal equlpmnt shuT1 not be permitted vtthtn the
subdivision, except for the clubhouse vhtch my have screened
equipment as apprsved by the Planntng .Department; however, solar
eclutlaent or any other ener savtng devtces shall be pemttted wtth
Planning Department approval.
Condition 34(8) for Tmcts 23371. 23372. and 33(a) for Tract 23373
Add "and my be phasedwith the project". (to c artfy that wells sty be
phased wtth, the develolaent of the tract.
Condition 33(d) for Tra;ts 23371 end 23 72.
less thso tel .feet tinJess Ipllroved bJf the Department of ktldtng and SifetJf
and the Ftre Oepertaent per Spectftc Plan 199 :Mended No. 1.
34(e) for Tracts 23371, 23372 and 33(e) for TraCt 23373 - Delete
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373
Add to the end 'or as approved by the Road Department~
55
RIVERSIDE COUNTf PLANNING COI~XSSXON HINUTES
SaPTENSER 28, 1988
(AGENDA ITEN 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SIDE 1 - TAPE 1 SIDE 1)
. r] Oev. Corp. Rancho
TRACT HAP 23100 ANENDED NO. 1 - EA 32318 - He borough -
California/Skinner Lake Area.- Ftrst and Thtrd Supervisortel DIstricts - wast
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 291 lots - 122.5~
acres - R-lISP Zones'; Schedule-A · .. '* ...
TRACT NAP 23101 - EA 32533 - Yerlborough Oev. Corp. - Rancho
Ca]ifornta/Sktnner Lake Area -Ftrst and Thtrd Supervisortel DtstrJcts - east
of Kit set Pkwy, wast of Butterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87~ acres -
SP/R-2-6000 Zones. Schedule A
TRACT'HAP '23i'02 - EA 32534- HerlbOroUgh 'Dev....Corp~*- Rancho'..
California/Skinner Lake Area'- Ftrst and Thtrd Supervisortel' DIstriCts -'north
of La Serene ~ay, wast of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4, acres -
SP/R-I Zones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 23103 AIRENDED NO. 1 - EA 32535 - Herlborough Oev. Corp. - Pancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - 1rat and Thtrd Supervisortel DIstricts - west
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rlncho California lid - 18 lots - 29, acres -
SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A
The heartrigs were opened at 9:49 i.e. and closed at 10:08 i.e.
STAFF RECONHENDATION: Adoptton of the negattve declarations for EA 32318,
32533, 32534 and 32535. and approval of Tentative Tract Heps 23100/mended
No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I wtth I wetvet of the lot length
to width retto, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps
were located wlthfn V111age 8 of the Her arttl Vtllige Spectflc Plln, and
would dtvlde the 254 acres tnto 605 residential lots. Stiff had found the
tract maps to be conststont wtth the Coeprehenstve General Plan, Spectftc Plan
199 Amendment No. 1, and the zontn whtch hid been applted to the specific
plan through Change of Zane Case 5~07. Ms. Gtfford recommended several
changes to the conditions for these tract mps, relattng to requirements for
maintenance of the opea space areas, Hrk requirements, useable yard areas,
and fenclng requirements. ~r. Klotz suggested BOdtfytng the last condition
for each tract amp by beginning wtth the phrase "Develo~eent of the".
Co,,elsstoner Iresson re{Nested that changes be ,mde throughout to refer to
etther "public use tratls" or "recreational tretls" tnsteed of "equestrian
tratls"; he felt these terms would more accurately descrtbe thetr use.
hrry Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as
amended. It was hts understanding that tn the event any portton of the
development agreement ms held to be 1nvalld (for any reason), the conditions
requiring compliance wtth that agreement would be null and votd; thts was
confirmed by County Counsel.
There was no further testimony, and the heartngs were closed at 10:08 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Heps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101,
23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 are located wtthtn Vtllage B of the Hergarlta
2
RXVERSTDE COUNTY PLUENZNG COffiqTSSXON HXNUTES
SEPTENBER 28, 1988
Vtllage Spectftc Plan; the four tract maps would dtvtde the 254 acres tnto 605
residehale1 lots; the tract mps have been condtttoned tn accordance wtth the
spectftc p1&n's conditions of approval to mtttgate tmplcts on the Stephens
Kangaroo Rat; the tract maps have been condtttoned to comply wtth Spectftc
Plan ~99 Amendment No, Z,'Change Of Zon'e Case 5107, and .Development, A reamant-
5 mtver for the lot length to'vtdth ratio wtll be needed for ~ract
No. ; a
23Z03/mended No. Z. All environmental concerns have been addressed tn EXR
107, EXR 202, and the lntttal studtea for these tract maps, and no stgntflcant
tmpacts Rave been found; the tract maps are consistent wtth the Comprehensive
General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amndment No. 250), Spectftc Plan 199
Amendment No. 1 and Change of Zone .Case 5t072 the tract maps confom to the
requirements' of Ordinances 348.and 466. The.proposed p~Jects. Nt11 not have a
significant effect on the environment.
HOTXON: Upon morton b Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Cemtsstoner
Beadllng 'and unanffiou:~y carrted, the Coe,atsston idopted the negative
declarations for EA 323Z8, EA 32533, EA 32534 and EA 32535, and approved
Tentative Tract HIps 23100k ended No. Z, 23Z01, 23102, and 23103 Mended
No. I with a vetvet of the lot length to wtdth ratto, subject to the proposed
1 the above ftndtngs and conclusions
conditions, amended as fol ows, based on
and the recmmendattons of stiff.
Tract Map 23100 Amended No. 1
2e
3e
~aend to confom to Condition 24 (to provtde for mtntenance of the
camon open space area by etaher a County $ervtce Area or a Homeowners
Association).
Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy permats for 160 untts on Tract
23100, the perk area shall be developed per Slactftc Plan No. Amended
24. Raplmce with the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the common open space 1111 by litbar I County Servtce
Area or Horn, owners Association.
37(b) kfa11 aM/or fence locations shell substantially contom to attached
Ftgure ZZZ-28 of Spectf.tc Plan No. Xg9 Amndmnt No. 1.
8.
The develolaent of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. 1 shall
comply vtth lll provisions of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and
0evelol:nent Agreement No. 5
Tract Pap 23101
17(h) Rear yards and useable slde yards shall have an average flat area of
2000 square f, et.
22. Amend to confom to Condition 24 (to provtde for mint, nine, of the
common open space area by etaher a County Servtce Area or a Homeowners
Association).
3
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING CCIqHZSSION MINUTES
SEPTEHaER 28, 1988
3e
4e
Prior to the tssuance of occupancy permtts for 160 untts on Tract
23101, the park area shall be developed per Spectftc Plan No. Amended
No. 1.
Replace wt'th the standard"altern·ttve conditIOn providing for
maintenance of the camnon open space area by etther· County Service
Area or Horn·owners Association.
37(b) ~1all and/or fence loc·ttons sh·11 substantially confom to attached
Figure IlI-Z8 of Spec.tftc Pl·n No. X99 Amendment No. 1,
38, The develOment of Tent·the tract' NO, '2310.1 Sh·11 compl: .wtth
provisions of Spectf~c Plan No. Xgg Amndment No. X and ~evelopment
Ag re·men t No. 5
Tract Map 23102
~mend to confom ~th Condition 33 (to provtde for maintenance of the
camnon open space ·re· by either · County $ervtce Area or I Homeowners
Association.
3·
Replace wtth the st·ndird alternative condition provtdfng for
mtntenence of the canon open space Irll by either a County Se~vtce
Area or Homeovners ASsociation.
35(b) W·11 and/or fence locations shall substantially contom to attached
Ftgure ZZZ-28 of $pectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
The develolaNnt of Tentative Tract No. 23102 shell comply ~th ·11
provisions of _Specific Plan No. 199Amendment No. I and Oevelopment
Agreement No. S
Tract Map 23103 Amended No. I
21. Amend to conform to Condition 22 (to provtde for mtntenance of the
carom· open space ires b3f either I County hrvtce Area or · Horn·owners
Assocllttoe.
22. Replace with the standardsitem·live condtMon providing for
mtntenince of the common open space ·rea by etther· County Servtce
Area or Homeowners Association.
34(a) H·11 and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached
Figure I11-28 of $pectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
5e
The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Mended No, 1 shell
comply wtth all provisions of Spectftc Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1 and
Development Agreement No, 5
4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONNISSION HINUTES
SEPTENBER 28, 1988
(AGENDA ITEN$ 1-3 AND 1-4- REEL 1002, SIDE 1 - TAPE 1, SIDE 1)
TRACT HAP 22916 - EA 32SOS - Rancho California Oev. Co. - Rancho California
Area - First Supervisor1·1 Otstrtct - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfield
Stage Rd - 259 ]ors - 103.3+ 'acres.- R-R/SP' ZoneS. Schedule A
Are - First Supervisortea strtct- south of. Rancho Vtsta lid, west of
Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 ~t a
ors - 91.6~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT HAP Z3471 - EA 32518 o Katser I)evelolaent Co. - Rancho
RC~tf~e°sr~t:f.A~S;rF;kr:; Supe;vlsortal DIstrict o south of Rancho Cal. tfornta
-15 lo13 -44~ acres -'R-I/.SP Zones. $chedule-A
VESTING TRACT ~ 23470 - EA 32517 -KatSer Oeveloment Co. - Rancho
California Are· - First Supervisortel Dtstrtct- north of Rancho VIsta Rd,
west of Katser Pkwy - 325 lots - ]06.3 acres - R-I/SP Schedule A
he·rings were opened at lO:lO a.m. and closed ·t ll:lO a.m.
STAFF RECOHHENDATZON: kloptton of the negative declarations for EA 3ZSIT, EA
,3Z518, EA 32504, and EA 3ZS05 and approval of Tent·rive Tract IMps 229iS and
22916, and Vesttrig Tentative Tract IMps 23470 and 23471
d ' acre school stte, a 5 acre lark site and 3 tot lots. Staff
found the proposed mps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General
an, the adopted spectflc plan, and the zontng .htch had been ap ted to the
- ; g re ·ted to the mtntmum
* qu reinants, lark requiremintS,
g g on requirements, and · requirement for development of the
tract maps tn accordance vtth the adopted spectftc plan and approved
develoixnent agreement. ·
Comtsstoner kedllng questionedNa. 6tfford's recoenendstton for deletton of
the conditions for Tract Raps 23470, 22915 and 22916 re trt land
Irrigation for lots of this ltze. y requtre ~:ndscaptng and
fir. Streeter felt this condition could be
retatned as tt vas County policy to require landscaping and trrt atton for
7200 square foot lots tn the Rancho California lrel. g
Robert Kfmble, representing the applicant, advtsed they would prefer not to
provtde the front yard landscaping and Irrigation, and requested that the
condition be deleted. Commissioner Beadllng asked whether Mr. Ktmble had seen
the letter submitted by FV. and firs. Pipher objecting to the density proposed
In the area adjacent to thetr estate type homes. At her request, fir. Klmble
]ocated Nr. Ptpher's subdivision whtch was next to Rancho Vtsta Road. They
were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the spectftc plan for thts
area. Ha. Gtfford advtsed the tract map was 8 refillng of a Previously
5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COIeiISSION MINUTES SEPTBEER Ze, lg88
approved map, and there was no change in the density; the proposed tract map
was within the density range allowed by the specific plan. Commissioner
Beadllng quoted from the letter, whtch requested that the denstry be reduced
to the density originally pro~sed by the specific plan. She wanted to know
t w and was Informed there.had. been no change tn the
what thts dens ty .as,
denstry.
Hr. Ktmble requested that Condition 4 of the Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter
for Tract 2347Z be deleted. Thts condition required maintenance ramps in the
Long Canyon Channel; these ramps ~ere e ~e ~da
thts channel for thetr underlying map :~hn sen ~o
1
· delettonof thts condition. Hr. Ktmb]e' then requested that. llad Department
Condition 26 few Tract"ZZglS ind .Condition 28 .for Tract 2Zg16 be amended by
adding to the end '"or as approved'by the Road Conntsstoner"; Mr.. Johnson
agreed to thts change for both tract maps.
Condition 20 for Tract 22916 requtred the park to be fully improve and
developed prtor to the tssuance of butldtng pemtts for i50 units, and fir.
Ktmble requested that thts condition be amended to requtre the ark prtor to
the tssuance of occupancy for the 2Sgth lot. Providing the ful~ tmrove
park prior to ZSO untts would be a burden to the develolxr, Ha, (;tfford d
advise fir. K1mble's request would delay completion of the park unt11 after
· the enttre tract had been completed; staff felt ZSO untts would afford the ·
applicant an opportunity to butld same untts, and at that point the improve-
ments could be tled tnto road Improvements. The park would also be useful for
was betng dove oped by the sam developer.
the tract to the north, whtch 1
Hr. Ktmble requested clarfftcatton of the new condltlon staff had aug ested
for Tract 2Zg16 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r.
Goldman explained thts condition referred beck to the spectftc plan condt-
ttons, which requtred at.that a !4morind~e of Understanding wtth the ~parl~ent
of Fish and (;am or that the applicant comply wtth the Countywide program
being established by RIverside County.
Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was acttvely
tnvolved with the task force appointed by the Board of Supervtsoro regarding
the Stephens Kangaroo Rat program. There vas no set pro ram at the present
tim. and he vented to knee whether they would be cherg~i~ the $750 per lot
fee, or whether they would be held up unt11 a specific program was estab-
lished. He dtd not vent to fbeevd~:{se~., as th!y would be rel to pull
lng permits ~lthtn the next Hr. Klotz explained ~e Board build-
had
generally endorsed the concept of havtng a developer mke a depostt of $750
per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted;
this would allee the project to go forward. He felt this optton would be
available to the developer. He explained thts was not nocessarlly the
ulttmate fee, but was on1 a securtty to be deposited a~atnst the ultimate
mitigation fee. Thts explanation satisfied ft..Oudonay s concerns.
Nr. Ktmble advtsed tt was their understanding.that tn the event Oevelopnent
Agreement No. 5 should be held tnvaltd at some ttme tn the future, the
approval of the four tract maps would st111 stand, but the condition for
6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COImISSION MINUTES
SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
co,qal lance wlth the develoment a raiment would be null and void. Fir. Klotz
advtsed thts was explicitly provt~ed wtthtn the develol~nent.agreement.
OPPONENTS: ...... ~. .
Bob Ptpher, 4XaZ5 Greentree Road, Temecula, advtsed the develoixnent tn which
he 11ved (knoke as Green Tree) contained approxt,ktely 96 acres and he and his
wtfe owned approximately one-third of thts property. They hid submitted the
letter requesting that the Imrttons of the subject tract mps adjacent to
thetr area be required to create lots stmtlar tn size. Hr. Ptpher had. a rap
of the.IMrgarttl Village Spectftc Plan dated Hitch 30,'t986,'whtch 'showed the
denslay tn thts area to be approximately half of'the denstry currently ..
proposed. Hr. Ptpher advtsed thts was in equestrian area, and people restdtng
In the area needed rtdtng tratls. He requested a connecting tratl from Pauba
to Rancho Vtsta along the boundary between their subdivision and the subject
develolanent or along Kitear Parkway; thts kmUld provtde an additional
landscaped buffer area.
Hr. Ptpher advtsed they had no problem kith the proposed school stte, but felt.::
the circulation systm proposed to serve the School ws triadequate. Zn hts
optnton, Street 'B' should be extended to ratear Parbay; thts ,ould then
tprovtde access to both the school site and the _lark froe Kitear Parkway. At
he l)resent ttme them was a steady fie, of traffic, and providing an access
to the park site and soltool froe Kitset Parkke~ would help everyone tn the
area, tn eddltton to eektng the park ere accessible. Because of the trefftc
on Kaiser Parkway, Fir. Ptpher thou ht tt M)uld be dtfftcuit for people ]tvtng
on the other stde to reich the lar~. He therefore suggested that one or be
parks he requtred on the' other stde of Kitset Parkway, to benefit residents tn
that area.
Hr. Ptpher requested a soltd well along the bounder betVe_.en thetr develoment
and the subject project. The people restdtng tn th~rs Ir~i' ware requesting a
buffer, and weuld apl)re~tate anJtthtng the Comtsstoners could do to help
the. In aesker to a lesttoe by Camtsstoner Braeson, Fir. Pt her edvtsed
there was no street betnan the area he ws representing and ~e subject stte;
the lots frm the subJKt tract mp wre becktrig up agatnst the lots tn his
subdivision.
~/hen Mr. Her agatn requested equestrian tralls, He. Gtfford brtefiy
revtewed the proposed arE11 systm, ~htch tncluded a tra11 along Rancho
California Road, gotng up the Kitset Parkway and 1/11) easement; no tratls were
proposed in the southern ire as requested by Nr. Ptpher. Cemtsstoner
8resson requested that these tratls be designated is publlc access or
recreational tratls 1nereid of equestrian trails. fir. 8urne~l advtsed that an
equestrian trat1 had been established 811 along hubs Road, going east and
west, and there was a north/south trat1 tn the Hetropolttan blater Dtstrtct
sc,.oo admt n
easement gotng by the 1 tsareaton stte, along Rancho California Road
to Kitset Parkway. The ..asidehas of the Green Tree area could use the tratl
along Pauba, whtch connected to the trail 81on Green Tree Lane. Thts was a
regtonal are11 system, established under the d?rectton of the Parks
Department.
I. I-: L~NU U}r-
VACANT HILL'
~ d
lIES
VAGANT
HIlly
RES
AS
~ERvE
VAC, aNI"
· HILLY
, ., ,
"! .....:" "" ....'A ..........KA'O;'''w .,,, ,R,.. "'"'- &~,.'no""~ "' '
· i U:: SPE:FIC PLAN OF LAND USE "'
Area RANClIO ' CAL &~.Olst. I
,'.|,':.':'|: ::::.,"|'t',,,,", ·.-..,.-
.-
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CO~RISSIOH MINUTES
SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
Comtsstoner Bresson requested tnfomatton on the type of buffer to be
provided. Mr. Burnell advtsed there would be mlsonry wells tn the area north
and south of Rancho Vasta Road; he thought thts would satlily Hr. Ptpher's
concerns.. Hr. Burnell advtsed the tqargar. tta Vtllage Specific Plan had
or~gtnal ly been approved'vt th 'a sltghtly htgher denst:ty. tn thts' area· .They.
had added land wtth the amended spectftc plan but had not changed densities 4n
the area of the subject tract maps. The exhibit presented by Hr. Pipher vls a
conceptual exhtbtt prepared by the engineer for Internal use only and had
never been presented to the County.
Hr. Ktmble responded to Hr. Ptpher's request for an additional park on the
other*side of Kitsir Parkmy, by .advising. Costatn Horns yes provtdt a park
. planned for Tract 227T5 to 'the 'norall; they were pTanntng'to upgraden~oth parks
over and' above the requirements of the spectftc plan.
Cmmtsstoner Donehoe asked whether staff was recomnendlng that a condition be
added to requtre the well as a buffer between the subject tract raps and the
area represented by Hr. Ptpher, and was tnfomed thts ms a condition of the
spectftc plan.
Lee Johnson referred to Mr. Ptpher's sug estton that "6" Street be iXtended to
ICetsar Parkway, and advtsed both he and ~hn Johnson (Transportation Plenntng
Sectton of the Road Department) felt thts was an excellent recommendation.
CIrculation tn thts are mtght be taproved by mktng thts connection rather
than hevtng the school served by a cul-de-sac street. Thts would also gtve
both the school and the park stte access free a: 66 foot wtde street. klhen
CoKmtssloner Bresson asked whither thts could bl accomplished wtthout
ridesigning the rap, Hr. Johnson reR11ed he felt the mlp would have to be
amended. Iqr. Strooter felt thts provtde a much. better access.,
C2mtssioner Beadling felt that a long cul-de-sac street gotng tntoe school
was poor planning, as tt req, trecl the cars and school busses brtngtng In
would allow the vehtcles to drop off the chtldre and go n
Commissioner 6resson ws concerned about treattrig a 4-wly Intersectton, and
Hr. Johnson agreed that a 3-we7 Intersectton cream less problems. However,
he sltll felt that providing access to Kit sir Perkily would result tn better
circulation servtce to the school stte.
Mr. Burnell dtd not feel tt was necessary to extend "8" Street to ICetsar Park-
way tn order to provtde adequate circulation for the school. He was concerned
that the change tn the roadway might cause problems wath regard to the sewer
ltnes. Mr. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-way Intersectton at Kaiser
Parkway; he felt retaining the existtrig 3-way intersection would provide an
overall better circulation system for residents of the area. Coentsstoner
aresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because it would not encourage through
traffic along the school sate. Mr. Johnson potsted out that there would be
less opportunity to eventually obtain stgnal';zatton for a 3-way intersection
than for a 4-way intersection.
8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COF!qZSS:ON HINUTES
SEPTEHaER 28, 1988
Hr. Klmble advtsed they had mat with the school dtstrtct and showed the the
tentative rap; they were pleased wtth the conft uratton of the school site as
well as the proposed street system. Nr. 9urnel~I advtsed thetr ortgtnal destgn
showed. the school/park site adjacent Katser Parkway,. and the school dtstrtct
had objected to this plln because they did not want the chtldren adjacent to a
major street- Commissioner Erasson supported the tract map as currently
designed, as tt ms satisfactory to the school district.
There was no further testimony, and the heart rig was closed at 11:10
FXNDZNGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract flaps 22915, and 22916, and Vesttrig
Tract flaps 23470 and 23471*are located within Vtilage .C of .Specific Plan 199'
Amendment No. I (the Nirgart:ta Village Spectftc Plan); the four tract maps
wou~d dtvtde the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots; destgn manuals have
been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract flaps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps
· Change
have been condtttoned to comply wtth Spectftc Plan 199 Mendrent No. 1,
of Zone Case 5107o and I)evelopment Agreement No, 5; a waiver for the
length to wtdth retto wtll be needed for all four maps. All environmental
concerns have been addressed in EZR 107, air 202, and the tntttal studies for
these tract romps, and no significant impacts were found; tM tract maps are
consistent wtth the CoWrehenslve General Plan (as amended by General Plan
Amendment 150), Specific Plan 199 Mendmona No. I aM Chart of Zone Case
5107; and confom to the requirements of Ordinances 348 an~e460.
NOTION: Upon motion ~ Commtss.~oner Erasson, seconded by Co,s~sstoner .
Beadling and unantmou y carried, the Commission adopted the negative
declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved
Tentative Tract flaps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract flaps 32470 and 23471,
all wtth a waiver of the lot length to wldth retto, subject to the proposed
conditions and based m the above findings and conclusions and the recQ~nenda-
ttons of staff.
Tract No. 23470
17(a) - All lots shall have a .dataurn stze of 7200 squire feet net.
17(b) - Delete entirely
20 - Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts for 150 untts, one tot lot
shall be taproved and fully developed.
21 - Prior to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts for 275 units, the second
tot lot shall be tmproved and fully developed,
27 -Prtor to the issuance of butldtng peaits (balance to remain the same)
36 - The development of Vesttn Tentative Tract flap 23470 shall comply with
1as Oestgn Hanual', wtth ;~1 provisions of Spectftc P~an No. 199
Amendment No. I and with De**'elopment Agreement No. 5
Tract No. 23471
9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING C(I~ISSI~ HINUTES
SEPTE748ER 28, 1988
20 -Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy peaits for 200 units, one tot: lot
shall be tml~roved and fully developed.
26 -Prtor to the tssuance of Iatldlng permits (balance to rematn the same)
32(f) - All front yards shall be provlded'.wtth landscaping and man'ually'
operated, pemanent underground Irrigation.
Flood Control Condition 4- Delete entirely:
35 - The develolxnent of Vesttng. Tentatlve Tract Pap 23471 shall comply wtth
1as Oestgn H!nu!l, wtth all p~ovtstonl ~)f'$pectf.~c. Plan No,.
Amendment No, 1 and erl th Oevelolment Agreement rio, 5
Deleto Condition 4 of the Flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988.
Tract No. 22915
24 -Prtor to the Issuance of betldtng perltts (balance to remtn the same)
32 - The developre_at of Tentative Tract Pa 2291S shall compl vtth 411
pro tstons of $pectftc Plan No. 199 ~endment No. 1 and ~evelopeent
v
Agreement No. S
Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Coalat sst onern.
Tract No. 22916
2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratio.
20 -Prtor to the Issuance of occupanc pemtts for 1SO untts tn Tentative
Tract 22916, the park shall be fu:~ly taproved and day. eloped.
25 - Prior to the Issuance of butldtng permits (belanc,e to reamin the same)
32 - The development of Tentative Tract ~p 23916 shall comply ~lth all
provisions of $pectftc Plan No. 299 ~nendmnt No. Z and Development
Agreement No. S
33 -Prtor to llsuance of gradtng pemtts, tapacts to the Stephens Kangaroo
Rat Habttat shall be mitigated per the spectflc plan conditions of
approval.
Road Department Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Commt s s toner" ,
lO
Zoning Area: Itsecho California Vesting Tentative Tract Nos.: 23371
7
Supervtsortll I)tstrtct: FIr, end No. Z, 23372 kM. No. 1, 233 3 knd. No.
Third Planntng Camtsston: Z0-S-88
E.A. )los: 32546, 32547, 3ZS48 Ageride item No.: 5-2, S-3, and 5-4
Spectffc Plan bctton
IZYE)GZ~ COU~TT PLJIING DEPMllWTT
.; STAFF lIP(IT.
1. Appl ! cant:
nargartta Vtllage Development Co.
2. Engineer: Rtck Engineering Ccelany
3. Type of liequest: The 3 tracts will subdtvSde 472 acres
tnto i763 residenttaT untts . .
~ 4. Location: East of Re artta Road, north of P4ncho
;' C411 fornlar~ad
_,o S. Ex.~.sting Zoning: 9*a (Change. of Zofie St07 heard by ~he~
eoerd of S~porvtsors on 9-13-88 proposeR
L SF ZFJ karl, leo, I zoning). '
v~ 6. S, rroundtng Zoning: Zontng to the north and Nest ts it-4,
St te Characteristics:
Area Charactert sates:
Comprehensive k~eral Plan
A-2-20, it-it, 9.1; ZOning to the south ts
It-it
Vacant land traversed wtth loM htlls
Located on astern edge of Ilancho
Callf6r~la coneunity
Rancho Vtllages (General Plan Amendment
No. ISO proposes a erie re1 pl an
dest nation of .Sptclflc P?on No. X99
Amn~n:nt No. l)
10. Land OtvtstonhU:
Vesting Tact
2337Z And. IIo.
23372 ked. IIo.
23373 ~md. No.
kresge Units
'Denst~ (Ou/k)
394 1183 3
37 ' 23! 6
11. AgenCy Itecmmndsttons:
23371 Md. IIo. I
Road ' 9-22-66 3-22-88 9-22-88
He 1 th 7-2 5-88 9- 7- 88 7 -2 5-88
Flood 7-22-66 7-22-88 7-22-88
Ftre 8-I 7-88 6.17-88 84 7-88
Shertff 6-X0-66 6-10-66 6-10-88
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Influence
Influence
None recetved as of thts vrtttng
lot wtthln a CIty sphere
AJIALYSIS:
Vesting Tentstire Tract los. 23371 .Md. so. 1, 23372 lmd. so. 1, and 23373
No. 1 taplament Vtllage as a planned retirement cornnatty tn the IMrgir4i~
Vtllage Spectfac Plan ($P lgg Md. IIo. 1) Spectftc Plan lie. 199 ABandonS No.
l, Change of Zone No. SLOT, Canera1 Plan Amendment No. 1SO and Developme t
Agreement so. S ere heard by the Board of Supervisors ol Septtuber 13, 198 . ..
These tracts have been destgned to he consistent utah these documents.
The table below sumartze the tracts* relatlonshtp and consistency with the~
Spectftc Plan's planetrig areIS. AS shmm. nora of the tracts exceed the
of residential un as.
pemttr. ed number t
COIFARISOII OF TRACT JUI) SPECIFIC PLM END. LING UIIZTS
Tract No. PreSsed Spectflc Irish
lie. of Untts Ares
Penn4tted
lo. of Untts
YI'T' 23372 Jlmd. so. I 1113 33-37, 42-45 1197
VTr 23372 knd. No. 1, 232 41 234
VTT 23373 knd. IIo. I T~ 31 348
· ·
A destgn maul1 has been prepared for a11' three vesttrig maps ahSch provtdes
guidelanes for landscaping, floor lies, elevations and Iontrig. Mouseteal
studtee have been proposed and vt1~ be implemented as requtred by the
toedTalons of approval. MItigation for potential I acts to Me. Palemar are
also tncluded tn the condeSSerts of approval. Mdttton~ evaluation found no
cul tufa1 resources onst to.
Vesttng Tentsalve Tract 23371, Mended No. Z tncludes an T8 hole golf course.
As alse requtrnd by the spectftc plan conditions, the tract has been~
condiStorted to taprove the park tn Planntng Area IS. In conformrice wtth the
spectftc plan Vesting Tentst(ve Trlct Z3372, jimended 11o. I has bean condtttoned
for etttgatSen of tapacts U 'the Stephens Kangsrm Rat-
Zt should be noted that the nu.Nr of units for congregate care are on esttmate
and vtll be revtewed at the develoFeent plan stage.
l. Yestin Tentative Tract Io. 23371 Mended 10. T, ~3372 Mended 10. l, and
23373 ~mended No. 1 are located tn Vtllage A of the Karattits Village
Specific Plan.
2. The thrte tracts will provide 2763 dvelllng units and .golf course open
siam on 354 164 acres. (Amended bar Planning Commission 10- -88)
condttlan of approval to mitigate trapacts to the Kangaroo Rat.
4. The tracts lave been condtttaned to comply vtth actfie Plan No. ~99,
Change of Zone No. 5107 and Development Agreement No.SE·
5. A wtver for length to ~dth ret¶o ~11 be needed fo Vesting Tentative
Tract 23371 Amended rio. 1.
C~USZORS:
1. All environmental concerns Mrs been addressed Sn EIRa lo7, 202 and the
1nattel studSIs for these tracts led m signal¶cant impacts have been
found.
2. The tracts are coastsant vtth briers1 Plan kenant 10.1SO Change of
Zone No. SXO7m and Specific Plan No. lift kmndment No.. I.
3. The tracts confore to the requ¶rements of Ordinances 348 and 460.
RECOHHDIDATIOlIS -'
ADOPTION of a Negattve DeclareS¶on for EA Nos. 32546, 32547, 32548 on a findtrig
that the projects wtli not hive a significant effect on the environment.
APPROY~ of Vesttrig Tentative Tract eos. 2337[ Amnded No. T, 23372 Amended No.
2, and 23373 Mended 11o. 1 subject; to the attached conditions of approval.
KG :mob :rap
t
RIV~IGIDE COUNTY PLARNItN6 DEPARTMENT
COfi I ~OU~D~I~S~O~ItOVAL 0'1'
VESTING TFJITATXVE TRACT NO. Z3371"
AMENDED ltD. 1
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. The subdivider shall defend, tndenmlf. , and hold Immless the County of
RIverside, 1as agents, officers, and emf;~oyets irma any clmtm, actton, or
prate,ling against the Count), of RIverside or Its agents, officers, or
emplo es to attack, set mstde, votd, or annul an approval of the County
of ~t~everslde, 1as advisor), agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
Code Section 6649g.37. The County of RIverside wtll prepS1), notify the
pr.ompgl), notIf), the su~Ivtdlr of en3~ sUch elltie action, or proceeding
gaffs to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not;
thereafter. be responsible to defend, tndemif),, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside. .-
~ A, unless rodtiled b), the conditions T~sted below.
o 3. This conditional1), approved tentative mp wtll exptre t~o pars after the
~ Count), of RIverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
s, .
provided by Ordinance 460.
0
~ 4. The final mp shall be prepare bY a licensed lind surveyor'subject to all
~ the requirements Of the State Of CottforniI Subdivision Ptip Act and
~ Ordinance 460.
S. The subdivider sial1 sutmtt Me cop~ Of a sotls report to the IUverstde
County Surve3mr's Office led tm copies to tim Department of ktldtng and
Sag, tiP. The report shall address the sotlt stability end 9eologlcal
conditions of the st t,.
If say gradtag ts proposed, the subdivider shall suMIt one print of
comprehensive gridtrig plan to the Depar nt of 8utldlng and Safety. The
plan shall complJ~ Vith the Untform kt~dtng Code, Chapter 70, as amended.
by Ordinance 457 and as Elybe additionally provtded for In these
conditions of approval.
Canaltalons of ~preval
Tentative Tract IM. 2337X banded RO. I
Page 2
7. A gradlng Ixmtt shall Ix obtatned from the Oepar;ent of lutldIng and
Safety prior t~ cm,Mncement of any grading outstale of county maintained
road rtght of ',ey. ": ~' '. '.-
8. My delinquent propeFty Uxes shall be Ntd prior to recOrdsalon of the
final rap.
e subdivider shall comply vIth the street tmprovaMnt recmendattons
9- . .' PY. . " '
1.03,S0~) · . .... '
ZO. Legal access as requtred by OrdSnance 460 shall be provided from the tract
mp faunday7 to a County mtntatnod road.
1.1. All road easements shall M offered for dedlcatto~ to the publlc and shall
continue 1o force .fit. the govemtng bod~ accepts or absndons suc~k
offers. All dedtcat¶Qns shall be free from all encumbrances as approved~
bt{:e the bed Comalssloner- Street flares shall be subject to approval
Road Coeutss¶oner.
1.2. Easements, ~hen requtrsd for roeMy slopes, dratnage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shmm co the flnal mp tf they are located
dtvtston boundary. All offers of dedication and
within the la~1 be sub81ttld end recorded IS dtrected by the County
conveyances she
Surve~r-
1.3. biter end sewerage dtsposal foollilies shall M Installed t~ accordance
with the provisions set forth In the RIverside County Health'Oepirtmnt*s
letter dated 7-2S-88 · copJr of vhtch ts attached.
The subdivider stroll c_m;1Jr vlth the flood control 'recommndattons
tim Mierltd· COnely F18nd Control Otsgrtct's letter d~ted
_,--,- - .- ..,-.
The subd¶vtder shall camply ~tth' the flrl taprovement recoanendattons
outltned In the CountJr fire Itirshal's letter dated 8-%7-88 a copy of ~tch
ts attached.
Ion asln, 4ncludln any I~.l~_Sed connon open space area
confore ~ ~e Intent ud ~sl of ~e su~ v s PP ·
COndiatOM Of ~
Tentative Tract ~. 2337X kMnded No. Z
Page 3
Lets created 'b7 this. subdivision shall comp.ly. with the fell. wing:
Corner loto and threugh lots if any shall M rovtded with
additions1 are· pursuant to Suction 3.88 o~ Ordinance 46g and su as
net to contain less net area than th~ least amount of net arts tn
nee-corner sad through lots.
Lots created by this' SuMtvtst~n'sh111 -be In...'conformrice w~th ~he
development "stand·rds of 'the . .Spectflc Plan No. 199 ~aundment No. 1
c. k~en lots ·re crossed byeJot publlc uttllty easements, each lot
shell have · net usable are Of not less than 3,600 square feet,
excTestve of the eatlily easement.
d:' traded but endiveloped land shall M earntanned tn a ueed-fre~
condition sad shill M e~ther planted with JnterQa landscaping or
vtded w~th other eroston control measures ea epproved by t~e
~r~tor of lutldtng and Safety.
e. Trash bins, loadtrig areas sad netdental stirage areas shell be
1eelted et and VtIUI11y SCreened ~rm surrounding Ireis with the use
of block ~11 sad landscaping.
18. Prter to ItECOI)ATIQli of ~J- fins1 mp the follwtng conditions shell be
satisfied:
e. Prior to the recorderton of the ftM1 sap the applicant shell submit
.rltta clearances to the Rtverstd County Road end Survey Department
that dl iartfment requirements eu~ltned tn the etaached approval
letters free the fellsuing agenotes :have Men eat.
cmlaty. .tit'IX rtaent-.
annex inter ~stricr
zone ultimately applied to the property.
Conditions of ApprQval
Tentative Tract M. 23371 Mended No. 1
Page 4
&11 mtsttng struct:ures on the subject property shall be rmoved prtor ~o
recordat:ton-of the final rap.
21.. Frtor to recordattic of~ the fans1 suHtvtslee lap, the suMtvtder shall
seteta tim fellwtq decants to the Planntn De rlaeet for'r tyler.
v~tclk documents shill ~ subJect to the approve1 :~ ~Cl~t: department: and
the Office 'of' .the ClNn,ty. ,COU. niI1 !.. ' ' .. ' ,. .'. . . ' ....
!) A decliter:ton of covenants, c~ndttlons and ~strtCttons; and'
A snple decument conveyed t:Stlo tA the purchaser of in Individual lot:
or unto vhtch provtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions
end restrictions Is tncorporat:ed t:heratn b3~ reference.
Th~ declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions sure¶tOed for ~
revte, shall (a) provtde for a alnlu tim of 60 3airs, (b) provtde!
for the establlsleent of a property gunore' elseclio:Ion comprised of the
o~ners of each Individual lot or an¶t, (c) provide for o~nershSp of the
comon and (d) contain to folioring provisions verbsOil:
· NothVlthst:end¶ng any provesSan tn thts Declaration ~ t:he conrarity,
shall app y:
the lollwing provision 1
The prepe_rt;r wners' assoctattan established herate shall me/go and
continuous1mtntatn the 'coneon iron', more larttcularly described
, ,.....-,- ....o. 'o;
Riveraide or the COunV's successor-In-Interest.
mintsIcing the 'creme area' and shall have the rtght te 1San the
re rt~ i~ My such ~lr ~o afaul~ tn ~e ~nt of a
prtor M sll ot~r l~ens ~cordd wbs~ent ~ ~e
asses~nt or of:her documnt creat~q the asses~nt 1~.
;lanntn DIrector of the Count of ROversIda or the Count:y's
Conditions of Jlp royal
Tentative Tract g. 2337t )mended No. Z
Page S
24.
Zn the went of an~confitct between.this 'Oeclaratton and the Art.tcles
Once approvedo the declaration of covenants, condttlons and restrictions
shall be recorded at the fame time that the ftnal mp ts recorded.
Prier. to recerkL1on of the final 'clip, .clearance sha]l.be.obtalned from
.lletropolltin~lkte~ DIstrict. relative :to the' .proteCtion of .applicable
easements affecting the subject prepert~. Lot line ad3ustinents shall also
be mpleted.
The developer shall coapl), vith the lollaria
""Treeinto as shorn tie Specific Plan IIo. 1~
:~?~tlfne~W"l HORn other Iabltc entttJr: (Amended tW Planning
Conelesion lO-~)
1) Prter to recordertin of the tiM1 mp the developer shall file
lpllltcltton with ~ Ce~etdf for tie formatlon of or In
erk_uey aetntenance titstrict flit hl~,Ing TenUtl ve..e.~c~ no. 2337'~
~k~nded No, ~tn iccordance with ~ Landscaping and Ltghttne
Z97~, unless She pro3ect ts within an extstlng larkva~r maintenance.
2) Prior to the tssuance of building _permits, the developer shall secure
approval Of proposed llndsclptng and Irrigation plies from the County
Rod led Irllnntng De rant. M1 llndlClplng Ind Irrigation plans
and specifications Ibil~ibe prepared tn I rapreducible forat suitable
for peranent flltng with the County hid Departant.
3) The developer shall post a landscape porforance bond which shall be
released coecurrentl~ with the release of subdivision porforance
bonds, ;ariateeing the vtabtltty of dl landscaping which rill be
Installed prior to the isluaptlon of the maintenance risponstbtlt~ by
the district.
4) 1111 developer, the developar'l successors-In-Interest or assignees,
shill be respenstble for all rkey landscaping maintenance unit1
such tlm as maintenance ts taken over fur the district.
The developer shall be responsible for saintchance and upkeep of 811
slopes, lendlcapod Ireas and Irrigation systems unit1 such Use as those
Street ltghts -~'hall be prov~ed v4thln the subdivision tn accordance
the standards of Ordinance 461 and the folioring:
Conditions of Approval
Tentithe Tract No. 2337:t Mended No. :~
Page 6
6e
7,8
z)
2)
3)
4)..
Concurrently .wi.th the ftlfng of sutxllvtsfon .Improveant plans vith the
load Department, the daVeToper shall" secure approval of the · proposed.
street 11ght 1alOne first from the bad Departaent*s trafftc engineer
and than from the appropriate uttllty purveyor,
Following approval of the street ltghttng 1Uovt by' the Road
DeHrtaent's traffic engineer, the developer .shall also ftle an
application with LAFCO for the .formation of a street ltghttng
· district, .~or' annexation to an existing 1.tghl:tn9' district,. unless the
sate tl within on existing lighting district,'
Prtor to recordattofi of'the final nap, the developer shall secure
conditional approval of the street ltghting a pltcatt~ from tAFCO,
unless the stem IS wtthtn an extsttng llghttng dVsPtrfct- "'
All street ltghts and other' outdoor ltghtfng shall M shown m
electrical plans suixattted to the De rameel of haldin and
for pl an check approval and she11 comp~ wl th the req~ ramants of
Rherstde CJ)unt3r O~lnlnct No, 6S~ I~ ta Rherstde County
Comprehensive General Plan.
The perk ares (Planning Area No. 45) of the spectffc plan shall he
Prior to the issuance of GilADillS PEIUqXTS the following conditions shill be
saltsfind:
a, Prior to the issuance of' Fading permitst detailed common open space
are arkt_ng landscaping and Irrigation plans shall he sale?teed for
Planning Oipertment approval for the phase of development in process.
The plans sial1 be certtfild V a landscape arch¶tact, and shall
provide for the following,.
t) Permanent automatic ¶rrtgatton systems shall be Instilled on
areas requiring ~rrtgat on,
landscaped t
2) Landscape screening Where requlred shall be destined to be opaque up
to a minimum height of six (6) hit it retorttar,
3)
M1 uttllty servtce areas and enclosures shall be screened from view
vath landsncdsptng and decorative birrtlrs or laffle treatments, as
approved by the Planntng DIrector, Utilities shall Ix placed
underiron ·
d
4
%
Conditions of Approval
Tent4tlve Tract No, Z33/Z Jimended No. t
Page 7
· 4) -Firbays" ud landscaped.. ImtldTng '. Nt.b4cks . shalT be landscaped to
_Fro Ida v seal screening era Zrmn It.Ion Into the prlma~ use area of
theYsite. tLandscape element.s'shll~ tncludl earth bemtn,
sideelks, benches and of.her pedest.~tan ninenit.ins ,here appropriate as
Plan No. 199
epprQved Planning Oepartmnt. and Specific
Aiindment. ~g. the
e
'5)' Landscaping p~ans' shall' interper·is "the Use 'el 'specimen accent. 't.rees
at key visual focal points ,tthtn the project..
s)
7) Landscaping plans shell tncorporat.e nattve and drought tolerant plants
where approprtat.e.
8) M1 extsttng spectmen t.roes and significant rock wt.cropptngs on the
sub act. pro r~ shall be sho~n on the proJect's riding pl and "~t
sha~l note ~ose to be removed, relocat.ed end/or retained. ins
g) M1 trees shall be minimum double st. eked. Iliakit end/or slo~ growing
trees shall be steel staked.
ZO. Perking liyout.s shall compl.y vit.h Ordinance 348, Section
28. All extsttng nattves ctmen trees on the subject.. propert.y shall be
preserved ~herever felSt~l. llere theJf cannot be preserved the shall be
relocated or replaced wdtll s teen trees as approved by t.~e Planntng
DIrector. lieplacement trees shelliT:be nOted on approve landscaping plans.
Director for U val. The pailart shell be used as · guideline for
subsequent deta ll~e~ riding plans for Individual phases of devilelaine. and
shill include the following: .'
%) Techniques ,hlch vtll be uttlized to prevent eroston end sedimentat.ion
during and eft.er the grading process.
2) Approxlmat.e tie frames for gradtn.g and tdant.lflcat.ton of areas
mY be graded during Um hlgher probeb111t, y rate mon',hs of January
U~rough Parch, ~ ~
3) Preliminary pad and roadway elivat.tons.
Conditions of' Approval
Tenlathe Tract No. 2337Z kMnded No. 1
Page 8
30.
4) Areas of CerapOrer7 grading outstde of e particular phase.
Grtdlng plans' shill' 'confern' to" hard *adopted 'HIllside OeveloFnent
Standsisals: A1 cut and/or f111 elopes or tndhtdull combinations therot,
whtcll exceed tin ,flit tn vertical. hetght shill be BoUt fled by an
ailproprlate coed)Inltton of I spittel tarTIcing (benchtrig) plan, tncrease
slo ratio (I.e., 3:1), retetnt wells, end/or slope p I ttng combined
wt~J~ilrrtgltton. AI1 drtvmys sh~1 not exceed i flfCelnl;rcenC grade.
All cut slopes' located adjacent te'ungr_lded natural terrain and exceeding'
tin (10)..flit tn verttCel heights shill be contour-graded Incorporating
the following grading techniques:
1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted Co the angle
· - of tim nature1 terrain.
2)" Angular form shill be discouraged. The graded form shill reflect the
natural rounded terrain.
3) The tees and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radII
designed tn proportion to the total height of the slopes where
I such mundtng.
drltnlgl and stlb lily perate
4) ithero cut or fIll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
horizontal contours of the slope shill be curved tn I continuous.
undulettng lashtee. -.
32. Prior to the Issuance of grading permits, e qualified paleontologist shall
be retained by the developer for consultation end comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential Itleontologtcal tapacts. Should the
paleontologist lid tim patenttel tl high_ for lapact to significant
resources, I Wre-ride mittrig between the IIlaontologtst and the
excavation aM griPIng contractor shill be arranged. llhen necessary, the
pallontol0glst or representative shill ave the luthertry tO temporarily
dhort, redIrate or hilt grading activity to Illow recovery of fossils.
Prtor ell the Issuance of IUILDZNG PERNITS the following conditions shell
be satisfied:
In accordance with the written request of .the developer to the County
of Rhorstdl, I .copy of which tl on fill, end tn furtherance of the
agreement between the develo r Ind the County of Rherstde, no
butldlng mtts shall be ffsued by the County of Rherstde for any
parcels w~thln the subject tract until the developer, o the
develo er's successors-In-Interest provided evidence of com~l tance
wtth ~e terms of sold O~ve'iopment Agreement IIo. S for the financing
of publlc facilities.
Conditions of Ap royal
Tentative Tract g. 23371 banded No. Z
PIgs 9
b. Vlth the subelite1 of building plans to the Dellrime'at of kfldfng
Safe~ the developer ~T~ demonstrate compliance .tth the acoustical
stud IreHrod tbr Yestin Tentative Tract 2337Z Amended No. Z
established appropriate altFgatlon measures to reduce ambient tritertot
noise levels to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels klow 65 'Ldn.
c. Roof-mounted mochanice1 equipment. shall not 'be permitted vlthJn the
.subdivision, except' for. the clubhouse 'dltCh ely hive screened
oqulilnlnt as up;roved t~y' Planning; Oirlcto'r. 'HOwever' Solar · "t
pa p; o el. (Amended by Planning Conel,ion XO-S-88)
d- klldtng separation between all latldlngs Including firopiates shall
not be Tess than ton (10) feet uelese lpproved by Department
"8utldtng . and Sitely ned fire parbent per act fit Plan IIo.
bendmet IIo. 1. (Mended by PllnnOTng CIamtsston~O-S-88)
e. A11 street stde Jard setbacks shall be a atelane of 10 feet.
t'. All front ~lrds shall be preytried with landscaping and automatic
trrtgatton.
Prtor to the Issuance of OCCUPANCY PEIINZTS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a. Prior to the final butldlng Inspection up;revel, by the 8utldtng and
approval of the ~lllrlctor o} the Depa nt of Building and Safty and
4
b. I111 led/or Ibmca locations shall confore to attached FIgure ZZZ-17 of
Slmc:lflc Plan IIo. X~ Mendant IIo. 1,
c. All landscaping and Irrlgatto6 shall be Installed tn accordance vlth
Ipproved plans prior to the Issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
· conditions do not raft Tinting, Interim landsca tng and erosion
control wilierIS shllrlbe utilized U Ipproved by the PFZnnlng DIrector
and the Director of klldtng and hiefT.
d. M1 parkleg landscaping and irrigation shall be
accordance Idth approved plans and shall be ver~etnd by a Planntng
Department field Inspection.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract IIo, 2337X Mended No, 2
Page
f, Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision In.accordance
w~th the standards of 0rdtnance 460 and Spectftc Plan No, Tgg
Menant 11o,
35', ."Developneat of Vasttrig .Tentative . Tract. 1io, 23371 Mended No, Tshall
comply vtth 811 provisions of SPecl flC' Pl'ln 'NO, tW Mendmen+-' lio, 1 'and.
OlveloFIment Agreement No, S,
GaBchamP -"'
.~,
I
,'
ReT
· A-I-IO
A:I-I~ A-2-!
t
t
ReR
&elk KACOR "
; .
i. OC, ATIONA~IAP
Use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE
Jp ice RANCHO "CAL Sup. Olst I: .~
~:t:",,.':-":. :::.~::.~t' M,.,,o,'. ek.g2$ pe.:o.,,,-
,,(~) Circulation RANCHO CALIF. RD.,MARGARITA RD. I10'
' Element .SO. GENERAL KEARNY, RANCHO VEST& It' ~~%%~
""' ' i Rd. Bk. Pg. :mmc·Oafe 3-13-86 ~awn ly J °""'A
Q
I
OFFICI OF ROaD CGIIISSiONER & COUlYtY SURVEYOR
LIJ~oy O. Sff~e4t
.elmIS:, ~r~.J~r It iCO~rrTJufvlvOe
September 30, 1988
livenIda Covn~ Irlannlng Cootssloe
44380 Lemon Street
liverside, CA IISOZ
Ladles and Gentleran:
Tract lisp fi37Z - Amend tZ - bad COrre
khedulo A - Ten SP Kip #Z
conditions of i~preval for the referenced tentative
Z. The lend~lvlder shell tact dwnstrsm prsperkles free damages
caused Iff alteration oFthi drainage_ Patterns, I.e., contentra-
tio of diversion of time. Fretaction shill M provided by
constructing ado;ate draineke facilities Including enlarging
exiltl facilities or ill, laCerim I drainage easement or by
beth, eX11 drainage oasemnt~ shot1 M Ibem on the final mp
and noted u fallmesa "0ralago Easement- no building,
I, lk lenddlvider shall accept and properl~ dispose of sll offsite
tirelate floeleg ante or thmgh the life. In the event the
Road C0entssioner peruits tit use of streets for drainage
pu osos, the provisions of ~rtJcla XZ of Ordinance No. 460
vllrT appl),, Should the quinttales exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposeso the sutxllvfdar shall provide idaquite drainage"
facilities as approved by the had Departrant.
conditions art antentis1 parts and · require ant occurring In ONE Is as )
d
as though ocCurring In a11.'They art Intended to be coeplemntar:y ~.. .
describe the coNJitfons for a coBplate design of the lal)rovemnt. A11 questlot
regarding the true mining of the condl:tlons Shall M referred TO the ROd
Comf ssfoner's Office. " ..
Illill respect to t, lm'
division rap, the bad Department racesrends that the lamldlvlder provide th.
folloelng sirfit Improvement plies ·d/or road'dedlcitio~s In accordance
OZ'..a.l&lnCt 460 and livers ida County load bertramfit Standards (Ordinance .: 461)
It Is understood that the tentative nap correctl~ shoes acceptable cent~erlln
· traveled ,Ira, led drainage coerse~
profiles, ·11 existing exammeets .
epprerlatt lieIs led that their omission or ueacceptabl11V BAy require the m
to be resetnetted for further cexlldera~lon, Thai Ordinances and the
· T~ct Z337t o Mend
Sail;tamer. 30, ZN8
3. Pap]or drainage is involved oe this landdivision and 1to resolution
shall be is approved b~ the Road Oeparment.
M'licerdanct. vtth (:3eun~. $tandlr~ It; ZOI'. (31'/S0').
S. La Serene ely s~411 be teetered vi~hln the aledictated right of
tn accordance vtth County Standard No. XOZ, (3~'/44');~'
S.. 'St;reel 'A', "1' (free Street 'Ca to ql'I-SIll11 .Ilia IW~ed as
approve tl~ the' lind .realsalon · (IS/14'). - '.+'-
7. Street "1" (frOm Street "1)' to' 'f." led fm street 'c" ',~ La berena
lair) and Street "C" free Street "l" to eproximeteV 7~l~".est of
Kaiser Fartva~) shall be leerevnd In accordance vlth Noelfled
County Standard No, ZO3, Section A, (4l'le'). _
:8. Street 'C" (700', vesterly of Kaiser Fartv~y) shell be leroved
. In accordance vlth 14odlflld County Standard No. XOi, (IO:./lO')- ~i
tlndlflnd County Standard IIo. tO3, Section A. (44'/44').
· See Sly), Streets ante thai "AAA" led lye elmlaid streets rvnn!
shall M leeloved In accordance vl~h tlodlfJod County Standard
:105, SKiten A, (H'/H*)* .
"'~c~t'NIp Z337Z - Mend f]~._. bad Correction lisp fZ
hear 30, ZIg
14. The maxim centerline gradient shall not exceed ZSZ.
IS. 11ti minimum centerline radii' ~h111 be as aperoved by the load
Zd- IlncM CallS.. bed 'end I1e_rlarita load aM11 be improved with
n
.. centfete GUrl; and letter 1scaled 43'fee .free ce terTino and match
e ms It concrete plvfn; recenttraction; or resur~aclng of
S~lndard No. ZOO.
ZT, IPrlor to' the ill Ing of the flnal mp with .the Coun Recor~er's.
Office, the. developer.' shill provide evidence of contlnU. oUl'
allotJounce of all posed private 'streets wtt~ln the development
as apilroved by the ~ad Cornlistener. '
SIdewalks within the develolaent shell'be es aperoved by the Iload
Comfitloner.
The minimum lot frontages along ithe eel-de-sacs and Imuckles shalP-'
be 3S felt unless otherwise specified In the particular zoning
class I floatIon.
All drhmm),s shall conform TO the applicable RIverside County
Standards and shall be Shown on the Street Improvement plans.
A minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed
between driveways.
Ithen blockwells are required TO be constructed on top of slope,
debris retention well. tabs11 M Constructed at the street right of
we;y line tO prevent silting of sidewalks as aperoved bY the Road
CommiSsioner.
The sinIBm garage setback shall be 30 felt measured from the face
of curb, $h0uld the developer provide evidence of roli up doors on
the Ilulldlng planS, I reduction :of 4' 117 be allowed but In no case
r
she, the gl age be closer thin Z0 fat frm beck of sidewalk or
curb fn the absence of sldMlk, '
Z3, I~rlmr',/toNI secondarjr access reeds tO the nearest paved read main-
illned _117 the Count7 shall be constructed within the public rl ht
of W_ in accordance with Con tY Standard lie, tOE, Section II, 13Z*/
/60') It I grade and ellgnmn~ as approve~ b~ the Road Connissloner.
Prior ~o the recordalien of the final me, the developer shall
de sit with the Riverside County bad Department, I cash sum Of
$I1~0,00
per lot as mitigation for
traffic signal lapacts. Should
· .jTr{cl~-Map Z337Z - .almond #1 - ~d ~c'~ I~p #!
e 4
'r ' d~ of~
tt~m'ef Immurerice of m NildiN
_Nim~~t' Idmnm~ shml'l be based upon m cmntmrllne'p'roflle extending
f'mrnrmam of 300 feet beyond the project bounderlos mt m grade end
illghent ms mpprewed by the RIverside COurt Mood Comlssloner.
CompletiOn of road Imrowemnts does not
mlntenmncm by COunt.
ZI- Electrlcll end con~untcmttons &ranches shell .be provided In
accordsnet w!th Ordinance 441, Standard '117..'
Z7. Asphaltfc eeulslon. (fog sam1) Shall be epplted not less than
fourteen d~ys follovln placeme ~ of the asphalt surfacing ares shall
be ippl led it i re~e Jt O.OS gl 1on r square ylrd. Asphalt
mulston shill confore to Sections 3~ 39 end 14 of the State
Stands rd Spec I f I cat I one.
Stindere cul-de-secs and knuckles and offset cul-de-secs shall bar.
constructed throghout the linddivision.
01
11
Corner cutbacks In cooformnce with County Standsre No,SOS shall
be shoe on the fins1 mp and offered for dedication ere
mppl fable.
Lot access shill be restricted on Rancho Cal lfornll:Kolde lirgmrlta~
kd, Ialllr hrkv~y led Lo hreOl'll/end l0 noted be ~ fine1
Landdivldlono creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets
shill provide erosion control, sight distance control sad slope
elseante es epproved by the Road Departant.
3Z. All contorltno Intersections shell be it 10%
33. 1be ltrest design and f roveant concept of this project shill
eliHINted with TIt {3~7a~ and 11 &1371.
34. Street 11 heine sha)l be tred In accordance with Ordinance 460
and 4g% t{roughout the Su~re~viSfOn. 1~o County Service Arms (CSA)
kimlnlstrstor determines whether S his proposal qualifies under an
o%
existing essessment district or Rot. Zf Rot, the lend overt sh.~
file in iI;l lcatfen with LAFC0 for annexation Into or creation
· "l.f ling aleslet DIstrIct· In accordance with Governments1
Cede I:ctlefi ltOOO. :
.3l, A11 private and INbllc entrances end/or Intersectlens opposite this
project she11 be coordinated with this pl'oJect and shoal on the
street Improvement Illins,
31, A StripIn plan Is required for Itsecho California bed, The removal
of the exTsttng striping shell be tl~ relponllblllt~y of the
applicant. Traffic SIgning and strlillng shell be done b7 Count~
forces wl th'. e11. .. Incurred colts berne I~. the Niplionel.
37, The sin 'entrance gate sh111 be locsted'e Binlea of' tl0" from the
flow 1IRe of Itsecho California Reid,
GH:lh
V tru11 ur
(ne~'
.Cf unty ol x iverside
t /
liVERSlOt COUNTY PLAIOIINi DEPARTMENT
Alia: athv IIf~ord i
Tract 21171. banded No. !
The lnvlrorunental lieslib Services has raylevee Tract Kep 23371, banded Kep
lie. I dated July 19, 1988. Our current coneants v111 remain ms previously
stated In our letter dated June 13, 1988
JUL ~ 'l 1988
FtlVEP. S:D,~ CO~Jt4'l~
PCAr~.~f~6 DEPART;~,Bh-I.
"C'OUNTy R. ERSIDE
,eel
Ills Ilmllilll
DEPARTMENT
·
m.,.lu~e IS. a·ee
of HEALTH
RIVilMII)tCOUI4TY pL.UININOEIFF,
40·0 Lemon Street
Riverside. CAllS01
AtLas Kltht elfford '
Ia,~'/EH~IUE COUNTY
PLA-. NI. NG DEPARTMENT
I~:1 TIeACT NAp JllYl, That certain land situated in the
untncorporated territory of the County of Riverside, State
et California, lletn· Parcels I. 1.1.4 and · st Parcel Map
31114 as shorn on a map thereof filed in look 144, Pages
through II of Parcel 14ups In the Office of the County ,
Recorder of said Riverside County together vtth s portion of
the Rsncho Tomecult grinted by the 6overomenS of the United
States of America to LoSs Ylgnes by patent dated January 18.
1880 sod recorded in the 0ffiee of the County Petorder of
San Diego County, Callfermi&
{1,039 Logs)
6entlemom:
The Department of Public Health has revieved Tentative Map
14o. 31171 &rid recomaendl
A valor system shall be installed according to
plus sad specification as approved by the valor
coupsoy sod the Health Department, Perassent
prints og the pleas og the valor system shall
be subsSated in tripSSea(e, vith · minimum ;caSe
net less rhea one inch equals 100 feet, along vtth
t~e original driving to the County lurveyor* The
prints shall shov the internal pipe diameter,
d
ignition st valves.sad fire hy rants, pipe sad
Joint specifications, sod the size st the gain
at the Junction of the'nov system to the
existing system. The pleas shall comply in
aSS respects vtth DSv, I, Part S, Chapter Y st
the Callfermi· Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Title 31, Chapter IS, and General
Order He. 103 ;f the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California, ~hen.~ppltcable.
l~el so ~
f I f
Riverside Gouty Plsnningl:)ep.t.
Pege Tvo .. .-.
AtLAs KmLhy OAfford:
The plus shal!I be otgned bys registered engineer end
utter cospiny with the foXlovtngcorkificet.ton: '!
certify. thiS the design Of the vikor oyster in
'Tract. Mop ~33.Tl.io'eccordSnce vt~h the voter system' "
expsnsion pleas of the Binthe C<fornil Voter District
end that the voter service,storege sad distribution
system viii be idaquote to provide voter service to
ouch trick. This cerk~ficiktondoeo not constitute s
guarantee this tk viii supply visor ks such trick st
· 'sAy specific quantities. flora or pressures for fire
protection or &my other purpose'. This certification
shill be signed by i responsible erriotas or the voter
company. ~dg_BIBQg_!gl~_bt,lgbli~td_~g,~bt_;g&FO~X_
This Department his I sisfoment from the R&ncho Celtforni&
VaLor District sOresing to serve domestic visor to each end
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
oekisfictory tinsnciil srrsngemento ire completed vith the
subdivider, lk viII be necessary. for the finsnct$1
erreASements %o be mode prior ks the recordsLion of the
tinsl
This l:)ep&rtmen% his s stiLesent from the lesterA Muntcip&i
V&kor District agreeing to slier the subdivision soy&go
system %0 be connected ko the severs of the District, .The
sever eyetom shell be instilled steerdinS to pitno
specifications is spprovedby the District, the County
Surveyor sad the Health bpirtsont, PersoneAt prints of the
plans of the sever syskos shill be subsisted in triplicate,
sisrig vikb the ortginil drsvinK, to the County Surveyor, The
prints shill shov the internal pipe diameter, lociLion of
s~holes, cosplots profiles, pipe sad ~oint specifications
~d the size of the severs tk tho~ction of the nov sys~sa
to the existing systss, A single plot indicating
of sever lines sad voter lines shill be s portion of the
sewage pl-~s end profiles. ~o pl~s shill be signed by s
rsgis~ere~ tAgSneer sad the sever district vith the
folioring rsrtificttion: 'I certify thik the design of
sever system in Tract Hip ~337S is in accordance vith the
sever system expansion plins of the Eastern Municipal Voter
District ~d tAiL the risks disposal system is idaquite
ATDi, Kathy Oilford
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
tract.'
£tse dsAleu_e£, bt_f:ioS ,lSB.
It will be necessary for financial
prior to the recordarSon of the final map.
Environmental Health lervtees
arrangements to be made
JM:tae
INI II&III'F
IP. t- IIII Ilia
w. , Iril~l 1114)
RIVER~ID!: COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATE:R CONSE:RVATION DISTRICT
Riverside Count7
Planking Departsent
County Adofat strltlve Center
al versedee-~11 h~ta -
Attention: ~lonll TIm Io~
A~I: Tmmecuf~ V~I~7
Ve have reviewed this case and hive the follwtng corn!ntis
~Xcept for nut since nature 1KS1 rUnoff which. ily traverse'portions' of the
re ert~ the project te considered free fm ordlaar store flood hazard.
~o~Pver I store of+ unusual nightrude could cause some ~anage. New construc-
tion should conely utah ill applicable ordinances.
The to rsphy of the urea consists of nll defined ridges and natural
A ate should be pl cad on In enviroNMetal constraint sheet lilttag, °All new
buildings shill be ~oodproofed by elevating the finished floors a etateam of
18 1aches above ad3acent around surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.
Arll
This 'project t1'1o the e r~les and
drains e plan f I shall be pied tn accordance with the sppltcabl
regulations.
The proposed teatrig tl tenetstent vtth extstl flood hszlrds. See fleet
control foctlltlos or floodproofing may he ree~rod to fully develop to Oh,
lEelied density.
The Distrtct'l relmrt dated :FM,e am, I111 11 at111 current for t. hls project
Tim DIstrict does not abject to the proposed minor change.
Yer7 truly 7ours,
The attached cmnts apply.
KDOIk"~ L. EINAJ~S
· '., . HN' H'. I~HUBA
ntor Civil Engineer
co: F ;,k c,-r--l [
lelVEiqEZDE: COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATE:R CONSERVATION DIsTIttjrr
,Tune 20, 1918
P. tttS
)ear C/rod)
liverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Ztiverside, California
Attentions Ipecific titus
.Kathy O~fford .... '.
LadLes end gentlemeat Roe Vesting Tract 3337l
This ie · proZx~eel to divide ebout~ 400 acres in the Tomecult
VeXXo~ tree, The eLte le ·long the east side of Mergerits Read
between Rencho Celiforn/e Road end Le letone pro~ec~
Off·Lee ,rJ. owe from two mJor vaterlhede are tributary t.o the
eite*e northeast end loatheall corners, The applicant proposes
to seeapt end convey the flows from the northeast with · storm
drain ·yetera, end the flows from the southeast with · golf coure~
grace channel from where the flows ereso under Ranshe California
Read in · culvert,
· its flows would be drained into the above two systems with
s~reets end e~orm drains acoording to their natural drainage pet-
tern, According to the applicant, the site would be roughly
graded with off·its end oneits floes directed into the proposed
golf so·roe ~nd temporary drainage facilities, This is allowable
if the natural drainage patterns ere preserved ud the temporary
facilities hive the ZOO ~etr storm capacities,
Following ere the Dietriot' · roeoemendationss
This trust is located viahis the limits of the Mutt/eta
~ZeeJt/Tes~eula ViIIo~ Ares Drainage ,lea for which
drainage fees have been. adopted by the Board, Drainage
bee shell be paid as set forth under the provisions of
the eRalee tad Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans", amended February 16, lgSSs
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Reed Commissioner
· s pert of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of · -,
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees sha'l be
~eid as · condition of the waiver prior to re~ordin~
· certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver o~
the parcel mp~ or
RAveside County
PInning Department
Rat Veer, tag Tract 23371
~rune }0,
At the option of the land divider, upon filing s re-
quired affidavit requesting defermeat of the
of bee, the drainage fees my be paid to the
for rich spproved
eel, VhAcheve: sat be first obtained. after the
reeordtng of the subdivision final map. or parcel
provided hovevet, this option to defer the fees
not be exercised for an7 parcel shore grading or
s~ructuree have ben initiated on the parcel viihis
the prior 3 year period, or permits for either
tivity have ben issued on that parcel vhieh remain
notlye ·
Pads Shou'~d'be elevated at 'least I fe~t above the ' lO0
year flood plain in the adjacent drainage facilities.
Zroelon protection should be provided for all fill slopes
exposed to the po~antisl erosion hasattic.
Hydrological and hydraulic. calculations for beth the ~
persty and ultimate drainage facilities should be subtit-
led U ~e DAstriet ~r approve. "
Oneits drainage facilities located outside of toed rlgh~
of way should be contained viihis drainage easements
ohm on the final sap. a note should be added to the
final map stating, .:Drainage easements shall be,kept ·free
of buildings- and ,obs~.ruetAonse ·
Offsite drainage feeiX/ties should be located within
pulslAeZy dedicated draLnage easements obtained from the
arrested property Mere. ~he documents should ~ re-
corded ud a ~ ouML~ed ~ ~e Dis~r/e~ prior U
reeorda~ of ~e final rap.
AXI lets dSmXf be graded u drain to the adjacent s~ree~
or an sde~ua.e ou~Xe,. .
Tabs Z0 year' sum faro, she.d be contained within the
ourb and the X00 year storm fAoe should be contained
within the street right of way. When either of these
oriteria to. exceeded, additional drainage facilities
should be installed-
D~sina~e facilities ou~le~lng s~mnp conditions should
designed ~o' convey the ~,ribu~ary lO0 year steam flows.
AddAtionaX assagency escape should also he provided.
RiversLee Courier
PlaAning Department
Rot VestLag Tract 3337L
~une 30, lgll
The property* a eLfeel and ~ot grading ohou~d be designed
in a ~er ~t ~r~ua~ee ~a existing
dra'~ag, ~tterne vi~ res~ U ~lbu~a~ ~a~nage
~ol, o~Zet ~intl ud ou~Ze~ condOr/one, o~ervloe,
~ainmge easement ~ould ~ o~mined ~ ~e affected'
pro~rt7 M~o for ~e roles .e of ,nc~eted or d~-
v~td ~o~ ~w8. A ~ of ~e recorded drainage
easement ~ould b e~ltted ~ ~e Dio~ict ~r review
prior U ~e recorderion of ~e final
ZI the Lract ie built in phases, each phase shall be pro-
. I
termed from the'Z In '~ ~ear ~/bu~ar~ a~o~ ~w,.
Temporary erosion con~rol mealurea should be InpXamen~ed
Lmuediately following rough gradIng reproverig deposition
of debris oo~o downstream proimrtLea or drainage
facilities. "
Development of %him property should be coordinated with
~he deveXolment of ed~acent opera/so ~o ensure that
valorcourses remain unobo%ruc~ed and stormwaters are not
diverted from me watershed tO esther. This my require
the ~onstruet/on of temporary drainage facilities or
offeLls ansifaction ud gradiing.
Evidence of s viable maintenance mechanism should be sub-
ait%ed to the District and COunty for review end approval
prior to retardation of the final map.
A · oFF oft he Improvement plum, grading plane end final
map along with eupportLng h~droZogLa and hydraulic cal-
culations should IN aulmLttaa to t~e District via
Road Depertaent for review aid approval prior ~o recorda-
~Lon of~bo final mp, aredinS plane should be approved
Icier to issuenee of gradingiperal~e.
veSy LruX3r lfours,
Chitrig
F.,a~g DDAI11Q2r:
2337.1. - tlZleOl:) iX, lOAD COKI. BC'rZOI fZ
Vitb respect ,e the' seedtitans of approva~ for the'above referenced lsnd ilvlelon,'
the/ire Department tessmends the. felloctal fire protection Beesurea be provided
tu norafiesta with RIverside County Ordinances andd/or teesInland fire protectin
mtandardmt
FInn pROtECTIOn ~
~ne eater motes shall be aspable of providtnl · potential fire fZoe of 2500b~11 .~
and an actual fire fZo~ available free anl ann h/drant shall be l~00 G!~tfor l
bourn duration at 10 PlZ residual operating pressure.
lpproved super fire hydrants, (6wz&wxl|zli) shall be located at each efteat
intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction ~lthuo
portion of a~y lot frontage more than 165 feet frameshydrant.
Appticautldeveloper shall furslob one espy of the eater ayetee plans ~o the/ire
~Xau shall conform to flreh/drant types, Xocet~onmd
=., ,, ,,. ,.....,.,....,..
eignedlapprovod by · re81mtmrmd civil mulLnear and the
,~. ,.,~...,.,..,,,,.,,-, -, ,.,,,, ,,., ,,, ,.,,,,., ,,,:
Ln aceerdmace with the re~uirementm tremerLbed b7 the lAvereid C, eu 7
The requireinter systems lealading fire hydrants, ahaXi be installed and accepted
by the attraCtinto eater agency prior to an7 aoubustthXe butld/nguatetta~ being
~lnced on an lndividudiot* "
Mibuilatnge o~eX% be conafFected with fire retardant roofing material as
described in lection3~03 of the Unifotulutldtng Code. lay wood oh/nIXes
or shakes shall have s Class sis rating and shall he aptroved by the Firs
Department ~rior go tntallatioa.
d~X Qulet~m fel!rdinl the menial of eosd~t~ous ehel~ be referred .to the
firs DeFertenet ~Xuu~ul end Isliaeerlsl et&ff, "~
I~YllOND lq IBGXI
Development Review
08-Riv-15-q .98
Tour Reference.'
VT 23371, 23372, and
23373
Related t0' IP 199
Xorlnrita VtlZale
Ylanninl Department
attention [8thX Gifrord.
County or. Riverside
a080 Leon Street'
I~veraAde, CA 92501
Deer Sis, airfords
Thank Ton for the opportunity to review the proposed Vestinl i~
Treats a33T1, a33Ta, sod a3373 Zoneted easterly of l-lS and ..
Nor afire load between lanehe California load end Le Serene V~
In [an:he California*
Please refer to the attached material on which our seamerits have
been indicated by the Steam sheeked and/or by those iteam noted
under additional somerite,
If 807 work is neceaaerf within the etate halbray rilht of way,
r s
the developer Bust obtein"en enaroea~uent permit from the Celt an
Dietriot 8 Forsit 'OffSee prior to belinninS work-
If additional information is dealred, pZeaae nil fir. Patrick U.
Cormally st (TIe) 313-alia-
Verl truly Tourso
H. l. LEIfAN~OVSKI
l)lstrZot Fernits InSSneer
oaf Lee Johnsent liverside
County load Department
mecessary t4 itSlate the cumulative lmpH~ of ~ ~-i _.m~ drainage should be
It appears that the trmffls -.-t .... le leersted IP/this prq;~aal ~ajld have
milnLfScant effect an the state M~s~sy symtas ef the mrec. i~ assures noct
to mitigate the traffle m' iF-' 8s impacts sheuld be included vS+.h the
develapmant.
This partim ef state hlll~sy Is includsl in the Califcrnls 14aster' Plan of
BLeSsdays tillibis far Offisisl Seehie Hi~sW I}esllnstien, and tn 'the futur~
agency my. wish ~ have 21o r~u~e officially desllnsted u · state scenic
Titis pm'tl~ cf state hill~uy has ben effiolelly desilnated as · state
hi~ay, and development Zn f~ds earr~dor shauld be eml~t~ble with t~e
Xt' is ~eeolnlzed t, hst f~ere is emsidsrsbls publie ~.u~. about MIle l~s
p~ty ~ld t~u~ My n~ess~ ~1~
Ncrml filet of way dmllcsZicn ta provide
Imlfe~td~h ca V~e state h~f~s
~slf-width m t~s stste hll!~sy.
Ct~ &-Id 2utter. 2~ate Standard '
the ststa
Parkin2 be pechibtted slq Uw stqte himy b7 painting the eu~ red
rBdSus eurt returns be F~vtded st intersectin with the state Mildly.
~ ,baldair ramp mxt Ix praytried fa the returns.
a peeltire vda~ulm- hertSar slq the property fr~ntsgs bs provided to list?.'
leTsSeal aeeeu ~ ta state blather. ·
Vddmlar soeesa not be develqsd d~reetly t~ t/s stste hll!~sy.
Yehlmlsr sccess to the stste htl~wSy be p~ov~ded by sx~stin2 ~blic rosd
VehSeu~ar eceess to the state hl&~aCy be provided by
drlvedsys.
V¥~c~lsr secess shsll net be lrovlded vlt~dn
Of the tntersectic~ ~
Vdticular access to the s~ate Iti~way be p.'ovided by · road-t~pe connection.
· From 8-1q}1.~ {!Icy. 5/rf) (Cmtlud m reverse}
le - I ~ ..o ...~
-, __- fadsmidas eb~ tm mt~ aiWmy be 1w and forSiring in ma~ure.
,:~;
Qmuidermtlou be live to the proylliam, or future provtllmm, of
lt~t, ln$ of
tim mt.mt,e
Handicap parkSA& nor, be developed In Uw busy drivebray endtahoe ~.
~m ~ Uken ~ devem~$nf ~m ~Or~y ~ ~m--m ud ~r~um~e ~e
~l~le ~tte~ oF ~ mute hZ~y, ~~v ~ml~mtim ~ld ~ liv~
~lmtive ~mHd sM ~f ~ ~e ~t 8 M~y ~m~mle ~lm 18 nc
~ ne~sn~ ~iw startle ~ pr~ IS Wt Of ~ develo~nt of ~S
, , .............:..-- . ........., ,
FZemme refer to mttwhed e~itlm~l
I omFy er an7 mmMlitlem d mpFrovul or revised aplx~. ·
I map/or m/deemmmmt,m JrovtdZnl oddSritual m%a~ Nilbuy rillrot of way u;mu
,.guardat&as at the map,
ZAny PrC~Sltl t~ fUrthr devo!op this property.
Jt aopy of the taras mr envtrurnen*,u3 tudy, St rm~tred.
riverside County l~eAn~[ Depsr~ment
Q 0 10 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riveaide, CaliforAla 92S0]
Attention:
nthy giffoN, Planner
Vestin2 Tracts: 23371
Harlmrita Vlllale
Dear 'Ha. 21$ford:
RIVE!~DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
23372 and 233?3
.l~o~Ht 23371, will :!~creale the population 2rob'~h by approxiJnately
e,Tll; p~Ject 23~72 will ln~ease ~b p~pula~on by appFox~e~ely
laglaB ~d p~Ject 2ll/I ~ll ~ease the Pulation~apprcx~ma~ely
~,392. ~e cebined ~o]ecte, u n complet~n will bpac~ the hncho
,
bed~. I sidenoes have a ainim~ o~ t~ee
The desirable ~esident/depoty.~atio is l,I deputies pe~ 1,000 persons.
Th~s project, upon amplezion of all ~hrse phases, viII require 12.1
deputies to ~acXlitate la'e~orcuen~ p~tection,
It is of~rt~ee to note ~at this ~u Is vLthln ou~ des~psted
Beet IX as, vi~ u u~st~l~pulation of ap~x~ately Q]s000 per-
soN, Ateset, n hve one de~to coverts ~a; ·
yahave an tux~hequistions o~ concerns ln~elaNs to the
Lnfomtion of~eed,~Zease do not hesitate to contact this office.
S~ncmrmly,
COIS S SHI:R:~FF
·
Lake Elsinore Station ptain
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
S%STAFFRFT~23372VTM. CC 17
CITY OF TEMECULA )
i:
,--'-. 'a
VICINITY MAP
N,T.S~ ·
(v.'p'M. 2.-~5i 2-
CASE NO.~(13~ttblz
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
3ARI TA VI LLAGI
TY PARK
CASE ,NO.,J'Tr~7,.~,""~.
EXHIB: I' NO.
~P.C. DATE
.1j~C MINi
' TH( MEADOWS SI1_21,.I / _"
I'BR
CITY
OF TEMECULA
I
I
IxHIBIT NO.
,?.c. OATS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.qTe~ Z~.A~;
3..~d,~,..?~' EXHIBIT NO.
I~ ~P.C. DATE
ATTACHMENT NO. S
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
S%STAFFRFl"%23372VTM.'CC 18
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372
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 Aooroval
Condition No. 1
Condition No. 15
Condition No. 9
Condition No. 3
Condition No. 2
Condition No. 6
Condition No. 5
S%STAFFRF~23372V'TM. CC 19
cc: Gary Thornhill
November 23, 1991
Temecula City Council
43~74 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Ref: Tenative Tracts 23372 & 23373 (First Extension)
We are very concerned over the proposed tenative tracts 23372 &
23373 which will be adjacent to Meadows Parkway and our Vineyard
Tract.
As you consider the first extension, we ask you to carefully
examine the following aspects.
1. The combined density of tenative tracts 23372 & 23373
(with the commercial) makeup approximately 2/5 of the
2000 units, and are not compatible with single family
residential area.
2. Significant increases in density and the commercial area
will create traffic conflicts' because of poor traffic design
at Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway.
3. The location of the street access for 2-story condos, the
commercial area and the 3-story apartment complex will make
it difficult to turn left from Vineyard Avenue onto Meadows
Parkway.
4. The lack of open space and recreational facilities cause our
children to play in the streets as there is no park within
walking distance. This area would be excellent for a park
instead of apts.
5. The high density will increase saftey problems as our children
will walk to Rancho Elementary School and Margarita Middle
School when Meadows Parkway is developed.
When the Margarita Village Concept was approved November 8, 1988,
we do not feel the Vineyard Tract's needs were addressed.
We feel the City Council should deny the request for the first
extension because of saftey and concerns caused from high density
and poor traffic designs.
We appreciate any help the City Council will give about our
concerns.
Sincerely,
November 23, 1991
Ref:Tenative Tracts 23372 & 23373 (First Extension)
TheBuieCorporation
200
Z'ES~ 2:_ =_'~',: =~2'2' '~
-'87-3059
January 6, 1992
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: TRM~.KU COUNTRY CLUB MAINTRNANC~. FACT!.ITY
Dear Gary:
Following up on our meeting of December 23, what follows
is a review of our efforts to satisfy the concerns of the
owners of Heritage Mobilehome Park.
On July 9, Fred Yates (Temeku's golf course
superintendent) and I met with Bill Schweinfurth (Vedder Park
Management), Herschel Gray (the onsite park manager), Walt
Lane (a consultant for redder), and a civil engineer
representing Vedder. Their concerns are outlined below.
Weeds growing up the slope behind the driving
range below Heritage.
Noise and early start-up of the maintenance
equipment.
Unsightliness of the maintenance yard, particularly
the accumulation of some wood pallets and trash.
A patch in the street (So. General Kearney Rd.)
from previous underground work had settled making
the road bumpy. They wanted us to fully resurface
the street; their estimated cost was $5,000.
I explained the difficulties the project was having
because of the Executive Life/Mello-Roos funding uncertainty
and the project's inability to proceed without additional
financing. Cash was (and is) being rationed to maintain the
golf course. Our response to their concerns are outlined
below.
TEMEKU COUNTRY CLUB MAINTENANCE FACILITY
1-6-92
Page 2 of 2
The maintenance crew would make time to clean the
weeds from the slope. This had been done.
We changed the start-up time from 6:00 am to 7:00 am
and re-routed maintenance vehicle traffic away from
the three or four mobilehomes affected. We
explained, however, that when the course is open for
play, with 7:00 am starting tee times (this is
standard throughout California and the U.S.), a
6:00 am maintenance start would be necessary.
We acknowledged the pallet storage, but not trash
accumulation. The storage ofpallets in the
maintenance yard has been eliminated and we have
been maintaining particularly high neatness
standards for the yard.
I explained that while PriMerit Bank is a healthy
S&L, this project is being overseen by the OTS and
all expenditures were approved by them. The OTS had
mandated that expenditures be limited to
"preservation of the asset" or, essentially, golf
course maintenance. I thought that they might allow
$1,500 for patching, but would undoubtedly disallow
$5,000 for full street resurfacing. Patching was
not acceptable to Vedder. I understand that the
City has patched the street.
Gary, we have made a good faith effort to address
Vedder's concerns. Until we have the financial resources to
continue the project, I am not sure what else we can do. I
would be pleased to discuss this with you further at your
convenience.
Vice President Project Development
· JLR:cf
cc: D. Ubnoske
CITY OF TEMECULA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Thronhill
Director of Planning
FROM: Allan Marshall '
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE:
SUBJECT:
November 7, 1991
Complaints on TElVIE Project (Buie Corporation)
Per your request in response to the complaint fried with your office regarding this project. On
November 4, 1991, I spoke to Fred Yates, Golf Course Superintendent, who told me that
maintenance is only done on the golf course. However, his crew (when time permitted~cleaned
the fight-of-way on Solana Way and General Keamy Road. Because of the topo and roughness
on Margarita and Rancho California Road, h6 is unable to clean these areas due to lack of
equipment. He referred me to Jim Resney at the Buie Corporation.
Upon contacting Mr. Resney, I was told the project is near foreclosure and there is no monies
to do further maintenance other than trying to preserve the goff course. I advised Mr. Resney
the weed and trash problem has become a public nuisance and must be cleaned ASAP, and if
property owners were unable to clean up property, the City would declare property a public
nuisance and clean property at property owner's costs and a Hen would be phced on the
property.
I spoke to Tony and we will be going forward with abatement procedure ASAP.
AM/sf
cc: Tony Elmo
January 21, 1992
Via Express Mail
Temecula City Council
c/o City Clerk, June Greek
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:
Buie Corporation Request to Extend
Time to Record Map; Problems Experienced
By Residepts of Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We operate Heritage Mobile Home Estates (hereinafter
"Heritage"), a 181 space mobile home park located at 31130 General
Kearney Road, Temecula, CA 92591. We understand that on January
28, 1992, the City Council will meet to consider a request by the
Buie Corporation (hereinafter "Buie") to extend the time to record
maps for its golf course and housing development project located
adjacent to the Heritage property.
The owners and residents of Heritage have consistently had
problems with the adjacent Buie development. These problems
primarily involve the so-called golf course maintenance yard which
is located directly below Heritage. The problems consist of early
morning noise from golf course employees and equipment (starting
as early as 5:30 a.m.), dust generated by golf course equipment,
and trash from the maintenance area. Other problems associated
with the development involve weeds and damage to General Kearney
Road in the vicinity of the entrance to Heritage.
I personally met with a Buie representative last year in an
effort to gain cooperation and a remedy to these problems. The
Buie representative was sympathetic but said Buie was too tight-
fisted to spend any money to resolve Heritage's concerns. (See
attached correspondence.) In essence, Buie has done nothing to
resolve the considerable problems its development has caused to
Heritage and its residents.
Following our unsuccessful efforts to gain cooperation from
Buie, Heritage requested the City to help resolve these problems.
(See attached correspondence.) While the City acted to repair the
road and to help force Buie to cut weeds and eliminate
Page 2
trash, nothing has been done to eliminate our biggest problem --
the very noisy and dirty golf course maintenance yard.
If, despite all of the problems Buie's development has caused
the community and despite the Buie's insensitive and aloof
attitude, the City Council decides to extend the time to record
the maps, Heritage and its residents request that such extension
be expressly conditioned upon the following:
All Buie property adjacent to Heritage shall be kept
free of weeds and trash at all times.
The Buie golf maintenance facility currently located
immediately below Heritage shall be relocated to a
location at least one-half mile away from any mobilehome
at Heritage. (We also suggest that it be located at
least one-half mile from any other residence in
adjoining developments.)
No golf course maintenance equipment may be operated
before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
~~C'S~
William C.
Director of Operations
VEDOEF! PARK MANAGEMENT
15~.1 W. Glenoaks I~ouleverd
Glendale, Gelifor~ie 9 12{::) 1
July 12, 1991
Mr. Robert Buie
President
The Buie Corporation
16935 W. Bernardo Drive
Suite 200
San Diego, California
92127
Re: Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Dear Mr. Buie:
We operate Heritage Mobile Home Estates, a 189 space
mobilehome park located at 31130 General Kearney Road, Temecula,
CA 92592. The Park is adjacent to the property you are currently
developing and your golf course maintenance area.
On July 9, 1991, we met with your representative, Mr. Jim
Resney, and your golf course maintenance supervisor, to discuss
certain concerns which we have concerning your development. These
concerns are shared by the residents of the mobilehome park. Our
concerns and Mr. Resney's responses are as follows:
1. Your development work has severely damaged and degraded
the paved highway which leads to the Park entrance. We requested
that the highway be repaired. Our asphalt paving contractor has
informed me that the cost to repair this area would be $4,000 to
$5,000. Mr. Resney conceded the damage to the highway but
indicated that the Buie Corporation would not allocate any funds
to repair the damage.
2. We discussed the location of General Kearney Road and
the need to install a cul-de-sac at the entrance to the golf
course maintenance area. In discussions with the City, it is our
understanding that the cost of this improvement ultimately is to
be paid by "Tract No. 23371-8," which I believe is your project.
Mr. Resney stated that he was unsure of what improvements were
required, when they would be built and how they were to be paid.
He did suggest that a 50/50 split of costs might be appropriate.
Our understanding is that your project must pay these costs.
I should point out that you had already excavated for the cul-de-
sac prior to the cessation of your construction work.
Page 2
3. We and our residents are very concerned about the noise
from the golf course maintenance area, the dust from vehicles
travelling on the dirt road which used to be a paved road (one-
half of which is Heritage property), and the weeds and trash which
surrounds the golf course and maintenance area. Mr. Resney
committed only to reducing traffic on the dirt road and perhaps
"watering down" the dirt road. It was stated that you did not
have sufficient manpower to deal with the trash and weed problem.
4. The residents are also very concerned about vehicular
noise from the maintenance area. Residents complain about noise
beginning as early as 5:30 a.m. Your representatives stated that
the vehicles aren't "started up" until 6:00 a.m. We believe that
6:00 a.m. is too early of a starting time for these vehicles given
their proximity to the mobilehome park. We believe that, at a
minimum, the Buie Corporation should consider a later starting
time and other noise reduction measures.
I hope that you can appreciate that we were very disturbed by
these responses from the Buie Corporation. Despite the current
financial and political difficulties described by Mr. Resney, you
continue to fund the golf course maintenance and watering.
Nevertheless, you refuse to devote any resources to the street
repair, completion of the cul-de-sac (not to mention the wall
around the maintenance area) and the weed, trash and noise
issues.
Given this non-cooperative attitude, we are also
understandably concerned about the future of your project and how
it will impact our Park and our residents. We request that the
Buie Corporation reconsider its position on these issues and act
quickly to resolve each of our concerns.
cc:
Walt Lane
Park Managers
Very truly yours,
William C.
Director of Operations
VEDaEll I~Ai::IK MANAGEMENT
1 ~ 1 W. Glenoaks Boulevercl
Gleneels. California 91201
July 31, 199i
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Enclosed are copies of two letters. The first letter is our
recent letter to the Buie Corporation expressing our concerns
about the golf course conditions affecting our property. We have
received no response from the Buie CorpOration. Please telephone
me so that we can discuss what appropriate action the City could
take to aid us in the resolution of this matter.
The second letter is a copy of my April 22, 1991 letter to
you concerning the Fish & Game fees. I would like to discuss this
matter with you as well at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
Director of Operations
VEDOEI::I PARK MANAGEMENT
1 ~5~ 1 W. Glmnomkm Boulmvarcl
Glenclaim. C=mlifc~rnim 9 1 ~C:)1
Ca 18] ~o47~oe
August 29, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Thank you for returning my telephone call on August 22, 1991.
Coincidentally, I visited Heritage on that date and the City crew
had already begun to repair the street in front of the Park.
As to the Buie Corporation and the adjoining golf course, I
appreciate you willingness to look into the matter and determine
whether Buie Corporation can be forced to comply with its
obligations. Please let me know the results of your inquiry.
The Park and its residents remain very disturbed about the
operation of the maintenance yard at the golf course. Because
Buie Corporation has not complied with its obligations, we now
believe that this maintenance yard should be moved to another
location where it will not disturb so many people. We are hopeful
that the City will help us with this problem or give us guidance'
as to what further steps we can take to remedy this situation.
Very truly yours,
W~l~&ia~m'C.CS'c~
Director of Operations
PARK MANAGEMENT
W. Glonc=aks Bclulevercl
Glandrole, C.alifornim 91201
October 17, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Heritage Mobile ~ome Estates
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
As you know, I wrote to you on July 31, 1991, expressing our
concern about the Buie Corporation golf course property and
maintenance area. We spoke by telephone on August 22, 1991 and
you responded that you (the City) would look into the matter.
wrote a confirming letter on August 29, 1991.
Having heard nothing from you or the City, I placed several
telephone calls to you in September 1991. None of these calls
were returned.
Enclosed is a petition addressed to you dated October 7, 1991
on behalf of the Park and 178 of its residents. I hope that you
can move quickly and require that the golf course maintenance area
be moved immediately and that all of this property be cleaned
immediately.
we look forward to your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Director of Operations
alRam; oCallfonlla
31130 General Kelrney Road
Rancno Cabform/, CA 92390
{714) 676-5113
Mr, Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Oct 7 1991
Re: Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Heritage Mobile Home Estates ("Heritage") and its residents
(whose signatures are attached) do hereby petition the City to
require the Buie Corporation to comply with all legal requirements
associated with the operation of its golf course. We also
petition the City to require that the Buie Corporation move its
maintenance facility from the present location to another location
away from Heritage.
These requests are made because the Buie Corporation has
operated these facilities in a manner which is very detrimental to
Heritage and its residents. We object to the following:
1. Weeds, trash and debris on property;
2. No adequate fencing around maintenance area;
3. Excessive noise from maintenance area;
4. Excessive dust from maintenance area; and
5. General unsightly appearance of maintenance area.
Prior requests of and meetings with the Buie Corporation have
been unproductive.
Please let us know how the City will proceed in this matter.
Resident Signatures:
Very truly yours,
Wzlliam C. Schweinf/~
Director of Operations
Space No. Signature
Space No.~/
· Space No.
Space No. /~ /
Space No.
space .o.. 7
Space
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Page 2
Signature .
Signature ~
Signature
Signature~
Signature
Space No. Signature
Space No. 79 Sig,,ature
Space No. 7~ Signature,
Space No. ~ , Signatuee'/~
Space No. ~ Signature
Space No.
Signature
Space No.
Signature
Space No.
Signature
Space No.
Signature
Space No.
Signature
Space No.
Space No.
Signature
Signature
Space No. Signature
Space No. [ ~ 7
Space No. ~/
Space No. l
.Space No. ~l
Space No. /~'~
Space No. /<' 7
Space No. / ~
Space No. ~
space No. ~ ~ d
Space No. /~
Space No. f~
Space No. ~ [~
Space No. /y_~
Space No. ~/
spaceNo.
~!jpace No;
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space.No.
Page 2
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature ~2~T 2. e~.vz,~,~---
Signature \~.~ [l~t
Signature
Signature ~~
Signature
Signature ~~.~,.~-~ ~-
Signature ~
Space No. Signature
Page 2
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No'.
Space No.
Space-No.
.Space No.
Space N6.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
~ Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
S~na~u~e
i
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space'No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Page 2
Signature
Signature
----_
Signature ~_~.
ure ~'~
S ignat
Signature
Signature .
Signature ' ' " '
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No. //F '
Space No.
Space No.
Space No. ?,.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Page
Signature ~0.~-~ ~
Sg t
Signa ure
Signature ~4-~
Signature~-~j- '
Signatur~
S ignatur~~~
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Space No.
Space No.
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No.
Space No.
Space No,
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No,
Space No,
Space No.
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No.
Space No,
! 16"'
Page 2
Si nature/ ' ~ ' ~ ~"~~ '~
Signature C. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
Signature '~~ ~~
S i. gnature '. ~ ~. x~ . {~/
Xignat~
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No.-
Space No.
Space No,
Space No.
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Spac~ N6,' ......
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Space No,
Page 2
Signature
Signature-
i~ na re .
Signature
Signature
Signature
, Signature/
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
.......... Signature '
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Space No. /7~
Space No. /~ 7
Space No. / 7 7
Space No. / ~
Space .o. I ~ /
Space .o. i/,, /
Space No, ] ~ .~
Space No,
Space No,
Space No. ~ ~,.
Space No. ~/7
Space No.
space .o. ~/~
Space No. /
Space No.
space .o.
Space No.
space ~o.
Space No.
Space No.
sp~ .o.
Space No.
Page 2
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature~
Signature
Signature
Signature'
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature.
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signatu,re
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Page 2
Page 2
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No._
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Spac~ ~6.' .....
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
/
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature('?A~pf
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature/
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
............. Signature '
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
~Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Space No.
Spa~e No.
Page 2
/~ Signature/,, ~, ' ~-~
'~?'F Signature· o-,-,
l-~'& ~5Signature~~ ~
' V
Signature
Signature
Signature
/ 7~ Signature
Signature
Signature
s~gnature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
Signature
/ ~ 3 Signature
/~/ Signature
~ Signature
/
/$-/ signature
/~ Signature
/5'~ Signature
/,~ Signature
/r{' signat,re
/J'AZ signature
/[~ signature
/~ signature
/~'/ signature
3600 Wilehire 9ouleverC, Suite 2225, LOs AncJetes, California 96010
213/380-8383
(~]_[~)~RGAR.Z!A_V!IIAGE-0~TV~L) Marg-arita village Oe~elo.cment Co.
Partners agree on. volunrar? Chapter 11 filing to protect, restructure
Temeku Country Cl,,h project
~usiness Editors
TS~I.:jT.A, CaAi~.--(BUSIB~$S ~TIPal--Hmrc/Brita village
Oevelo~ment Co., the ~=n~ship U~= is ~v~oping =he Z,000-~e
protection ~d~ ~p~ec 11 B~pr~ ~ile i~ ~ges ~
~i~cing ~or the T~ecula, ~liE., proje~.
~r~ita Village Oevelo~en= is a ~=ne~hip of Mevada-~ancho
~li~ornia Ltd. ud Buie-~cho ~li~o~ia Ltd., both ~liEornia
l~ted par~ne~hips.
Nevada ~ital Ltd., a t~zd-tier s~sidi~ o~ Pr~erir
Las V~as, is gene~l p~=ner oE Me~ada-~o ~i~or~a Ltd. The
Buie Co~., a mjor So~=he~ ~li~oma tel ~tate
c~y ~ith h~d~ters in San Dido, is g~ p~%n~ o~
The ~p=e= 1I ~i!ing, in the ~.S. ~p=q Co~=
Sou=hem Dis=tic= o~ ~ii~a, a~e~s ~y the Tmku ~t~ CI~
project, ~d mill ~e ~o ~acz on =he ozh~ a~ivities o~ either
The 5uie ~rp. or ~e~ ~i=ai, o~fi~s o~ ~he m ~~
said.
The a~ion ~s a ~o1~=~ petition, ~il~ ~ ~i~a Village
Develo~en~ Co. ~i~h =he a~enr o~ ~rh o~ its ~~.
Kober= F. 5~e, p~sid~r o~ ~e 8~e Co~., s~d =he
~e~ir~en= c~~ ~roje~ had :a be pla~ ~d~ ~prer
S23.5 ~llion o~ =he ~d= n~ Ca c~[ere ~he ~oj~ ~
deceit. "It Exe~=i~e ~=e had no= ~1~ ~ a ~s~= o~
bond invest=s, T~u Co~=~ CI~ ~d ~ selling h~es
=o~W," he said.
The p~bl~ pr~ilV ~la=es =o a la~ O~ 1i~~ -- Chat is,
~sh ~io~ -- ~=her :h~ ~e~ ~r~h, B~e =o=~. According =o
fil~ ~i=h the co~=, the project ~s ~sers o~ ap~oxm=elY S47.3
~e P==ners~p is in ~otiatio~ ~i~b t=~ i~titutio~l
investors w~, si'n~IV or in s~e c~i~tion, mY provide the
ad~tional ~u~ ,eed~ to res=ru~ the ~~ o~ the proje~,
Buie said.
~e S23.5 ~llion on deposit ~itb Exe~ti~e ~e (~id includes
accued interest) ~s part o~ S27.5 ~llion msed in ~c~er
1~89 t~ough the sale o~ tu-exept ~m~a Valley U~i~ School
Dis=tic= bonds. The bond issue ~s to ~ re~d t~ough rues on the
2,000 ne~ h~es. The money ms ~or mt~, s~r= ~d other
5e~use the ~ds ~u!d be ne~ odV ~ the ~ns~ion
Tmku Count~ Club proceeded. the bond procms ~re plac~ on
deceit ~ith [xe~tive ~i~e in a ~ding a~ent c~dV re~erred
to as a Gua~te~ Invesment Contact, or GIC. T~ GIC ~id
interest rB=e o~'B percent. equal to the interest ~te on the ~nds.
Only abou= S4.5 million o~ the original S27.5 million ~d ~en
~ith~am ~rcm the GIC ~he~ [xecative ~e ~ail~ in April
bemuse hea~ invesmen:s in "junk" ~nds ~us~ :he collapse
its paranT ccm.~any, Firs= Executive Cor~.
The insurance co~ ~s ~la~ ~der =he control o~ =he
De~men= o~ Ins~ce, ~d all o~ i=s assets -- including
~ds inrend~ ~o: use a= T~e~u Co~=~ CI~ -- ~e ~rozen.
~i~oma Ins~ce C~ssioner John G~endi
process of selling ~xe~zive Li~o. The ~roca~s of
~sh fr~ ~ i~ce ind~ ~~ ~d, ~d be
o~ cla~ agoins= Exe~=ive ~e, including =he GICs.
The Los ~geles S~erior Co~=, ~i~ is ~~ing ~he
~sposi~ion o~ Exe~=ive ~e, ~s ~1~ ~har ~=~ inves~n=
~n=~c=s ~ve c!a~ ~1 :o :hose of o=her ~li~hold~.
~d mean rha= =~eku Co~=~ C~ ~d =sosire ~uu= S17 ~llion
for :he i~ i= has on de~si=. ~e ~ifoma I~cs
is s~ing spyglass =erie oi =~s iu~ior Co~= ~inq.
"~ ~llV expec= =he Superior Co~%'s ~ling
=he T~eku projec= =o =ecu~ a s~s=~=ig per%ion of =he f~ds
deCsired ~i=h axecu~ive Life," said B~e.
~hile ~i=ing for =he Exe~=ive Life si=ua=ion =o be msolv~, he
said. ~he ~rg~i=a Village De~elo~enr CO. p~=n~sMp has ~=ed
~rk on T~eku Co~=~ CI~. ~ors =h~ e56 rollion ~as been inves=~
in =he
The 34,000-s~e-tOo~ cl~ho~e ~d a n,,-her
vi~uallV cmple=e, ~d =he T~ Kobins~-desi~ ~io~p golf
h~sites have no= yes ~. ""
~1~ us =me =o se~s =~= lizCng ~le pro=sting ~he inc~ss=s
oi all p~=ies.' ' ..:
ae no~ =~= =he SSe ~llion' ~r~dy inv~=~ in =he
B~e said =US =he ~= soirees in =he ~ifo~a housing
T~ku Co~=~ CI~. "T~s ms pla~ as a seven-y~
S~ ~oin= d~g =hose sev~ y~s ," ~ said.
~hile The auie Co~., l~e o=h~ =sai ss=a=s
ex~rienc~ l~r sales ~d .profi=s d~ing =his d~=~, he
neither :he ~i=a Vill~e 0eyelets= Co. ~p~ 11 filing nor
=he ex~ec=~ iinancial =ss~=ing ~ill ~ve ~V
on The Buie Co~., he said. "~i=a village
a so=ally sepa=e en~i~' ~ ~ The ~e Co~. ~pp~s =o be a
--30--KS/is
CONTACT:
Auerbach & Co., Shezmmn Oaks, Calif.
Alexander Auerbach. 818/501-422!
Fax:SOl-4211
~EYWORD: CALIFORNIA
INDUSTRY F, EYWORD: SZAL ESTATE
AUERBACg & 'ZO (MARGAR!1ZA VILIAIiE DEVELOPMIEFT CO pARTNERS]
HOUSE
VEDIDER PARK MANAGEMENT
1 51~1 W. Glenoaks Boulevercl
Giantsis, Calif~nnis 9 1 '~O 1
October 17, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecu!a, CA 92390
Re: Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
As you know, I wrote to you on July 31, 1991, expressing our
concern about the Buie Corporation golf course property and
maintenance area. We spoke by telephone on August 22, 1991 and
you responded that you (the City) would look into the matter. I
wrote a confirming letter on August 29, 1991.
Having heard nothing from you or the City, I placed several
telephone calls to you in September 1991. None of these calls
were returned.
Enclosed is a petition addressed to you dated October 7, 1991
on behalf of the Park and 178 of its residents. I hope that you
can move quickly and require that the golf course maintenance area
be moved immediately and that all of this property be cleaned
immediately.
We look forward to your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
zam C. Schweznf
Director of Operations
VEDDEF::I PARK MANAGEMENT
1521 W. Glensake Boulevard
Gle;nc:laAe. Galifor'nie 91201
August 29, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Thank you for returning my telephone call on August 22, 1991.
Coincidentally, I visited Heritage on that date and the City crew
had already begun to repair the street in front of the Park.
As to the Buie Corporation and the adjoining golf course, I
appreciate you willingness to look into the matter and determine
whether Buie Corporation can be forced to comply with its
obligations. Please let me know the results of your inquiry.
The Park and its residents remain very disturbed about the
operation of the maintenance yard at the golf course. Because
Buie Corporation has not complied with its obligations, we now
believe that this maintenance yard should be moved to another
location where it will not disturb so many people. We are hopeful
that the City will help us with this problem or give us guidance
as to what further steps we can take to remedy this situation.
Very truly yours,
W~i~l~iam C. Sc~
Director of Operations
VEDOER PARK MANAGEMENT
15¢m I W. Glmnomkm Boulevmrd
Glencmle. Oalifor"nia 9 1 ,EO 1
July 31, 1991
Mr. Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
43180 Business Park Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Heritage Mobile Home Estates
Dear Mr. Thornhill:
Enclosed are copies of two letters. The first letter is our
recent letter to the Buie Corporation expressing our concerns
about the golf course conditions affecting our property. We have
received no response from the Buie Corporation. Please telephone
me so that we can discuss what appropriate action the City could
take to aid us in the resolution of this matter.
The second letter is a copy of my April 22, 1991 letter to
you concerning the Fish & Game fees. I would like to discuss this
matter with you as well at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
' illiam C. Schweinf~"'n
Director of Operations
Glenclaim, Cali~oPnia 9 q ~O I
July 12, 1991
Mr. Robert Buie
President
The Buie Corporation
16935 W. Bernardo Drive
Suite 200
San Diego, California
92127
Re: Herit.age Mobile Home Estates
Dear Mr. Buie:
We operate Heritage Mobile Home Estates, a 189 space
mobilehome park located at 31130 General Kearney Road, Temecula,
CA 92592. The Park is adjacent to the property you are currently
developing and your golf course maintenance area.
On July 9, 1991, we met with your representative, Mr. Jim
Resney, and your golf course maintenance supervisor, to discuss
certain concerns which we have concerning your development. These
concerns are shared by the residents of the mobilehome park. Our
concerns and Mr. Resney's responses are as follows:
1. Your development work has severely damaged and degraded
the paved highway which leads to the Park entrance. We requested
that the highway be repaired. Our asphalt paving contractor has.
informed me that the cost to repair this area would be $4,000 to
$5,000. Mr. Resney conceded the damage to the highway but
indicated that the Buie Corporation would not allocate,any funds
to repair the damage.
2. We discussed the location of General Kearney Road and
the need to install a cul-de-sac at the entrance to the golf
course maintenance area. In discussions with the City, it is our
understanding that the cost of this improvement ultimately is to
be paid by "Tract No. 23371-8," which I believe is your project.
Mr. Resney stated that he was unsure of what improvements were
required, when they would be built and how they were to be paid.
He did suggest that a 50/50 split of costs might be appropriate.
Our understanding is that your project must pay these costs.
I should point out that you had already excavated for the cul-de-
sac prior to the cessation of your construction work.
Page 2
3. We and our residents are very concerned about the noise
from the golf course maintenance area, the dust from vehicles
travelling on the dirt road which used to be a paved road (one-
half of which is Heritage property), and the weeds and trash which
surrounds the golf course and maintenance area. Mr. Resney
committed only to reducing traffic on the dirt road and perhaps
"watering down" the dirt road. It was stated that you did not
have sufficient manpower to deal with the trash and weed problem.
4. The residents are also very concerned about vehicular
noise from the maintenance area. Residents complain about noise
beginning as early as 5:30 a.m. Your representatives stated that
the vehicles aren't "started up" until 6:00 a.m. We believe that
6:00 a.m. is too early of a starting time for these vehicles given
their proximity to the mobilehome park.. We believe that, at a
minimum, the Buie Corporation should consider a later starting
time and other noise reduction measures.
I hope that you can appreciate that we were very disturbed by
these responses from the Buie Corporation. Despite the current
financial and political difficulties described by Mr. Resney, you
continue to fund the golf course maintenance and watering.
Nevertheless, you refuse to devote any resources to the street
repair, completion of the cul-de-sac (not to mention the wall
around the maintenance area) and the weed, trash and noise
issues.
Given this non-cooperative attitude, we are also
understandably concerned about the future of your project and how
it will impact our Park and our residents. We request that the
Buie Corporation reconsider its position on these issues and act
quickly to resolve each of our concernS.
cc:
Walt Lane
Park Managers
Very truly yours,
William
Director of Operations
ITEM
11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
January 28, 1991
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, First Extension of Time
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, and;
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, based on the analysis
and findings contained in the staff report, and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) was originally adopted by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. At that time Planning Areas 38, 40, and 41 were
approved for 803 dwelling units. Planning Area 39 is a commercial parcel.
Specific Plan No. 199, Amended No. 1, was approved by the County Board of Supervisors
on April 5, 1989. At that time the number of dwelling units in Planning Area 41 was reduced
from 234 to 232 units. At the same time the unit count was increased in Planning Area 40
from 221 to 237 units. This raised the total unit count of the three Planning Areas from 803
to 817.
The two Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (Nos. 23372 and 23373) were tentatively approved
by the County Board of Supervisors on October 5, 1988. The total unit count approved was
817. The current extension of time requests reflect the number of units approved under the
original Tentative Map applications and the approved Specific Plan No. 199 Amended No. 1.
S\PLANNING\23372.CC 1
Page 2
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, First Extension of Time
As a matter of public record, a substantial amount of public protest has been received.
Residents in the vicinity of the two projects are opposing the granting of time extensions for
both maps. Several petitions are attached to this report.
However, the project is in conformance with the amended Specific Plan, and the originally
approved Tentative Maps. As a result, Staff's recommendation remains unchanged.
vgw
S\PLANNING\23372. CC 2
fir. Hark Rhoades
City of Temecula
Planning Department
October 1991
Dear Sir,
We, the undersigned, all residents of .the City of Temecula, VIneyard
Development, do to the best of our knowledr, e and belief, own property and
reside within 300 feat of Tentative Tracts 23372 and 23373 within Specific
Plan No. 199 commonly known as rlargarita Y' liege. These Tracts are included
In EA :32547 and EA :32548.
notified of any public hearing on said 2:3:372 or 2:337:3, by
mall, telephone, posted public notice, or by !any means whatsoever Including
publication, on or before October S, 1988, or at any other time thereafter
until October 25, 1991.
We therefore petition the Planning Department of the CIty of Temecula to
deny approval of these, or any extensions of :Ammendment No. I on Tentative
Tracts 2:3:372 and 2:3:373 based upon the following facts:
Amendments were tentatively approved on 5 October 1988, based on
conformonce to conditions approved by the RIverside County Board of
Supervisors on 8 November 1988. This approval was for a period of two
(2) years, pursuant to both RiversIda County and California State Law,
Regulation and codes. The "Conditions of Approval" specifically state that
approval and extensions are subject to County Ordinance, which require
notification to residents In close proximity. That no notice was given,
published or transmitted by any means for either the Amendments of
5 October 1988, or the first extension of 1990.
That the significant Increase in density was done without the required
public notice and debate, and therefore is flawed, due to non-compliance
with Riverside County Law, Codes, and Regulations In effect at the time.
That the various shifts and relocatfons of Land Usa, Development Access,
and Dwelling Unit Density were not subject to the required public debate,
and should therefore be subject to re-examination by both the City of
Temecula Planning Depotmerit, and the residents In proxlm Ity before
praceadl ng further.
We trust that upon examination of the facts stated above, you will agree
that approval of any extension that may, or could lead to Irroverslble action by
the developer is not In the best Interest of your flduclartas, the Citizens of the
City of Temecula. We therefore expect that upon consideration of the requested
extension to Amendment No. I to both Tentative Tract 23372 and 23:373 it will
be firmly and unequivocally rIFNIFI1, allowing for proper re-evaluation of
these two treats end their relationships to other Plenni;g Arm wlthln Speclfl~ ~
Plan No. 199, commonly known as rlargarlta Village,
ADDRESS
PIP. Plark Rhoades
City of Temecula
Planning Department
October 1991
Dear Sir,
We, the undersigned, all residents af the CIty of Temeoula, VIneyard
Development, are willlng to so state under oath, that we were not notified of any
Public hearing on sold Tentative Treats 2;$;3!72 or 2;$;$7;$, by mall, telephone,
posted public notice, or by any means whatsoever including Publication, on or
before October 5, 1988, or at any other time thereafter until October 25,
1991.
We therefore petition the Planning Department of the City of Temeaula to
deny approval of these, or any extensions of Ammendment No. I on Tentative
Tracts 23;$72 and 2;$;$7;$ based upon the following feats:
e
Amendments were tentatively approved .on 5 October 1988, based on
conformance to conditions approved by the RIverside County Board of
Supervisors on 8 November 1988. This approval was for a period of two
(2) years, pursuant to both RIverside County and California State Law,
Regulation and codes. The "Conditions of Approval" specifically state that
approval and extensions are subject to County Ordinance, which require
notification to residents In close proximity. That no notice was given,
published or transmitted by any means for either the Amendments of
S October 1988, or the first extension of 1990.
That the significant Increase In densHy =was done without the required
public notice and debate, and therefore is flawed, due to non-compliance
with Riverside County Law, Codes, and Regulations in effect at the time.
That the various shifts and releaatlons Of Land Use, Development Access,
and Dwelling Unit Density were not subject to the required public debate,
and should therefore be subject to re-examination by both the City of
We trust that upon examination of the feats Stated above, you will agree
;~at approval of any extension that may, or could lead to Irreversible eation by
We therefore expect that upon consideration of the requested
extension to Amendment No. I to both Tentative Treat 2;$;$72 and 2;$;$7;$ It will
be firmly and unequivocally rlFNIFI1, allowing for proper re-evaluation of
these two tracts and thelr relationships to other Plenni.ng Areas wlthln Specific
Plan No. 199, commonly known as Margarita Village.
ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS
Please refer to OnLLnancsSoo-
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab).
c. ~lannina StanderdA
* / Access into Plvnn4rqTXrea-4O'vilIbe~ded-.~,or an
a~s '~d ~ ~e sou~ vhi~ c~c~ ~ v~4.vv~
Parlay.
38 ~d 39 ~0 help se~-~.~4a~ml ~ .~---'.
*E A ma~or recreation and a~t~~..~'-~~-.h..
residents of ~e retime~ c~mi~, A variety of
facilit~es are pla~e~; the cen~er may include
coups, lecture halls sw4--(-2 ~d4,4~
tiff. ' * '
* ~ A ~Jor Xetir~ent Ent~. 1~
1
p a~ed at the ~rance
Call~o~la Road. (Set F~~.-~22'S-~_~.) A
H~noF Re~remtn~ Ent~ landscape trea~en~ ~s pla~ed
alert F-48e? Psr~, (See F~s Ili-24 ~ III-~q )
* ~ S~Jec~ to approval b; ~t FAre ~Xtr and ~e
Depa~ent o~ Bu~ld~ ~~ty, ~4__t, ~/~
~rtlacts shall be
a nx~ or two (2) ~' ~o:.~~~~
ericreagents shall be ~i~td ~ the rron~, s~de or
rear ya~ exctp~ as prov~ ~oc ~n Section 18.19
Ordinance No. 348.2922.
.~Notet Numbers in italics
~~°-- Conformance number 1.
[1 amszded by Substantial
-143-
· FAease-refer to PToJ ect-Wi~e Deal~ am4 Taxtaaal Dave3, .....
-I44 -
4,0,1
b,, Yand USe and Mevelv ..... %ff ,..2e_m,.v~_..yW- -.-
Please refer to O:~4----.- Ma-..34aasL~ (see
Plan zone Ordinance Tab),
coups, lecture h~ ~~ ::'~ dJwJW ~ac~li-
ties, '
~]~J ec~ te approval by ~e F~re ~e~ and
Depa~ent c~ Building and Safety, ch~eys and/or
~replaces shall be allowed to encroach into
a maxim~ of two ( 2 ) feet. No other st~ctural
encroachants shall be p~~ ~ ~ ~_~, side
rear yard excep~ as pr~~ i2 ~. ~~ ~.~
O~in~ce No. 348. 2922.
~e maxim~ ra~io of ~o~ area to lot area shall no~
be ~eater ~an two ~ u, no~ including baseme~
floor area.
Note z Numbers in teal ice
Conformance number 1.
amended by Substantial
-145-
-14 6-
b, r..m,n,,m gee sn~m nevelcn:nnent alf.,,.t.*,,tl...'-
Please refer to 0ca(---~ K~.-.34a.asa~ (see spe~N-
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab).
major recreation and ac~iVit~Fcentarie ~--nvt fix
Village "A" adJacent~m-~:At~a aT-~:~-m.-'~e .:
residues of the r~~.--~ ........ ~- A~of-
facilities are pla~edx ~~~.~4.-~,,4.q '~s
* A Major Retirement Entry landscape treatment is
~nned at ~he entrance to Pl~nnl-gArea.~lon. Exnch~
Depa~en~ of Building a~ Safety, chi~eys and/or
fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach in~o ,idey~
* ~e max~m~ ra~io of floraroe to lot area shall not
be Vrea~er ~an ~wo ~ ~, not ~ncluding basem~
floor area.
Notes Numbers in italics [1 amended by
Conformance number 1.
Substantial
-145-
IrOnram' refer' ~:o Design G'%x,t~*eltnas in
dmaJ.ga--uklatmd
]1
J
November 4, 1991
TIrLrPl"tONr ~
(6~9) a32,,682,8
VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY
Mr. John Hoagland, Chairman
City of Temecula Planning Commission
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Extension of Tentative Map: ~23372 and 23373,
Plannin~ Commission A~enda of November 4, 1991~'?
Dear Chairman Hoagland and Planning Commission Members:
This firm represents Margarita Village Development Company
(MVDC) the owner and developer of the property, involved in the
above tentative map extensions.
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with our
written objections concerning the staff!recommendation to im ose
· . P a package of development
Notwithstanding that the Development Agreement establishes
certain contractual rights and obligations on the City relating to
the property, we believe the City is also~limited by applicable case
law in its authority to impose new conditions to tentative
extensions map
E1 Patio Permanent Rent Control Board [1980] 110
Cal.App. 3d 91%). The holding in ~1 PatiO, when considered with the
Development Agreement, precludes the City~from now imposing new park
fees as a condition of tentative map extension.
The imposition of new fees on '
thzs rroject may result in this
project being unable to proceed with dev lopment.-Furthermore, we
question whether or not the provisions of Government Code § 60000,
Mr. John Hoagland
November 4, 1991
Page 2
et seq. have been met by the City prior to the adoption of the fee
and its imposition on tentative map extensions. We respectfully
reserve the right to further review the application of Government
Code § 66000, et seq. to the fee being proposed.
We ask that your Commission grant the request to extend
Tentative Maps Nos. 23372 and 23373 without the imposition of new
fees.
A representative of MVDC will be present at your hearing in
order to address this issue and to answer any questions you may
have.
Sincerely yours,
Charles R. Gill
MCDONALD, HECHT & SOLBERG
CR /mh
CC:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
James A. Resney
Joseph A. Delaney, Esq.
4
MCDONALD, HECHT
P&IFrNB:Ie$~e~ $N~LUDI~Q
November 4, 1991
VIA PERSONAT. n~T.rV~.Ry
Mr. John Hoagland, Chairman
City of Temecula Planning Commission
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re: Extension of Tentative Map: 23372 and 23373,
Plannina Commission Aaenda o~ November 4. 1991
Dear Chairman Hoagland and Planning Commission Members:
This firm represents Margarita Village Development Company
(MVDC) the owner and developer of the property, involved in the
above tentative map extensions.
The purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with our
written objections concerning the staff recommendation to im ose a
"park fee" as a condition to the extension of the TentativeP~aps.
Tentative Maps 23372 and 23373 are part of a package of develo mint
Development Agreement granted pursuant to state and local law. The
City, as successor to the County, is limited in its authorit to
Notwithstanding that the Development ABTeement establishes
certain contractual rights and obligations on the City relatin to
f P Agreement recl~ t vhe ma
Dev~lo ~ent ' - ~, n considered with the
The imposition of new fees on this project may result in this
project being unable to proceed with development. Furthermore, we
question whether or not the provisions of Government Code S 60000,
Mr. John Hoagland
November 4, 1991
Page 2
et seq. have been met by the City prior to the adoption of the fee
and its imposition on tentative map extensions- We respectfully
reserve the right to further review the application of Government
Code § 66000, et seq. to the fee being!proPosed-
We ask that your Commission grant the request to extend
Tentative Maps Nos. 23372 and 23373 without the imposition of new
fees.
A representative of MVDC will be ;present at your hearing in
order to address this issue and to an;wet any questions you may
have.
Sincerely yours,
Gll~' ~ 2
MCDONALD, HEaT & SOLBERG
CRG/mh
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
James A. Resney
Joseph A. Delaney, Esq,
"11111'"-'
Ii i
!i
r!
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Subject:
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
January 14, 1992
First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
Mark Rhoades
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RI:"FRRM EnvirOnmental Assessment No. 32548 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, and;
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, based on the analysis
and findings contained the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Buie Corporation
Margarita Village Development Company
First Extension of Time for a residential/commercial
subdivision on 29.3 acres with 348 dwelling units
proposed.
Northwest corne~ of Rancho California Road and Kaiser
Parkway.
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
S\STAFFRF~23373VTM.CC 1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Ran 199 (Margarita Village)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
Not requested
Vacant
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Single Family Residential
West: Vacant
Commercial Acreage: 7.5
Total Acreage: 29.3
N0. of Lots: 8
Residential Acreage: 21.8
Proposed Units: 348
Density: 14.8 D.U./AC
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373 is located within the Margarita Village Specific Plan No.
199. The map as tentatively approved by the County of Riverside in November of 1988. The
City of Temocula Planning Commission recommended approval of the First Extension of Time
on November 4, 1991 by a vote of 5-0.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is an applicatior~ to subdivide 29.3 acres of land into
7 condominium lots with 348 units and a 7.5 acre commercial lot. The project is located at
the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. The project includes
Planning Areas 38 and 39 of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199.. The project is
surrounded on the north, south end west sides by vacant land. To the east is an existing
single-family residential tract.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Issues which were raised by the Planning Commission relative to the project included parkland
and erosion control. The lark issue is mitigated as a result of the appropriate condition of
approval for fee layment. Erosion control measures for the proposed project were completed
prior to the item being scheduled for a City Council hearing.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCy
The current SWAP designation for the proposed map is Specific Plan. The project is in
conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 and therefore will likely be consistent with the City's
future adopted General Plan.
S\STAFFRPT~aaTaVTM. CC 2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION :
Riverside County Environmental Assessment No. 32548 was previously adopted for the
proposed project. It is recommended that the City Council re-affirm the previous
environmental assessment.
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 nora 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 projec~ 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
zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
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·
e
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due
to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the
subject site,
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the Negative DeClaration 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 access
points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
S\STAFFRFT~23373VTM.CC 3
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·
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning Areas 38 and 39 Standards, Specific IP!an No. 199 - page 5
Resolution - page 6
*Conditions of Approval - page 12'
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 16
Exhibits - page 17
Development Fee Check UsT - page 18
S%,STAFRqPT'~3373VTM,CC 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING AREAS 38 AND 39 STANDARDS, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
S%STAFFRPT~.3373VTM. CC 5
marEmma af,...3,1&.ZsIa
~lmmi~f. ot 'mk~ ...... smt~J.y IS.~ d.u./s: CDusitT:~au~e. 14-20,
~ DezzxttT.:lesidm,*4-1 .clmrsl~& ,'='cxz evL.,.-~,...LmrC:sI]r 21.8"
ec"r~m-. T~picaI bulldi~g elevations and
guidelines 8ze. depicted in Section ZIT. C.2.
Please refer to Or~-~-~- I~. 3~S-aeaa..CSeeeW,~--
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab )
Plmnni~ St~erds
Access into Pl---t~g Area 38 will be provided fam~ ·
local acceasrc~d~~"~PI~rnv~nV~treas. 3~
A landscaped buffer is planned betweenFl~W-,~gArm
38 and 39 to help
the adjoinlag cornmarcia].-ulea~'
X major recreation and~snn~a~emr.~x pLmn~d- in ':
Village cA" adjacent to P1 Area 37 to serve the ~'
residents of the retirement community. A variety of
facilities are planned~ ~aa, Gen~,erma~ ~-~l~.- ~mzmia.
c~ttr~s, ll~. hal'IS, -swimming, and ~ini~g
facilities.
A Major Retirement ar,~a~) .~ands~mpe trrb, Lma,L'--~f
planned at the entrance to Planning Area 38 on Rancho
California Road. (See Figures III-22 & III-23.) A
Minor Retirement Entry landscape trea~anent is planned
along Kaiser Parkway. (See Figures III-24 & III-25.)
Building height shall. n~t -~--'.3 .stmries,- wi=h .e
~x4~umheight of 40 feet.
SubJec~c to approval b~ the F~re Chief 'and the
Depaz~cmant of Building and Safety, chimneys and/or
fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach into sideyards
a maximum of two (2) feet. No other structural
encrcachments shall be.permitted in the front, side or
rear yard except as provided for in Section 18.19 of
Ordinance No. 348.2922.
-140-
Fiban refer to Pro~~tde Dosloin and Textreal Devel--
opaan~ Standazds 4~ .Secttxer-ZZ,B.Z,, ~or f~z'cher lan~
use standards that. aI~V:L:M. aij:a-vida~.
Please rsZer to Design
desi~n-reZatsd
b. T.m,X,'e ~'2l.jp~ Devl?oQFent ~at~pria-'z',4L
Please refartoOrdfimncmNo.
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab )
348.2922. CSeeBpecL~:L~.
c. P~ Jnn.t na Stmndards
Access into Planning Area 39 may be provided from both
ltancho CalifomtL Reid:..alMrFdAser..--.Ma, k._~z..- '(S~e"
Figu3:e
A landscaped buffer is plmmed b r t....~ .-w Plannin~ Areas
38 and 39 tO help seiMLr~x2a;.t2ba _?emia,m'd't--1 ,~.m~tt~Ezm
the adjoining coisercia~.~-'.
Please refer to Pro~ect'41tda:DexbJmexe-Tex. enaI'Devel~:-
olment Standa~ in B~'~.B,2., r~ ~er land
use st~da~s ~t apply site-vide.
Please ceZe: to .Desiew.e~id~ir~x--in S~ec~'£~n Ill, for
design-related criteria.
--142-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-._
S\STAFFtqPT~Z3373VTM.CC 6
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-._
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23373 TO SUBDIVIDE
29.3 ACRES INTO 7 LOTS WITH 348 GONDOMINIUM UNITS
AND I COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS
PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-
210-014.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 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 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map on January 14, 1992, 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
Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RndlngB.
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 triat 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~3373VTM. CC 7
®
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 Ran 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 and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan.
The City Council 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 First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 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 lecal ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
~$TAFFRFT~3373VTM.CC 8
That the site of the proposed land diviSion is physically suitable for the type of
development.
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development. !
That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems.
That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will
or use of, property within the land division. A land division may be
approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be
provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record
or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Council in approving the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the
City's future General Ran, 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 ~e 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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configuration, ciraulation 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
S%STAFFRPT~3373VTM. CC 9
adverse impacts of the project.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the
current zoning of the subject site.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration 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 access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to
be adequate by the City Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting
street layout are such that they are not~ in conflict with easements for access
through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact
that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by
reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report,
Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 for the subdivision of 29.3 acres into 348 condominium units
and 1 commercial lot located at the northwest corner' of Rancho California Road and Meadows
Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel no. 923-210-014 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
S\STAFFRPT~aa73VTM.CC 10
SECTION 4,
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resollution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day ef January, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
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 14th day of January, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S%STAFF~3373VTIVI. CC 11
ATTACHMENT N0.3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRPT'%23373VTM. CC 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
First Extension of Time
Commission Approval Date: NOvember 4, 1991
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 N0. 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.
e
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the
project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides evidence of
compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars
(~100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development·
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall ..be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meamng of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubmitted for further review.
The Develo;er shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended
and with the Conditions noted below.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
e
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.
S%STAFF!IwT~3373VTM.CC 13
Delete condition no, 15 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September 22,
1988 and replace it with the following:
,!
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department
of Public Works 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.
An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval, The installation shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to 'runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
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.
As deemed necessary by the department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Community Services District
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 any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to
any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
S~STAFFRPT~3373VTM.CC 14
of payment of 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 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. 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 from '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; orovided 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:
10.
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.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public WorkS,
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12.
13.
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works.
A construction area traffic control plan shall bei 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.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
14.
Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 4,07 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460,93 (Quimby), The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recorderion of said map.
15,
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
S%STAFF!qPT~23373VTM.CC 15
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
S%STAFFRPT~3373VTM.CC 16
STAff REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1991
Case No.: Rrst Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the. Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91-__ Recommending that the City Council
APPROVE the First ExtenSion of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23373, contingent Upon the implementation of corrective
grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Buie Corporation
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
Margarita Village Development Company
First Extension of Time for a residential/commercial
subdivision on 30 acres with 348 dwelling units
proposed.
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Kaiser
Parkway.
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
SpeCific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
SpeCific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
S\STAFFtqPT~,3373.VTM
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND
Total Acreage: 30
No. of Lots: 8
Residential Acreage: 23.5
Proposed Units: 348
Density: 14.8 D.U./AC
Commercial Acreage: 7.5
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373 as originally approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on November 8, 1988. The First Extension of Time was filed in October of 1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373 is a portion of Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village.
The Tentative Map includes Planning Areas 38 and 39.
Planning Area 38 is a 7 lot subdivision on 23.5 acres. Three hundred forty eight condominium
units are proposed. The density of the resident project portion will be 14.8 dwelling units per
acre. Planning Area 39 is a 7.5 acre commercial lot. The proposed lot will provide
neighborhood commercial and retail facilities, as identified in the Specific Plan. A plot plan
will be required when development is proposed.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the approved Specific Plan No.
199. The Southwest Area Plan designation for this IX'oject is Specific Plan. It is likely that
this project will be consistent with the future adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 202 was previously adopted by Riverside County for
Specific Plan No. 199. Staff has determined that said EIR still applies to this subdivision.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed in · 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
amen,ties 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
zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
S%STAFFtlaT~3373.V'TM 2
10.
11.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land usa 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. 23373 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 usa of the area, due
to the fact that the proposad project is consistent with the current zoning of the
subject site.
The project as designed and conditionod will not adversaly affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the EIR 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
us.able by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access
points from Kaisar Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented
in the site plan and the project analysis.
Said findings are sul)portod by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval.
S%STAFFRFT~3373.VTM 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commissi,on:
vgw
ADOPT Resolution 91- Recommending that the City
Council APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23373, contingent upon the
implementation of corrective grading and erosion control
measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
the City Council approval, based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval,
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 5
Conditions of Approval - page 10
Staff Report-County of Riverside - page 14
Exhibits - page 15
$\$TAFFRPT~23373.VTM 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-_
S%STAFFRPT'~3373.VTM 5
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 91-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23373-A 8 LOT RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION ON 31 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the Time Extension in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Banning 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
November 4, 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
recomrnllded approval of said Time Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Rndings .
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
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 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.
S\STAFFRP~23373.VTM 6
e
(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 Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
Ae
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
The Planning Commission finds, in appr0ving 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:
'A.
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 recommending approval of the proposed Time
Extension, makes the fallowing findings; to wit:
(1)
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.
S%STAFFRPT%23373.VTIVI 7
(2)
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.
(3)
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 zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
(4)
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.
(5)
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.
(6)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property
because it does not represent a significant change to the present or
planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project
is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site.
(7)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due
to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the
project's Conditions of Approval.
(8)
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 access points from Kaiser Parkway which
have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer.
(9)
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.
(10)
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and
environmental documents associated with is application and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the
attached Staff Report, Exhibits, 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.
S\STAFFRPT~23373.VTM 8
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission= hereby determines that the previous
environmental determination Adoption of EIR No. 202 still applies to said Tract Map
(Extension of Time).
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 for an 8 Lot
residential and commercial subdivision on 30 acres;and known as a portion of Assessor's
Parcel No. 923-210-014 subject to the following conditions:
1. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
BASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
- , CHAIRMAN
...... J HEhEBY 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 4th
day of November 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
S%STAFFRFT~23373,VTM 9
ATTACHMENT N0. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRPl~23373,VTM 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
First 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.
No building permits shell 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) par lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works,
It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubmitted for further review.
The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of ApprOval as previously imposed or amended
and with the Conditions noted below,
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
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.
S~STAFFRFr~23373,VTM 11
Delete condition no. 15 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September 22,
1988 and replace it with the following:
Prior to recordat,on of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department
of Public Works 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.
An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The installation shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The f:harge 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.
As deemed necessary by the department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Community Services District
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 any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to
any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
of payment of 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.
$\STAFFRPT~3373.VTM 12
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. 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 from 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; nrovided 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:
10.
Construct full street improvements including I~ut not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12,
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works.
13.
A construction area traffic control plan shall bel 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.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
14.
Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 4,07 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
15.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
S%STAFFtqPT%23373.VTM 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT- COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
S\STAFFNrr'~3373-VTM 14
,~i,,q. qt 'r'- 'R 9
DATE: November 23, 1988
TE:ITATIVE TP~CT HA~ JO, 23373 A~,d. 1
E, A. NLNBER: 32548' '
REGIONAL TEA~ NO, specific Plans meam
Dear Appltcant:
The, Riverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the followin actt
referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of ttovember i) 9
x APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions.
cn the abo
· . DENIED tentative map based m attached findings..
Thetract, map has..been found to be creststent with _all pertinent elements of. t
Riverside_ Cajnty General. Plan.. and is'-tn ccmpltance'wtth the California Environment
qUality Act of 1970. · i*-Jest will' not have! m. significant effect on the envtranme
and a Negative Oeclara len has dopted..
per od of tim a ftna '. ' a proVe~ f th the County RecUrde
Prio~. to: the exptratim d '. . p" g for. an. exten~.
one 5ear and upon further ap
RG :mp '
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. 'PLANNING DEPARTH ENT
.- Roger-S. Streeter. Planning. DirectOr
Ron Goldman, Principal Planner
FILE- WHzTE
APPLICANT- CANARY
ENGINEER- P;NK
:95-39 (.~v. tO/a3)
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
48-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 3c
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 922C
(619) 342-82;
FROM: Planntng Department SUBMITtAL DATE: November 8, 1988
·
SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE and TENTATIVE TRACTS locat'ed ~n the
Margartta Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. l) - First
and Third Supervtsortal Districts - Rancho California Iontrig Area.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
· Receive and Fill the Planning Con~tssto. action of 9-28-88 and
10-5-88 for
Vesting Tentat1 · Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 ,,
APPROVAL of 1, 23373Amend~:~ Nd. 1, 23470 and 23471 and *Tracts
Amended No. .
22915, 22916, 23100 AmendedNo;' 1, 2310~ 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. 1. ,
*. ·
:' ' ': Og~ ~rec
RS ·
,* '~ R Streeter, Planning tot
t '
,,
F~
Prey. Agn. reL
Depts. Comments
Dist.
AGEND,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988
(AGENDA ITD1S 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE I - TAPE 6, SIDE 1)
VESTING TRACT NAP 23373 AHENOED NO. 1 - EA 32548 - Hargartta Village
Oevelopment Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial
Districts - south of Pancho California Rd west of Kaiser Parkway - 348
units - 31~ acres - P 199 Zone. Schedul~ A S
VESTING TRACT HAP 23371AHENDED NO. I - EA 32546 - Hargartta Village
Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial
Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, east of Hargartta Rd - 1183 units -
398t acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT 23372 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32547 - Margarita Village Development
Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisortal Districts - north
of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 469 units on 66 lots - 44~
acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32548, EA
32546, and EA 32547, approval of Yesttng T!ractHaps 23373 Amended No, 1, 23371
Amended No. I and 23372 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions.
Ms. Gifford also recommended approval of a waiver of the length to width ratio
for Vesting Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. The subject tract maps were located
within Village A of the Margartta Village Specific Plan, and would create 1763
residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract
maps to be consistent with the adopted specific plan. Ms. Gtfford recommende/''~
several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purvtance asked
about a fiscal tmpact report, and was tnformed this report had been furnished
recently for Amendment No. I to the speclftc plan.
Jim Resney, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the development,
advising they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement cormunity
which tncluded a championship golf course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse
facility tn the center of the project. He then referred to Condition 33(f)
for all three tract maps, which required front yards to be provtded with
landscaping and automatic trrigaiton, and requested that thts requirement
deleted for larger lots, as it was his opinion that these homeowners would
prefer to do their o~m landscaping, The CC&Rs would require the to comply
wtth specific standards. Mr. Resney requested that this condition be amended
by addtrig to the end "or shall be installed within 75 dly$ after close of
escrow as provided in the CC&!ts in the 45x100 square foot lot areas".
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Hap 23371 and Condition 14 for the
other two tract maps required a debris retention wall where block walls were
required at the top of slopes. Mr. Resney requested that this condttlon be
amended by addtrig: "If applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Road Commissioner that a lqaster Homeowners Association or other anttry wtll
satisfactorily maintatn the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, at his optton,
waive this requirement of a debris retention wall." He thought that if they
could convince the Road Commissioner that there would be no silting problems
and that the slopes would be maintained, the debris retention wall would not
53
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988
be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt tt would be better not to have the
small wall.
Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and Condition 15 for the other
two tract maps related to the minimum 30 foot garage setback from face of
curb. Hr. Resney felt this condition conflicted with the specific plan
develo ment standards which allowed 16 foot driveways with roll up doors,
setbac~ either from the back of curb or the!back of sidewalk. He would prefer
to have the specific plan standards applted~ but requested that the hearings
not be continued.
Lee Johnson advtsed the slump wall delineated in Road Department Condition 21
was a wall they had been requiring for the past three or four years when the
Planning Department required a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on
the size of the slope, the Road Department Design Engineer could require a two
block high wall at the property line to keep the debris washing down the slope
from crossing the sidewalk. TheY would be willing to consider any other
alternative the developer might suggest, as:long as it accomplished the
purpose of this condition, He requested that' this condition be retained,
Commissioner Donehoe asked whether adding tO the end "or as approved by the
Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provide an
alternative plan, and Mr, Johnson agreed that it would,
Mr, Johnson advised the garage setback required by Road Department Condition
22 for Tract 23371 (Condition 15 for Tracts 23372 and 23373) was the minimum
setback required by Ordinance 460, He had read the language requested by the
applicant, but would prefer to retain the c: ndttton as originally proposed in
the Road Department letter, Mr, Resney expVatned they had been discussing the
posSIbility of providing a 4 foot sidewalk, and would like to have a 24 foot
2 foot setback reqUired by this condition. However,
setback rather than the 6
if the Road Department preferred the e~tsttng language, they would accept it.
Mr. Johnson advised the condition would not; alter ~he width of the sidewalk in
any way.
Co~etsstoner Beadling referred t~. Resney's request ~hat front yard land-
scaping and Irrigation not .be required for !the la er lots, and stated she
felt they should be requtred for all lots. ! Fir. ~orldman requested.that the
condition be ratatried as originally wrttten. ~
There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m.
FINDZNGS AND CONCLUSZONS: Vesttng Tentative Tract Naps 23371 Amended No. 1,
23372 Amended No. 1 and 23373 Amended No. 1 are located wtthtn Vtllage A of
the Margarita Village Specific Plan (No. lg9); the three tract maps wtll
provide 1763 dwelling units and a golf course on 254.acres; Tract 23372
Amended No. 1 has been condtttoned with the specific plan's condition of
approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts
have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan I99, Change of Zone Case
5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a waiver of the lot length to width
ratio will be needed for Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All
environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, Z02, and the initial
54
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988
studtes for these tract maps, and no significant tmpacts have been found; the--
tract ma s are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by
CGPA 1501, Change of Zone Case 5107, and $peclfic Plan 199 Amendment No. 12
and confom to the requirements of Ordinances 460 and 348. The proposed
project will not have e significant effect on the environment.
HOTION: Upon motto, by ComBtssloner D~nahOe, seconded by Commissioner Bresson
and unanimously carrtecl, the Cowmission adopted t.~e negative declarations for
3
EA 2546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, and approyed Vesting Tentative Tract Maps
23371 Amended No. Z w~th a ~aiver of the lot length to width ratio, 23372
Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions
amended as lollors, based on the above findings and conclusions and the
recoanendattons of staff.
Tract No. 23371
9 -Amend to reflect the September 30, 1988 Road Department letter.
23(~) and 23(3) - Amend to requtre the d'veloper to comply wtth the parkway
. landscaping requirements as shown tn Specific Plan No..199
Amended No. 1 unless m~tntenance ts provtded by a
homeowners association or other public entity.
25 - Delete the last sentence ("The fine1 nip for Vesting Tract 23371 shall
show the park as a'numbered Tot").
33(c) - Roof-eounted mechanical equtpmen~ shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, except for the clubhouse whtch may have screened
equipment as approved by the PTanntng Department; however, solar
equipment or any other ener saving devices shall be permitted wtth
PTanning Department approvaF. '
Condition 34(a) for Tracts 3371, 23372, aed 33(a) for Tract 23373
Add 'and my be phased-wt~ the project*; (to clartfy that walls may be
phased wtth the development of the tract.
Condition 33(d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372, and 32(d) for Tract 23373
Butldtng separation between all buildings Including fireplaces shall not be
less than ten fat unTlss approved by th~ Department'of Butldtng and Safety
and'the FIre Department per $pectftc PTan 199 Amended No. 1.
34(e) for Tracts 23371° 23372 and 33(e) for Tract 23373 - Delete
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373
Add to the end 'or as approved by the Road Department"
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
(AGENDA ZTEH 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SIDE 1 - TAP 1 SIDE ~) v
TRACT MAP 23100 AHENDED NO. 1 - EA 32318 - ~ar)boroug De . Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 291 lots - 122.5,
acres -'R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A
TRACT MAP 23101 - EA 32533 - Narlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Thlrd Supervisortel Districts - east
of Kaiser Pkwy, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87, acres -
SP/R-2-6000 Zones. Schedule A
.:
TRACT HAP 23102 - EA 32534 - Narlborough DeV. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisortel Districts - north
of La Serene Way, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4, acres -
SP/R-1 Zones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 23103 AHENDED NO. I - EA 32535 - irlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisortel Districts - west
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 18 lots - 29, acres -
SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 9:49 a.m. and closed at 10:08 a.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32318,
32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Naps 23100 Amended
No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I with a waiver of the lot length
to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps
were located within Village B of the F~rgarita Village Specific Plan, and
would divide the 254 acres into 6OS residential lots. Staff had found the
tract maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, Specific Plan
199 Amendment No. 1, and the zoning which had been applied to the specific
plan through Change of Zone Case 5107. Hs. Gtfford recommended several
changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relating to requirements for
maintenance of the open space areas, park requirements, useable yard areas-,
and fencing requirements. fir. Klotz suggested modifying the last condition
for each tract map by beginning with the phrase 'Development of the'.
Commissioner Bresson requested that change be made throughout to refer to
either "public use trails" or "recreational tratls" instead of ~"equestrian
trails"; he felt these terms would more accurately describe their use.
Berry Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as
amended. It was his understanding that in'the event any portion of the
development agreement was held to be invalid (for any reason), the conditions
requiring compliance with that agreement would be null and*void; this was
confirmed by County Counsel,
There was no further testimony, and the hearings were closed at 10:08 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Naps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101,
23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 are located wit,in Village B of the Margarita
RIVERSIOE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION MINUTES SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
Vtllage Specific Plan; the four tract maps would dtvtde the 254 acres into 605
residential lots; the tract mps have been condittoned tn accordance wtth the
specific plan's conditions of approval to mttlgate tmpacts on the Stephens
Kangaroo Rat; the tract maps have been cond~ttoned to comply wtth Spectftc
Plan 199 Amendment NO. 1, Change of Zone CaSe 5107, and Development A reamant
No. 5; a waiver for the lot length to ~ddth: ratio wtll be needed for ~ract
23103 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed tn EZR
107, EZR 202, and the tn~ttal studies for these tract maps, and no significant
tmpacts have been found; the tract maps are'consistent with the Comprehensive
confom to the
requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. The proposed projects will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
NOTZON:. Upon motion by Commissioner aresson, seconded by Conantssloner
Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commt ston adopted the negative
declarations for EA 32318, EA 32533, EA32~4 and EA 32535, and approved"
Tentative Tract Paps 23100Amended NO. Z, 2310t, 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. 1 wttha waiver of the lot length to wtdth ratio, subject to the proposed
conditions, mended as lolloNe, based on the above findings and conclusions
and the recumendattons of staff.
Tract Nap 23100 Amended No. 1
Amend to confom to Candttton 24 (toiprovtde for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a COunty Service Area or a Homeowners
Association).
Prior to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts for 160 untts on Tract
23100, the perk area shall be developed per Spectftc Plan No. Amended
No. 1.
24. Replace vtth the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the co,,,on pan space area by either a County Servtce
Area or Homeowners Assoctalton. ; ·
37(b) kill and/or fence locations shall Substantially conform to attached
Figure [Zi-28 of Specific Plan NO.':lg9 Amendment No. 1.
38. The develo;aent of Tentative Tract NO. 23100Amended No. I shall
comply ~dth all provisions of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and
hveloFment Agreement No. 5
Tract Hap 23101
17(h) Rear yards and useable side yards Shall ha~e an average fiat area of
2000 square feet.
Amend to confom to Condition 24 (toprovtde for maintenance of the
com....-~n open space area by etaher a COunty Service Area or a Homeowners
Association).
3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION MINUTES SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
3e
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract
23101, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Nn. ended
No. 1.
24. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service
Area or Homeowners Association.
37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached
Figure II1-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
The development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall compl with all
rovtstons of Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No, I and ~evelopment
~greement No, 5
Tract Pap 23102
Amend to conform~th Condition 33 (to provide for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a County Servtce Area or a Homeowners
Association. ,
35(b)
33, Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service
Area or Homeowners Association.
Wall and/or fence locations shall Substantially confom to attached
Figure IIX-28 of Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1,
36, The development of Tentative Tract NO. 23102 shall comply with all
rovtstons of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No, i and Development
~greement No, 5
Tract Pap 23103 Amended No. 1
21. Amend to confom to Condition 22 (to~ provide for maintenance of the
common open. space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners
t
Assoctat on.
22. Replace with the standard alternattv~ condition providing for
maintenance*of the cumon open space area by either a County Service
Area or Homeowners Association.
34(a) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached
Figure IZZ-28 of Specific Plan No,; 199 Amendment No, 1,
35. The development of Tentative Tract No, 23103 Amended No, I shall
comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No, I and
Development Agreement No, 5
4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
(AGENDA ITENS 1-3 AND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE 1 - TAPE 1, SIDE 1)
TRACT HAP 22916 - EA 32505 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California
Area - First Supervisortal District - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfield
Stage Rd - 259 lots - 103.3~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
TRACT IqAP 22915 - EA 32504 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California
Area - First Supervtsortal District - south of Rancho Vista Rd, west of
Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 lots - 91.5~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT HAP 23471 - EA 32518 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho
California Area - First Supervtsortal District - south of Rancho California
Rd, west of Kaiser Pk-wy - 155 lots - 44~ acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT HAP 23470 - EA 32517 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho
California Area - First Supervtsortal District - north of Rancho Vista Rd,
west of Kaiser Pkwy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Schedule A
The hearings wen opened at 10:10 a.m. and closed at 11:10 a.m.
STAFF RECa~ENDATXON: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32517, EA
32518, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approval of Tentative Tract Haps 22915 and
22916, and Yesring Tentative Tract Haps 23470 and 23471 subject to the
.froposed conditions, and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio for all
our tract maps. These four tract maps were located in Village C of Specific
Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential
lots, provide a 10 acre school site, a 5 acre park site and 3 tot lots. Staff_,
had found the proposed maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General
Plan, the adopted specific plan, and the zoning which had been applied to the
property through Chart · of Zone Case 5107. Hs. Gtfford recommended several
changes to the conditions of approval; these changes related to the minimum
lot size, lot length to width ratio requirements, park requirements,
landscaping/irrigation requirements, and a requirement for development of the
tract maps in accordance with the adopted specific plan and approved
development agreement.
Commissioner Beadltng questioned HS. Gtfford's recommendation for deletion of
the conditions for Tract Naps 23470, 22915 and 22916 requiring landscaping and
irrigation. Its. Gtfford explained these three tentative maps roposed minimum
7200 squar~ font lots and the County did not normally require Vandscaptng and
irrigation for lots of this size. Nr. Streeter felt this condition could be
retained, as it ms County policy to require landscaping and irrigation for
7200 square foot lots in the Rancho California area.
Robert Kteble, representing the applicant, advised they would prefer not to
provide the front yard landscaping and irrigation, and requested that the
· condition be deleted. Commissioner Beadling asked whether Hr. Ktmble had seen
the letter submitted by )~. and Mrs. Pipher objecting to the density proposed
in the area adjacent to their estate type hCxnes. At her request, Hr. Ktmble
located Mr. Ptpher's subdivision which was next to Rancho Vista Road. They
were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for this
area. Ms. Gifford advised the tract n,~p was a refiling of a previously
5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PL~,NNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
approved map, and there was no change in the density; the proposed tract map
was within the density range allowed by the !specific plan. Commissioner
Beadling quoted from the letter, which requested that the density be reduced
to the density originally proposed by the specific plan. She wanted to know
and was informed t ere been change in the
what this density was, h had no
density.
Hr. Ktmble requested that Condition 4 of the Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter
for Tract 23471 be deleted. This condition ,required maintenance ramps in the
Long Canyon Channel; these ramps were not needed because the had dest ned
this channel for their underlying map with 4:1 slopes. Fir. [otz agree3 to the
deletion of this condition. Fir. Ktmble then requested that Road Department
Condition 26 for Tract 22915 and Condition 28 for Tract .22916 be amended by
adding to the end 'or as approved by the Road Connisstoner'; Fir. johnson
agreed to this change for both tract maps.
Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and
developed prior to the issuance of building permits for 150 units, and Mr.
Kimble requested that this condition be amended to require the ark prior to
the issuance of occupancy for the 25gth lot. Providing the fully improved
park prior to 150 units would be a burden tO the developer. )is. Gtfford
advised Fir. Ktmble's request would delay completion of the park unttl after
the entire tract had been completed; staff felt 150 units would afford the
applicant an opportunity to build some unitS, and at that point the improve-
ments could be tied into road improvements. The park would also be useful for
1
the tract to the north, which was being dave oped by the same developer.
Mr. Ktmble requested clarification of the new condition staff had sug ested
for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r.
Goldman explained this condition referred back to the specific plan condi-
tions, which required elther a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department
of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply with the Countywide program
being established 'by Riverside County.
Robert Oudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was actively
tnvolved with the task force appointed by l~be Board of Supervisors regarding
the Stephens Kangaroo Rat program. There Was no set pro ram at the present
time, and he wanted to know whether they would be ch(mrg~ the $750 per lot
ing pe~mtts within the next few-wa:~.' Hr~ Klotz explained ~e Board had:;
generally endorsed the concept of having a ~developor make a deposit of $7
per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted;
this would allow the pro;lect to go forward, He felt this option would be
available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily the
ulttmate fee, but was on1 a security to be deposited aValnst the ultimate
mitigation fee. This explanation satisfied Fir. Dudonay s concerns.
Mr. Kfmble advised it was their understanding that in the event Development
Agreement No. 5 should be held invalid at Some time in the future, the
approval of the four tract maps w~u!~ still st=-nd, but the condition for
6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEHBER 28, I988
compliance ylth the develorment a reamant would be null and void. ~. ~otz
advised this was explicitly provided within the develoj~nent agreement.
OPPONENTS: ~
Bob Ptpher, 4%825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advised the development in which
he 11ved (knom as Green Tree) contained approxt~.tely 96 acres and he and his
wife owned approximately one-third of thts iproperty, They had submitted the
letter requesting that the portions of the :sub3ect tract maps adjacent to
their area be reclutred to create lots stmtliar. in size. Mr. Ptpher had a map
of the Pargartta Village Specific Plan dated Hatch 30, Z986, which showed the
density in this area to be approximately half of the denstry currently
~roposed. Hr. Pipher advised this was an equestrian area, and people restdtng
n the area needed rtdtng tratls. He requested a connecting tratl from Pauba
to Rancho Vista along the boundary between their subdivision and the subject
development or along Katser Parbay; thts NOuld provtde an additional
landscaped buffer area.
Hr. Pipher advised they had no problem with the proposed school site, but felt
the circulation system proposed to serve the school was inadequate. In his
opinion, Street "B" should be extended to Kaiser Parkway; this would then
~rovtde access to both the school stte and the park from Kaiser Parkway. At
he present time that·was a steady f'low of traffic, and providing an access
to the park site and school from Kaiser Parkway would help everyone in the
area, in addttton to making the park more accessible. Because of the traffic
on Katser Parkway, Mr, Pt her thought tt would be difficult for people 11vtng
on the other side to reacrt the park. He therefore suggested that one or two
parks be requtred on the other stde of Katser Parkway, to benefit residents in
that area.
Mr. Pipher requested a solid wall along the bound· between their development
and the subject project. The people restdtng in thrills area were requesting a
buffer, and would appreciate anythtng the Commtsstbners could do to help ..
them, In answer to · question by Cmetsstoner Bresson, Mr, Pt her advised
there was no street between the area he was= representing and ~e subject stte;
the lots from the subject tract map were baCktng up against the lots in his
subdivision.
When Hr. tipher agatn requested equestrian tratls, Ms. Gtfford brte~y
revtewed the proposed ire11 system, which tncluded· ira11 along Roncho
California Road, going up the Katser Parkwa and Sell) easement; no trails ware
proposed in the southern area as requested ~y Hr. Ptpher. Commissioner
Bresson requested that these tratls be designated as publlc access or
recreational trails instead of equestrian .trails. Mr. Burnell advised that an
equestrian ira11 had been established all along Paubq Road, going east and
easement going by the
to Kaiser Parkway. The residents of the Green Tree area could use the trail
along Pauba which connected to the ira11 along Green Tree Lane. This was a
regional tr~tl system, established under the direction or the Parks
Department.
7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
Co~nisstoner Bresson requested information on the type of buffer to be
provided. Mr. Burnell advised there would be masonry walls in the area north
and south of Rancho Vista Road; he thought this would satisfy Mr. Ptpher's
concerns. Mr. Burnell advised the Margarita Village Specific Plan had
originally been approve with a slightly higher density in this area. ?hey
had added land with the amended specific pla but had not changed densities in
the area of the subject tract maps. The exhibit presented by Mr. Pipher was a
conceptual exhibit prepared by the engineer for internal use only and had
never been presented to the County.
Mr. Ktmble responded to Mr. Ptpher's request for an additional park on the
other side of Kaiser Parkway, by advising CoSrain Homes was providing a park
planned for Tract 22715 to the north; they re planning to upgrade both parks
over and above the requirements of the spect~tc plan.
Commissioner Donehoe asked whether staff was recoanendtng that acondttton be
added to require the wall as a buffer between the subject tract maps and the
area represented by Mr. Pipher, and was informed this was a condition of the
specific plan.
Lee Johnson referred to Mr. Plpher's sug estton that 'B' Street be extended to
Kaiser Parkway, and advised both he and a;hn.JOhnson (Transportation Planning
Section of the Road Oepartment) felt this was an excellent recommendation.
CIrculation in this area might be improved by making this connection rather
than having the school served by a cul-de-saC street. This would also give
both the school and the park stte access from a 66 foot wide street. When
Commissioner Bresson asked whether this could be accomplished without
redosigning the map, Mr. Johnson replied he felt the map would have to be
amended. t(r. Streeter felt this provide a mulch better access.
Commissioner Beadltng felt that a long cul-de-sac street going into a school
was poor planntng as it required the cars and school busses bringing in
chtldren to wrap ;round and come back out the~ same way. Extending the street
would allow the vehtcles to drop off the chtldren and go out a different way.
Commissioner Bresson was concerned about creating a 4-way intersection, and
Mr. Johnson agreed that e 3-way tn'tersectlon created les~ problems. However,
he stt11 felt that providing access to Kaiser Parkway would result in better
circulation service to the school site. ~
Mr. Burnell did not feel it was necessary to extend "B' Street to Kaiser Park-
way in order to provide adequate circulation for the school. He was concerned
that the change in the roadway might cause problems with regard to the sewer
llnes. Mr. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-way intersection at Kaiser
Parkway; he felt retaining the existing 3-way intersection would provide an
overall better circulation systm for residents of the area. C~mntsstoner
Bresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because ttwould not encourage through
traffic along the school site. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there would be
less opportunity to eventually obtain signaltZatton for a 3-way intersection
than for a 4-way intersection.
PLd NNiN
TO: Assessor
lutldtng eed 5afe~
Surveyor - Dave Dude
.... Road Departaerie
liealth - Ralph Laths
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
LAFCO,
S Paisley
U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Ihvtdson
,lEEIm~m ~
JUH 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNIN0 DEPARTMENT
$hertff's Department
Airports Departaent
UCR, Life Science 0apt,, V,ll, Kayhew
GROFIT ' ' '
(astern Municipal Water Dtst.
Rancho"Caltfornfe IA~r O4st.
Elstnore Unton $chool Dial.
Tametale Union $chool Dtst.
Sierra Club, SIn Gorgonto Chapter
CAt.TPJ~ #8
VESTING TRACT 23373 - Cap Pl) - E.A.
3ZS48 -PAr arSta Villa e Development
- Robert Be~n, Yt111am ~rost a AssOc..
Rancho California Area - First
Supervisortel District - X. of Rancho
California Road, V, of Kaiser Parkway
R-It Zone - Z8 ACres 348 Condomtntum un
- (RELATED CASE TR 23371 & 23372) Hod
- A.P, 923-210-023
Please revted the case described above, along with the attache case map. A Land
Dtvfston Comettee meeting has been tentathtTy scheduled for June 20, 1988. If *"T
tt will then 9o to public heartrig.
Your ce~nents and recemmendatlo~s are requested prior to June S, 1988 tn order that
fnclude thm In the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this teem, please do not hesitate to contact
Kathy. Gtfrord at 787-6356
Planner
DATE: SIGHATUR~
PLEASE print name and tttle
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREFT, F
INOtO, CALIFORNIA
(619) 342-82
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COH)MISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
Mr. Klmble advised they had met with the school district and showed them the
tentative map; they were pleased with the conft uration of the school site as
well as the proposed street system. Mr. Burnell advised their original design
showed the school/park site.adjacent Kaiser Parkway, and the school district
had objected to this plan because they did net want the children adjacent to a
major street. Commissioner Bresson supported the tract map as currently'
designed, as it was satisfactory to the school district.
There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 11:10 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract~ps 22915, and 22916, and Vesting
Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 are located within Vtllage C of Specific Plan 199
Amendment No. I (the ~rgarita Village Specific Plan)i the four tract maps
would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lotsl design manuals have
been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 234711 the tract maps
have been condtttoned to comply with Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change
of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a waiver for the lot
length to width ratio wtll be needed for all four maps. All environmental
concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for
these tract maps, and no significant impacts :v~re found; the tract maps are
consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan
Amendment 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. I and Chan of Zone Case
510~; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 an~e460.
MOTION: Upon motion b Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Comtssioner
Beadling and unanimously cartted, the Commtssilon adopted the negative
declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved
Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 32470 and 23471,
all with a waiver of the lot length to width ratto, subject to the proposed
conditions and based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommenda-
tions of staff.
Tract No. 23470
17(a) - All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net.
17(b) - Delete entirely
20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units, one tot lot
shall be improved and fully developed.
21 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 275 units, the second
tot lot shall be improved and fully developed.
27 - Prior to the issuance of building pemtts (balance to remain the same)
35 - The development of Vestin Tentative Tract MaP 23470 shall comply with
its Design Manual, with aV1 provisions of Specific Plan No. 199
Amendment No. I and with Development Agreement No. 5
Tract )I~. 23471
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONNISSION MINUTES SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy remits for 200 units, one tot lot
shall be improved and fully developed.
26 -Prtor to the tssuance of butldlng peruits (balance to remain the-same)
32(f) - All front yards shall be provided vrlth landscaping and manually
n
operated, panna ant underground irrigation.
Flood Control Condition 4 - Delete enttrely
35 - The development of Vesttng Tentative Tract Hap 23471 shell comply ~ith
tts Des1 Hanual, with all provtstQns of Spectfic Plan No. 199
Amendmen~No. I and with Developmenl~ Agreement No. 5
Delete Condition 4 of the flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988.
Tract No. 22915
24 - Prior to the tssuance of butldtng pemtts (balance to rematn the same)
32 - The developm~_nt of Tentative Tract Hap 22915 shell comply wtth all
provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 :Amendment No, I and Development
Agreement No. 5
Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Commtsstoner".
Tract No. 22916
2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratto.
20 - Prior to the issuance of occupanc pemfts for 150 units in Tentathe
Tract 22916, the park shall be ~;~ly tmproved and developed.
25 -Prtor to the tssuance of bbtldtng permits (balance to'remain the same)
3Z - The develoment of Tentative Tract Hap 23916 shell comply with all
~rovtstons of SpeCtftc Plan No. i99 Amendment No. I end Development
greement lie. S
33 - Prior to issuance of grading permtts~, impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo
Rat Habitat shall be etttgatod per the spectftc plan conditions of
approval,
Road Department Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Commissioner".
10
Zoning Area: Rancho Cal¶fornta Vesting Tentative Tract Nos.: 23371 Amd.
Supervtsortal DIstrict: Ftrst and ~, 1, 2337Z hnd. 7
No, 1o 233 3 Md, ~. 1
E.A. ~s: ~546. 32547. 3Z~ t Z 5-4
SNctftc Phn ~ctton
IIVEBIDE ..a~~l~X~Z~l; DEPARllERT
1. ~plfcant: - NsrgarSta Vtllage Developen. t Co.
" 2. Engineer: Rtck Engfneerfng Campany =
,,- 3.-;Type of Request: -' The 3 tracts w111 subdhfde 47Z acres
,..',.= .....:..;::::;;:~..~': .,..:-. ..... ..---..' '. ,nto 1763 r!stdentt.1 units ..
'~':'~"~!':~.:~,.~.~-,;'-..: 4:~.:~ L~c~t1:on:~'::-.. ~:.:..,.'."~ *~-:.'.' :~-:~':...."-'i:.~-:~';' East'Of ~ aHta Road, '~orth: of:..'~-'Rancho
.: ,.:.,,.,-..: ., ...,.... ..;.: : .. .:.-:.:.. :::.....:.:.-::,:,,;:....-.
L .-.
'-',; ~r:~.~.o':'~ S~-~' [xtsttng 'Zon? ng~' '
· .! . .. -,'.:
"~"~!";':" Surrounding Zontng:
~ 7." Sf~e I~aracterlstlcs:
0
~ 8. Area I~aracterSst?cs:
R-R.'~'(l~ange.:.'6f .. Zone S107 heard'by the !,.-":
Board! of S~porv?sors an 9-13-88 proposes "
S~ 199 And. No. I zoning)..
R-R. R-Z; Zoning to t~e sout~ ts
R-R
Vacant land traversed wt~ lw htlls
Located on eastern edge of Rancho
CaltfOrnia comunit~
;;.'::'-~.:':-'~ ,~' ~0 ~' 9~:~..:.:-..C~mprehensive Genera, 1 'Plan ~7 ::i ;. :':: :"":' Rancho Vfilagu (General Plan Amendment
~ ~ ' :"~ , -, ~ No. 150 ' proposes I e~:~eral' plan
c]. ' ·
< P No, 199
10., Land Divtston iMta:
des1 natto'n of $pectftc
Ame~ni~n-n:nt No, 1) .. ·
· "" Vesttrig' Tract Acreage
':*.., ,, ,-,. , 233TL' knd.. IIo. 1.
2337~ kd.' No.'1 .*'
23373 Md. No. I
394
37
3t
Units
23R:
,348
. !XnsttX (Ou/Ac)
3
tl
Agency Receenendattons:
23371 Amd. NO. I
23372 Amd. No. I 23373 Amd. NO. I
Road 9-22-88 3-22-88 9-22-88
Heal th 7-2 5-88 9-7-88 7-25-88
F]ood 7-22-88 7-22-88 7-22-88
F t re 8-17-88 8-17-88 8-17-88
Shertff 6-10-88 · 6-10-88 6-10-88
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Influence
Influence
None recetved as of this vTttlng
Not wtthfn a CIty sphere
ANALYSIS:
VestingTentative Tract Nos. 23371Amd. No. 1, 23372 Amd. No. 1, and 23373 Amd.
No. I tmplemnt Wtllage as a planned retirement comuntty tn the HargarIta
. f
Vtllage Spectflc Plan ($P 199 Amd. NO. 1) :Spect tc Plan No. 199 Amendment NO.
1, Change of Zone No. 5107, General Plan Amendment No. 150 and Development
Agreement No. 5 were heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1988.
Then tracts have been destgned to be consistent with these documents.
The table below sumartze the tracts' relationship and consistency vith the
Spectftc Plan's planntng areas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the
pemttted number of residential units.
Ca4PARISOII OF TRACT HI) SPECIFIC PLAN DMTLLXNG UNITS
Tract No. Pro_posed Spectftc Plan
No. of Untts Area
vl'r 23372 And. No. 1
vl'r 23372 kl. No. 1
VTT 23373 Md. No. I
1183
232
348
Permitted
No. of Untts
3347, 42-45 1197
41 234'
38 348
A destgn mnuel has been prepared for all'three vesttrig maps whtch provtdes
guidelines for landscaping, floor lens, elevations and zontng. Acoustical
studtes have bee pro sad and vllV be tmplmented as required by the .
concltttons of ap rova~. Mttlgatton for potential tmpacts to fit. Palomit are
also Included tn ~e conditions of approval. Mdtttonal evaluation found no
cultural resources onstte.
Vesttrig Tentative Tract 23371, Amended No. 1 InclUdes an 18 hole golf course.
As also required by the speclftc plan conditions, the tract has been
condtttoned to Improve the park tn Planntng &red 45. Zn conromance wtth the
spectftc plan Vesttng Tentative Tract 23372, Mended No. ~* has been condt~.ioned
for mitigation of tWtcts M ~e Stephens ~ngar~ ~t.
Zt should ~ ~ted ~at ~e ~er of untts for ~ng~gate ure are on estt~te
a~ wtll ~ revte~d it the develo~nt plan s~ge.
Envf~n~l uses~nts ~ve ~en pre~r~ ~ all ~re tracts.
Envlromntd t~ac~ ~ assess~ tn EZR ~07 ind EZR 202 prepar~ for the
R/ncho Vtllage ~ecSftc Plan ~d ~e ~rgarS~ g ~
~dtttonal envt~mntal evaluation has hen provtd~ by ~e e~ p p
for ~e spectftc plin mn~nt and ~e acoustical s~dtes e rea fo ~
~re tracts. ~ significant envSro~ntal lqacu have been found,
Ytsttng Tentat¶ve Tract No. 2337~. Mended No. t, 23372 Mended No. ~-, and
23373 Amended No. I are located tn Vtllagl A of the IMrgarttJ Vtllage
Spectftc Plan.
2. The three tracts w411 provtde t763 dwelltrig untts and golf course open
spa~ on 3S4 164 acres. CAmended by Planntng Cmtsston 10-5-88)
,. ".
Kangaroo Pat.
19
to comply ~th Spectftc Plan No. T99,
The tracts have been condtttoned
Change of Zone No. St07 and Development. Agreement No. S.
A ~adver for length to vtdth ratto wtli be needed fo Vestdng Tentathe
Tract 23371 Amended No. 1.
COI(CLUSTONS:
1. All environmental concerns have been addressed tn EIRs 107, 202 and the
tnttt·1 studtea for these tracts and no stgqtftcant impacts have been
found.
2. The tracts are consistent .vtth General Plan MendRant No. 150 Change of
Zone No. 5107, and $pectftc Plan No. 199,! Amendment No. l.
3. The tracts contom to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460.
RECONHDIDATX011S --
Oeclaratton for EA No. 32546, 32547, 32548 on a ftndtng
ADOPT[ON of a geg·ttve not hive · stgntftcsn~
effect an the environment.
tnac the projects .t 11
Y,G:mcb:mp
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
SUBDZVZS~ON
CONDZT[ONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 23373
AHENDED NO. 1
· STANDARD CONDITI'ONS
The subdivider sh·11 defend, tndenntf ,·nd hold hamless the County of
RIverside, 1Is agents, officers, and emp~yees m
free
any clat, actton, or
o
proceeding ·gainer the County of Riverside or its agents, officers. or
concerning Vestin Tentative Tract 23~73 Amended No. 1, which actton
brought about wtt~Sn the t~me period provided for in California Government
Code Section 66499.37..The County of RIverside wtll promptly notify the
subdivider of any such cla~s, actton, or proceeding ag·(nst the County of
Rtyerstde and wtll coo ,rate full tn the defense. If the County fat1· to
pfi:xnptly notify the suG~vtder o~fany such clatm, actton, or proceed4n9 or
fails to cooper·re fully ~n the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter. be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
County of Riverside.
2. The tentative subdivision shall con;ly wtth the State of Caltforn4a.
Subdivision Hap Act and to all the re treeants of 0rdtnance 460, $chedul ~'~.
A, unless modtfted by the conditions ~ttsted bllov.
3. This conditionally approved tentative map w111 exptre two years after the
County of RIverside Board of SupervisOrs approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
4. The ftn·l map shall be prepared by · 11cense~ land surveyor subject to all
the requirerants of the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and
Ordinance 460. ·
The subdivider shall satalto on copy0f e soils report to the RIverside
County Surveamr's 0ffl~e and two coptel to the Department c~ Butldtng and
Safety. The report shell address the sot1· stability and geological
conditions of the stte.'
· em
If any 'gradtrig ts proposed, the subdivider shall subat, one prtnt of
c_omprehenstve gradtrig lie to the Oe~rtment of Butldtng end Safety. The
plan shall comply ~ the Untfom Butldtng Code, Chapter 70, as amended
by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provtded for tn these
conditions of approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Aeended No. 1
Page 2
7. A gradIn pemft shall be obtained from the Department of Butldtng and
Safety prFor to cmmnencment of any gradtng
outstde of county maintained
road rtght of
8. Any delinquent property taxes sha11 be paid prior to recordeaton of the
ftnal map.
The subdivider shall comply with the street Improvement recanmendatIons
outllned fn the RIverside County Road Department's. letter dated 9-22-88 a
copy of which fs attached.
LegaT access as requtred by 0rdtnance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundar~ to a County mtntafned road.
&11 road easements shall be offered for'dedication to the public and shall
conttnue in force unit1 the ovamini. body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications sha~l be free Irma11 encumbrances as approved
b the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be sub3ect to approval of
t~e Road Comlsstoner.
12. Easements, when requtred for roadray slopes, dratnage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map tf they are located
withtn the land dtvtston boundary. Al1 offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be suffered and recorded as directed by the County
Surveyor.
Vater and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be Installed tn accordance
with the provisions set forth in the RIverside County Health Depar~ment's
Teeter dated 7-25-88 · copy of which ts attached.
The subdivider shall comply with th. flood control recommendations
outltned by the RIverside County flood ':ontrol Dtstrtct's letter dated
i22-88- · copy of~hfch ts ~ttached. Z'the land dtvtston 1lea vtthtn an.
opted flood control dritnage area pursuant to Sectton lO.2S of Ordinance
0 appro rta~ fits for the construction of area drainage facilities
a~l be ~o~TKtedby the Road Comfssfoner.
The subdivider shall comply with. the' fire tmprov~nent recommendations
outltned In the County FIre IMrshal's letter dated 8-17-88 a copy of which
ts attached.
16. Subdivision phastng, Including any proposed ~anmon open space area
Improvement phastng, tf applicable, shall be subject to PlannTng
Department approval. Any proposed phaslng shell provtde for adequate
vehicular access to a11 lots In each phase, and shell substantfally
conform to the Intent and purpose of the subdtvtslon approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentathe Tract No. 23373 Amended No. Z
Page 3
17. Lots created by thJs subdfvtston shall comply wtth the following:
Corner lots end through lots, 4f any, shall be provided with
additional area parsbent to $eCtlon 3.88 of Ord4nance 460 and so as
not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area tn
non-corner end through lots.
Lots created by thts subdtvtslon shall be tn conromance wtth the
development standards of the $pectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I
c. Sen lots are crossed by maJOr publlc uttltty easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the uttltV easement.
d. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained tn a weed-free
· condition and shall be etther planted with tntertm landscaping or
provtded vtth other eroston cOntrel measures as · approved by the
D1rector of Building and Safety.
e. Trash bfns, loadtrig areas and Incidental storage areas shall be
located awe and vtsually screened from surrounding areas wtth the use
of block ~{ls and landscaping.
18. Prtor to RECORDATXON of the ftnal map the following conditions shall b,
satisfied:
ae
Prtor to the recordatlon of the ftnal map the applicant shall submtt
w~ttten clearances to the RIverside County Road and Survey Department
that all plrtfnent requirements outltned tn the attached approval
letters from the following agencies have'been met,
County Ftre Department County liealth Department
County Rood Control ~nnnc~ Planntn Department
County Parks Departaent n 1liter D~strtct
Eastern~Fldntclpal tletar Dtst, :
Prtor to the recordalton of the flue1 map, bneral Plan Amendment 150,
$pec¶ftc Plan No. 199 AmendaUnT No, 1, Dayaloe:merit Agreement No. 5,
end Change of:Zone No. 5107 s1~11 be epproved by the Board of
Supervisors and shill be effectlye. Lots created by this land
f
dtvts~on shall be tn con omance with the development standards of the
zone ultimately applled to the property,
19. All extsttng strdctures on the subject property shall be removed prtor to
recordatton of the ftnal map.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No. Z
Page 4
Prlor to recordeaton of the final subdhtston map, the subdhtder she1]
h
submtt the following documents to t ·Planntng Department for revtev,
vhtch documents shall be sub;~ect to the approval of that department and
the Office of the County Counsel:
2) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictlone; end
2) A sample document conveyed"~itle to the purchaser of an Individual lot
or untt whtch provtdes that the (eclaretlon of covenants, conditions
and restrictlone ts tncorporeted t~eretn by reference.
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for
revtw shall (a) provtde for I mlnfmum term of 60 years, (b) provtde
fo~ the establlsMent of a property. owners' assoctathn comprised of the
owners of each fndtvtdual lot or untt, (c) provtde for ownership of the
common and (d) .conrata to follwtng provisions verbatfm:
"Noahwithstanding any provision tn thts Declaration to the contrary,
the following provision shall apply:
The property owners* association established heretn shall manage and
continuously mathrata the 'cmeon Irma', more particularly described
on Exhlbft '1Z1-17' of the spect!flc plan attached hereto, and shall
not sell or transfer the. 'camnon area', or any part thereof, absent
the prtor wrttten consent of the Planntng DIrector of the County of
RIverside or the County's successor-tn-fnterest.
The property owner's assoclatfon shill have the rtght to assess the
owners of each tndfvtdual lot ,or untt for the' reasonable cost of
matntafnfng the 'c~emon'area' and shall have the rtght to 1ten the
property of any sech Owner wh~ defaults tn the payment of a.
maintenance assessment. M assessmat 1ten, once created, shall be
prtor to all other 1lens reco_rded subsequent to the nottce of
assessment or other document creattng the assessment 1ten.
Thts OeclaratTon shall not be t~mtnated, 'substantlally, amended or
roperty deannexed therefrom absent the prtor vrttten consent of the
i~lanntng Dtrector of the County of RIverside or the County's
successor-tn-fnterest. A proposed amendment shall be considered
'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the
'cmvnon area'.
Zn the event of any conflict between thts Declaration and the Arttcles
of Zncorporatfon, the Bylaws or the property ovmers' assocfatton Rules
and Regulations, tf any, thls Declaration shall control,"
Condi Cions of .~pproval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No. Z
Page 5
4e
Once approve, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions
shall be recorded it the same ttme that the ftnal rap ts recorded.
Prtor to recordeaton of the ftnal mp" clearance shall be obtained from
!'4tropolitan Water Dtstrtct relatt~e to the protectto of applicable
n
easements affecting the subject property. Lot 1the adjustments shall also
be completed.
The developer shall comply with :the following parkway landsca tng
e 199 Amendment No. I unless
re tramants as shown tn Spectftc Pla No.
ma~untatned by HOA or other public entity: (Amended by Planning Con~ntsston
10-5-88)
1) Prior to recordeaton of the final ~map the developer shall file an
application wtth the County for: th~ formation of or annexation to, a
- parkway maintenance dtstrtct for Vestfng Tentative Tract No. 23373
· Amended No. I tn accordance vt~ the Landscaping and t.l httng Act of
1972, unless the project fs vtthtn an extstlng parkway ne~ntenance.
2) Prior to the Issuance of bulldlng:permtts, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping; and Irrigation plans frm the County.
Road and Planning De ramant. A11 landscaping and Irrigation plans
and specifications s~all be prepared tne reproducible format suttable
for. pertanent ftltng wtth the County Road Department.
, "~,
3) The developer shall post a landscape performance bond whtch shall b~
released concurrent1 with the, release of subdivision performance
bonds, quaranteetng ~e vtabtlltyl of ell landscaplng whtch wtll be
Installed prior to the assumption! of the maintenance responsibility by
the district.
4) The developer, the developer's sUccessors-In-Interest or asstg.nees,
shill be resl~_nstble for ill parbe landscapln maintenance unttl
such time as maintenance ts taken: over {y the dfst~ct.
The developer shill be responstMe for mintchance and upkeep of all
slopes, .landscaped areas end Irrigation systems unit1 such ttme as those
o rations are the responsibilities'of other parties as approved by the
P~nntng 'DIrector,
Street lights shell be provided wtth~n the subdivision tn accordance wtth
the sUNlards of Ordinance 461 and the following:
1) Concurrently WIth the ftllng of subdivision Improvement plans wtth the
Road Department, the developer hall secure approval of the proposed
street 11ght layout first from thee Road Dlpartment's traffic engineer
and then from the appropriate uttllty purveyor,
Conditions of Approval
Tent·the Tract No. 23373 bended No. Z
Page S
2) Following approval of the street 11ghttng Tayout by the Road
Departaent's tr·fftc engineer, the developer shall also file an
application wlth I.&FCO for the fomatton of · street lfghttng
district, or annexation to an extstt g 11ghttng district, unless the
stte Is within an extsttng 11ghttng itstrtct.
3)
4)
Prtor to record·lion of the ftnll nap, the developer shall secure
conditional approval of the street 11ghttng application from LAFCO,
unless the stte ts wtthtn an extstIng ltghting district.
All street 11ghts and other outdoor 11ghttng shall be sho~n on
electrical pTans submitted to the Oe~artment of Butldtng and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply wtth the requirements of
RIverside County Ordlnance No. 655 and the RIverside County
Comprehenshe Generel Plan.
Prior to the tssuance of GRADING PERHITS: the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
ae
l)
2)
3)
4)
s)
Prtor to the tssuance of 9radtng pemtts, detatled common open space
area parking landscaping and trrtgltlon plans shall be submitted for
Planntng Department approval for the phase of develofxnent tn process.
The plans shall be certified by · landscape architect, and shall
provide for the following.
Permanent automatic trrlgatlon systems shall be Installed on all
landscaped areas requiring Irrigation.
Landscape screening where requtred shall be designed to be opaque up
to ·mtntmum height of stx (6) feet at m(urity.
All uttllt~y servtce areas and enclosures shall be screened from view
with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as
approvecl by the Planning DIrector. Utilities shill be placed
undergrou.ml, :
Parhays and landscaped butldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide vtsual screening or a transition Into the prtmary use area of
the $tte. Landscape elements shall tnclude earth bermtng, round
cover, shrubs and specimen trees "tn conjunction wtth meandering
sidewalks, benches and other pedestrlan amentales where appropriate as
approved by the Planntng Department and Spectftc Plan No.
Amendment No. 1.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees
at key vtsual focal points vtthtn the project,
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No.
Page 7
7e
6) klhere streets trees cannot be planted flthfn right-of-way of tntertor
streets and pro;lect parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way,
they shall be plantad outstde of the road right-of-way.
7) Landscapfng plans shall Incorporate natty, and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate.
8) All extsttng spectmen trees and.s~gntftcant rock outcroppings on the
sub act proiX. ray shall be shown on the proJect's grading plans and
shatl note those to be removed. relocate and/or retained, d
9) All trees shall be mtntmum double staked. I~eaker and/or slow growfng
trees shall be steel staked.
tO.. Parktag layouts shall cmply ~lth Ordinance 348, Sectton Za. t2.
All extsttng nattve specimen-trees On the subject property shall be
preserved vherlvlr feasible. Mere they cannot be preserved they shall be
relocated or replaced ~th sped,an trees as approved by the Planntng
Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans.
28. if the roJect ts to be phased. prior to the approval of grading pemtts,
an overai:l conceptual grading plan shill be submitted to the Planntn''~
Dtrector for a prove1. The plan shall be used as a guideline for
subsequent detatt~ed grading pTans for individual phases of development and
shall tnclude the following:
1) Techniques whtch wtll be utilized to prevent eroston and sedimenteaton
durtng and after the grading process. .
2) Approximate time frames for grading and ?denttffcation of areas whtch
may be graded durtng 'the higher probability rata months of January
through Par=h,
3) P~el~adnary lad and roadway elevations.
4) A~eas of temporar~ grading outstdl of a particular phase.
tnd~v~tdull combinations thetog.
Standards: A1 cut and/or f111
whtch exceed ten feet tn vertical: height shall be modtfted by an
with (rr?gatlon. All drtvN~s shall not exceed I fifteen percent grade.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No, 23373 Amended No. 1
Page 8
30. All cut slopes located ad3acent to u' faded
ten (10) feet tn vertical heights shal~ be natural terraln and exceeding
the following grading techniques: contour-graded Incorporating
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle
of the natural tarruth.
2) Angular forms shall be dlscouraged. The graded tom shall reflect the
natural rounded terrain.
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded ~th curves ~lth radII
designed tn proportion to the total hetght of the slopes where
drainage and stabtlltypemtt such:rounding.
4) Mere cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
· horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved tn a continuous,
undulattng fashion.
31, Prtor to the Issuance of grading pemtts, e qualified paleontologist shall
be retained by the developer for consuTtatfor and comment on the ro osed
gradtng wtth respect to potential Paleon*.ologtcal tmpacts. ShoPuldp the
Paleontologist find the potential ts htgh for Impact to st ntflcant
P ologfst got re resentathe shaT1 have the authority to tem orartl
divert, redfrect or ha~ grading actlvtty to a11o~ recovery of losIlls. y
32. Prior to the Issuance of BUZLDZNG PERNITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied: '
:o
a. In accordance wtth the written reqUest Of the developer to the County
of RIverside, · copy of which ts on ftle,i and tn furtherance of the
agreement between 'develolar, end
the the County of RIverside no
dlng pemlCs shall be Issued by the COunty of RIverside for 'any
p els within the subject tract unit1 the developer, or the
developer's successors-In-tnterest protided evtdence of compliance
b. Htth the sulxntttal of butldfng plans to the Department of 8utldtng and
Safety the developer wtll demonstrate c mpllance with the acoustical
study prepared for Vesting Tentative Trlc~ 23371 Amended No I whtch
established appro rfate mitigation Ifielsures to reduce ambfe;t triteHot
notse levels to 4~ Ldn and exterior noise:levels below65 Ldn.
c. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment sh:a11 not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equlpment Or any other energy savtng
devices shall be pemftted with Planning Department approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No. Z
Page 9
de
8ulldtng separation bebeen all buildings Including fireplaces shall
not be less than ten (tO) feet unless approved by the Department of
e. All street side yard setbacks shill be a ,tintmum of lO feet.
f. All front yards shall be provt~ed vtth landscaping and automatic
Irrigation.
Prior to the tssuance of OCCUPANCY PEPJqXT$ the following conditions shall
be sattsfted:
.a- Prior to the ftnal buildtrig inspection approval, by the Building and
: Safe~y Department, walls shall be constructed alon Kaiser Parkway and
Rancho California ROad, La Seena Way, Katser Par~
r
Way per the Design
Hanual. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the
Dtrector of the Department of Butldtng and Safety and the Planning
DIrector and mmy be phased with the project. .(Amended by Planntng
Comtsston 10-5-88)
b. Wall and/or fence locations shall confom to attached Figure II1-17 of
Spectftc Plan No. 199 Mendmerit No. 1.
c. All landscaping and Irrigation shall be installed tn accordance w',~~
approved plans prior to the tssuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not pamtt planttn , tnterta landscaping and eroston
control measures shall be uttllzel as mpproved by the Planning Director
and the Director of ButldJng and Safety.
de
All parktrig, landscaping and trrlgmtton shall be installed tn
accordance ~th approved plans and shall be verified by a Pl'anntng
Department fteld Inspection.
s---Cewmrete-midemlks- shmll-be-menstrveted- tkPeegheut- the- subd4 v4 s4 on-
f. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance
vtth the standards of Ordinance 460 and $pectflc Plan No.
Amendment IIo. I
Develolaent of Vesting Tentative Tract IIo. 23373 Mended No. 1 shall
comply with 811 provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and
Development Agre.ement No. 5.
LeRoy D. Seem -
i
OFFICE OF ROAD CONMI;SIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR
September 22, Zg88
elYialfOl, galetrammel & IIIQI
RIverside County Planning cenisslon
4080 Lemon Street .
RIverside, CA 92501
Ladles and antham:
Re: Tract Map 23373 - bend II - Road Correctfor
Schedule A - Team $P ~p IX
WIth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division ape the hid Departant ricemends that the linddivider provide the
felTowing street Improvement plans and/Or reid dedications In accordance with
Ordinance 460 and RIverside Coun~ bid Zmprovement Standards (Ordinance 461).
it Is' understood that the tentative rap!correctly shows acceptable centerline
profiles, Ill existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, lad that their mission Or unacceptablllty .my require the rap
to be resubmltted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following
conditions ire elsenell1 peru and I requirement occurring In OHm is as binding
as though occurring In 111. They are Intended to be complemntary and to
describe the conditions for I complete design of the reprovemane. All questions
regarding the true mining of the conditions shill ~l referr. ed to the Road
Commlssloner's Office. '
1. The landdlvlder shill protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage pittoms, I.e., concentra-
tion of diversion or flow. Protection shill be provided by
constructing adequate drainage faCIlitieS Including enlarging
existre hcll ltfes or by sacaria I drainage elsemerit or by"
both. ~11 drainage easements shlFl be shown on the flail map
and noted IS follows.- °Drllnage Elseant - no talldang,
obstructions, or encroachants b land fills ire allowerie, The
protection shill be IS Ipproved ~Jr the Itoid.Oeparment.
The landdlvlder shill accept and :properly dispose of ali offsite
drainage flowing onto or through the site, · [n the event the
hid Comalistener plaits the usa of streets for drainage
pu osel, the provisions of ArtiCle X! of Ordinance He. 460
vilrT appT~. Should the. quihtltfll exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage .
purposes, the subdivider shill provide adequate drainage
facilities Is lpproved by the Road Department,
3. fieJot drainage Is involved on this landdivision and i~s resolution
shall be as approved b~ the ROad Depart·ant.
4. All Interior streets sh~11 be Improved In accordance with County
Standard lfo. lOSe Section A or greater Is approved by the Road
Ccenfss loner Cadif led no
S, The landdivider sh'a11 provide utility clearance from Rincho CIllf.
Mater District prior to the record·Sloe of the final rap.
S. The maximum cent·tithe gradient shall not exceed 1St.
7. The manitoba centerline radii shall be as approved b~ the Road
I)e~irb~ent.
8. Rincho California Road shall be f roved with concrete curb and
gutter located 43 feet from c nearreTina and match up asphalt concrete
alp·wing reconstruction; or resurrect of ulstln9 pavln is
etareined by the had Geeeli·toner v~thtn · SS foot hal;
· width
dedicated right of ~ey In accOrdlace with County Standard No. lO0.
9. Kalslr Parkway shill be Improved with concrete curb Ind gutter
located 38 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete
paving; reconstruction& or telerr·tin of existing paving as
determined by the had CommisSioner :Tthln a SO foot half vide
dedicated right of wiy in accordance wi.th County Standard No. ~OZ.
:ZO. Prior tO the' filing of the final mp with the Count~; Recorder's
I
Office, the developor shall prow de evidence of continuous
rainten·rice of all proposed rivet· street· within the develoF~ent
is approved b.y the Road CoaTS·loner.
22. All driveways shall confore to the api~llcable Riverside County
Standards and shall be shown On the street Improvement plans.
1~en blo~lhells are required tO be constructed on top of slope, a
debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of
way line tO privent silting of sidewalks as approved by the had
Cceafssloner, '.
13. Concrete sidewalks shall be'cOnstructed on Rancho California Road
.and Kaiser Parkway In accordance with Couo~ Standard No. 400 and
' 40Z (curb sidewalk).
Jln access road to the nearest pa-ed road mintmined by the County
shall be constructed within the public right of way in accordance
with County Standard No. ZOO. Section 8, 32'/60') it s grade and
alignment is approved by the Roac Coeaiss;oner.
Prior to the recordslion of the 'Ins1 map, the developer shall
deposit with the Riverside Countw Road Oepart~ent, a cash sum of
$Z40.00 per unit for parcels Z-~ as mitigation for traffic signal
impacts. Should the developer cloose to defer the tim of payment,
ht my enter Into a written agre-ment with the County deferring said
payment to the time of Issuance of a building permit. hrcel 8 Is
not sub3ect to signal mitigation it this tim. it Is postponed
until the tim of develoFment.
Tmprovement plans shell be based upon a centerline profile extending
I minimum of 300 feet beyond the pro;fact boundaries at I grade and
alignment as approved by the Riverside Court Road Coffafssloner.
Completion of road Improvements does not Impt~y acceptance for
maintenance by CountY.
Lrlectrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 462, Standard 8Z7.
Asphaltfc emulsion (fog seal) shill be applied not less than
fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at I rate of O. OS gallon per.square yard... Asphalt
e~ulston shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State
Stand?rd Specifications. .
Corner cutbacks in conformante with County Standard No. 805 shall
d
be show on the final map end of~'ered for edicatton.
Lot access-shall be restricted on Rancho California Road and Kaiser
Parkvly and so noted on the fins] mp with the exception of one
opening on Rancho California Road approximately 400' westerly.of
intersection with Kaiser Parkway,
Landdivisions creating cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the streets
shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope
easements is approved by the had Department.
All entrance gate facilities shall be located a minimum distance of
60' from gate to fio 'llne.--
A~l centerline intersections shall be st
The street desTg~ and improvement concept of this project sha~l be
coordinated with TR 2337Z and TR 23372.
25. Street lighting shall be requ'~ed in accordance with Ordinance 46L
and 46X throughout the suballY'sloe. The County Service Area (CSA)
· AdministratOr determines whettar this proposal qualifies under an
existing ·tiesmet district ;t not, Zf note the .land owner shall
file an application vlth LAFC0 for annexation Into or creation of
- . · elf being Assess·st District' In accordance vlth Governmental
Code ~:ctfon 56000,
26, Prior to recorderion of the. f'nal rap, the landdivider shall record
CC & l'l provldf Ingress leg e rlsl for parcel Z thru 7 and shall
be sub;lice to really and apprc v·~ b~ liverside Con ty Counsel
n ·
GH:lh
'V t~lr~~~
U
on [nUtseer
II~gm7
8,,~'t7-88
,LAXleZJIG
lATEr GX./TOID
'TRACT 23373 - AHEIrDED II, lOAD COt]e.ZCTv-.Oa
PdmdnS l F.~nerd,,S C:~
4010Lmum Snd. bet !ll.
R/verdde, CA 9250l
(714)
VLth respect to the candieSsue of approval for the above referenced land ridvisions
the T~re Departneat race:Rends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with giverside County Ordinances end/or raceSaiRed fire protection
standards:
Tee valet mains shell be capable of provideriB · potential fire flay of 2500
and an actual fire flow available free any one hydrant shall be 3~00 GF)t for
hours du:atiou at 20 ,SX residual operatinS pressure,
AppTovtd super firs hydrants, (6"x&wx2|x2i) shell be located at each street
Latersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction vith no
portion o£ any lot frontaBe more than 165 feet frame hydrant,
ApplZcaut/developar shall furnish one cop7 of the water system plaQa to the Tire
,lane shall conSam to fire hydrant types, lo~ation and
nLlned/approved b7 · reSistlied civil inSinner and the local water company with
accordance with the re~uireaants prescribed bY the giverside C y -
The re,sired voter slalom, insradiuS fire hydrants, shall be/netslied lad accepted
by the appropriate water aBenay prior tony eoubustShle buildeRS material heiRS
~laced on anLndividusX lot,
J~X buSldSnSs shall be constructed vSth fire retardant reefeRS eaterSel as
described in Section 3203 of the Uutforulu~ldLnl Code, Any wood sheniXes
or shakes shall have · Class wS'ratinS and shall be approved by the Fire
Departneat ~rior to Installerton-
MITIGATION
Prior to the recordsainu of the finsl Rape the developer shall deposit v~th the
liverside Count7 Fire DepartsSue, s cash sun of J~O0.O0 per lot/unit as u~tllatioa
for firs protection lspscts. Should the developer choose to defer the the of
paysent, be/she may enter into s vrietsn stresseat vith the County deferring
paymat to the the of lssusnce of · building psr-4t.
A3.t ~uestious regarding ths ssan4ng of conditions shs2~ be referred to the
Planlug and Engineering stsff.
George S. Tstus, Flashing Officer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENTDATH:: July 25. 1988
Attn: Kathy Glffor~
me~arti~""'~;: nltlrlln. EnVIronmental Health Services
Tract Iqao 2~)7). Amended
The Envlronmental Health Services has revle~ed Tract Nap 23373, Amended Nap
No, I dated July 19, 1988. Our current cc4menta'wlll remain as previously
stated In our letter dated June 13, 1988.
AUG 3 1988
RIVERS|D~ COUNTY
PLANNI;;G r).EPAPTME~iT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IIIVRftlIDI, ~,,AIJIFO. NIA I/l~l
ladies azd Gerrl:lm~ns
lies Vesting ~ra~c 23373
kurdeft ~l~. I
Follcb'lz~ are ~/:~.mt.r:&c'l:.'m rm~....-~atlcrms
Pzam.i.,xj h rt2mmt
Met Vesting 'Iract 23373
J4mmdedbb, 3.
C~f, its ~-Ltnage Jmc~llties m~uld l=e located within l~bl~cly dxttcat-
xl drttnage easements cl~a~ed h-a: t.~ affected propert7 ~ner,. ~e
lz$cf to recc~a~icn o~ the ~ nap.
7. The ~*s Street and let grading should be desired ~n a ~
~t ~t~Us h ui~g ~t~ ~~e ~t~ ~ re~
~~ ~s ~ ~ r~ off ~~a~ ~ ~v~ ~
tiM. A ~ ~ ~ r~~ ~ge m~t ~d ~
(2uestJ, ms o,rs;~ this m~:tsr my be :sik-rsd to ]lc~zr~ Chtsrsj c~ this
office st 714/"/87-2333.
Very truly
~s :ilJ, c.k ~'eine,rir'4 ~ '
RIYERSIDECOUNTYPLAHNINGDEPT.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA g2S03
Aftrim K·thy Giftord
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLAN N IN G ,DEPARTMENT
SIll'It IIIIlae i
mOrngem ~mOmOe&v
I$1s I~ll4i
RE; TRACT MAp :3373= Thmt:cert·in lind sitaired in the
%u~incorporktod territory Of the County of Riverside, State
of C·liforni·, being Parcels Z, 1,3,4 mud S of Pkrcel
21884 ·o shown on · mmp tJ~oreot filed in Book 144, Pages 34
through 33 of Pircol Nips in the Office of the County
Recorder of s&id Riverside County together vith · portion
the Rtncho Tomecul· grinted by the Government of the United
StiLes of boric· to Luis Vtgnes by pitsat d&ted
1860 ·nd recorded in the Office of the County Recorder
San Diego County, Ciliforni&
(8 Lots)
Gentlemen=
moo mmamfM If,.fl It'o
m
Ifl'lllltl
lOislOCi
mime mmmll~Om
The Depnrtment of Public Hemlth hms revteved Tentitive Hip
~o, 13373 mad recommends th&tz-
A witmr system shillbe instmlled ·ccording td
pitno mad s~ecificition so ·pproved by the viter
compmay Lad the Health Department, Permanent
printe .of the pILes Or the water system shill
bm submitted in triplicite, with · minimum scale
not less thLa one inch equals 100 feet, miens with
thm origin·l driving to the County Surveyor. The
prints shill show the internil pipe diimmtmr,
&moiLion of vmlves and fire hydrmnts; pipe and
4mint specificttione~ and the size of the main
mt the 4unction of the nov system to the
existing system. The pILes mh·ll comply in
Ill respects with Day. S, Pirt l, Chipfor 7 or
the C·liforni· Hemlib tad Smfoty Code, Cilifornii
Xdmtnistrmtive Code, iTaLIc 11, Chiptar 16, ind Oenerll
Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of th
SLI:.m of Cilifornim, whoa Ippliciblo.
liverside County Planning Dept.
Page
Akin: Kathy Oil,ford
The plus shall be signed by a registered engineer and
ruler compuy with the foil:owing certtficikton:
certtf'y thtt the design of the valor system in
Tract Map 33373 is accordinc:e with the vaLor system
expansion plus of the Rtncho California Water District
ud that the valor service,Storage and distribution-
system viii be adequate to provide valor service to
such tract. This certification does
guarantee that it viii supply vaLor to such tract
say spectf,tc quantities, flays or pressures for firs
protection or any other purposes. This certification
· shill be signed by a responsible official of the valor
company.
&bt_£tgut~&_~e£_&bt,£tse£ts~leo,eg,Lbt_giusl_asn,
This Department his s stiLemint from the Rimthe California
Water District agreeing to servedomestic valor to etch and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
s,tisfsctory f/nucisl &FringemenLo ire completed vith the
· ubdivtder. It viII be nsce***ry rot the financial
· rr,ngement, to be m,de prior to the recordstie& of the
f,tn,~
This Departmen% has s stiLemeAt from the Eastern Hunicipai
Water District agreeing to &lieu.the subdivision sew&go
system ~o be connected ko the severe o~ the District, The
sever system shall be installed according to plans ud
specific&Lions &s &pproved by the District, the County
Surveyor ud the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plus of~ the sever eyetom shall be submitted in triplicate,
&long with the original drawl&BoiLs the County Surveyor. The
prints shill show the internal pipe dinefir, location or
manholes, complete profiles, pipe end Joint specifications
end %he size of the severs &t the Junction of the nov system
to the existing system. A single plik indicating location
or sever lines end valor lines shall be s portion of the
sewage plus and profiles. The pleas shall be signed by i
registered engineer and the sever district with the
f,olZovtng certtf,icsttont 'Z certify that the design of the
sever system in Tract Map ~3373 is in accordance with the
sever system expknston plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the vests disposal system is adsquite at
lqiverside CourtLy Piinntng Dept.
Page Three
ATTN: K&Lhy girrord
this time to treat the tnticipsted viiass from the proposed
tract,a
It viII be necessary for finsmetal &fringemerits
prier to the recordsLion of the final map.
ironmendel 14calLA Services
SM: t&c
to be Bade
...... ,L nnincs DEP :EClTIEI']
DATE: ,kne :!, Z988
TO: Assessor
kiNin8 and Safe~
Surveyor - Dove Duds
goad Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control Dtstrtct
Ftsh& Game
S Paisley
U.S, Postal Servtce- Ruth E, Oavtdson
JUN 16 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTy
PLANNING DEPA. RTMENT
$herifrs Department
Airport3 Departjnent
UCRt Lth Sobnee hpt., W.e.'
GROHT ....
Eases X~Tc$pal Water Nst.
hn~"hllfomtl ~r
EasTram lon Schml Nst. -
Tem la Union Schml Olst.
Steffi Club, San ~;nto
~T~ t8
VESTING TRACT 23373 - (Sp P1) - E,A.
32548 -~r iritm VIlla e Oevelopfenl
- Robert kin, Wtlltm ~rost & AsSoc.
hncho California Area - FIrst
Supervtsortal DIstrict - N. of Ranchc
ClllfOrntl hid, V. of raiser Parkw~
R-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 CondomtntUm
- (RELATED CASE TR 23371 i 23372)
' A.P. gZ3-ZX0-023
Please re,ted the case described above, ml0ng with the attached case rap. ALan.
DIvision Conntttee meeting his been tentatively scheduled for dune ZO, Xg88. If It c.
tt will then 9o to public hearing.
Tour coe~ents and recomendatlons are requested prior to dune S, 1988 tn order that v,
IncTude them In the sT, tit report for this particular case,
Should you have any questions regarding this tim, aleuse do not hesitate to contact
Kathy Giftoral at 787-6356
Planner
The k'tslnoretblon HIgh $chool DIstrict hcllttles are overcrowded and our
educational programs seriously tapaCted by Increasing student population
caused b~ nee residential, commercial and Industrial construction.
TheretoreD pursuant to California GOvernment Code Section 53080 of A8 2926
and S8 327, this district hvtes l-he against 111 new development projects
within Its'boundaries.
DATE: S~GNATURE
PLF~£ print ham and title doseph Enserro, Assistant Superintendent
4080 LEMON STREET, gk FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, C,aJ. JFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, RO~.,
INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9:
(619) 342-1
Assessor
lulldiet and Safety
S. rveyor - Dave Dude
load Departanne
Ireslib - Italph Luchs
Fire Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
LAFCO, $ Pahley
II.So Postal Service - Ruth E. !)lv¶dson
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
.PLANNING DEPA. RTMENT
Sheriff*s Depar%mnt
~ STINS TRACT 23373 - (an PI) - E.A.
Airports DepartmAt 3~548 - liar mr{ira Vtlla e Development' Co.
UCR, Life Science I;)ept. o W.W.' Ma.y~ew - Robert Be{n, Wtlliam ~rost & Assoc. -
GROF1T ' ' ' : Rancho California Area - First
Eastern Hurtle{pal I/ater Dtst.
&echo California I;~ter Dtst.
Elsieore Unlon School Otst,
Temculm Union School Otst,
Sierra Clubs Sin Gorgonto Chapter
CALTRANS 18
Se ervtsorial District - R. of Rancho
..Ca{ifornia Road, V, of Kaiser Parkway -
R,R Zone - 28 Acres 348 CondomtnSum untts
-' (RELATED CASE TR 23371 i 23372) Hod
- A.P. 923-210-023
olease revtew the case described above, along vith the attached case map. A Land
{vision Coattree meeting has been tentatively scheduled for dune 20, 19 · If {t clears,
It w111 then go to public hear rig.
Tour cormeels and recommendations are requested prtor to dune S, 1988 in order that we ray
tacTerie the in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any quest{ons regarding this Itm, please do not hesitate to contact
Kathy Gtfford at 787-6356
Planner
DATE: CI,'T'LUd X~ SIGNATURE
PLEASE print name and {tile
080 LEMON STREET. 9'" FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
EASTERN IN~bRMATION CENTER
ArChaeolOgical Research Unit
Ueiverslity of!California
Rivm~idt CA92521
46-209 "'~ASIS STkE ET. ROOM 304
!NDIO. CALIFORNIA 92:'
(619) 342-82- -
DATE: June 1, 1988
~1): ;Lssessor
Buildtrig end Safety
$urvelor - Dave Dude
... had Department
Health - Ital ph I. uch$
FIre Protection
Flood Control District
Fish &
S Palsley
U,S, Postal Service -Ruth E. Oavtdson
JUH 13
RIVERSI DE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sherl fits Department
Airports Department
UCR, Life Science .Dept., V.W. Hayhe
6ROF"ZT ....
Eastern Xunicipal Valet Nst.
hncho"hllfornie Ikt~r Nst.
E1stnore Union School
Temcula Unton $chool Nat,
Sterra Club, San Gorg~nto Chapter
CALTRANS t8
VESTZNGTRACT 23373 - (Sp P1) - E.A.
32548 -Par artta VIlla e Develop~4nt
- Robert BeTh, W¶11fm~rost &Assec.
Rancho California Area - First
Supervisortel Dtstrtct- N. of RanCho
CIlifornla hid,. V, of Katser Parkray
R-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 CondomtnTum un
- (RELATED CASE TR 2337l & 23372) Nod
- A.Po 9Z3-2Z0-023
Please revted the case described above, along~with the attached case map. A Land
Otvfsfon Con~lttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for June 20, 1988. Zf
tt vtll then 90 to publtc hearing.
Should you have any cluesttons regarding this 1teE, please do not hesitate to contact
Kathy'Gifford at 787-6356
Planner
PLEASE prtnt name and tttle
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLC)C)R
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET. F "")'
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
(619) 342-82
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
S%STAFFRP'T~3373.VTM I 5 '
ATTACHMENT NOi 5
EXHIBITS
S!,STAFFImIfrr'.,?.3373VTM.CC
17
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
EXHIBIT NO.
' C;'.SE N0.',~2..13'""""'
· P.C. DATI el,.. i,,,I-ctl
CITY OF TEMECULA )
,eeeel
. !
\ : /
\ /
kRITA
:i'KC MIN':
-.
~ ; .L/·
TY PAF
,/
TI'~E MEADOWS ' /
SP 219 / '
EXHIBIT NO.
'CASE NO.~5~
~ P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
~P
.EXHIBIT NO.
CASE' NO.V'IllZ32~'?~,~
,Im.C. DATE il*q-.ql '/I
CITY OF TEMECULA
V/"' ~,UT'
"EXHIBIT NO. ~
ATTACHMENT N0. 6
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
S%STAFFRPT~3373VTM.CC
18
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373
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 Aooroval
Condition No. I
Condition No. 14
Condition No. 9
Condition No. 3
Condition No. 2
Condition No. 6
Condition No. 5
S~TAF'FRI=rT~3373VTM'CC 19
ITEM
12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER "~/~__,.__
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Planning Department
January 28, 1992
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske
Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 were previously before
the City Council on October 8, 1991, November 12, 1991, December 10, 1991 and January
14, 1992. These items were continued at the applicants' request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council continue Change
of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
25320 to the February 11, 1992 meeting.
vgw
S~=t-ANNING\23372. CC 1
ITEM 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER ~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Prepared by:
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
2.
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
January 28, 1992
Mid-Year Review of FY 1991-92 Budget
Grant M. Yates, Senior Management Analyst
That the City Council:
Approve the Mid-Year Budget as set forth in Attachment "A".
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION No. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
REVENUES: We expect that General Fund revenues will increase by
$62,013 over initial projections. General Fund revenues are projected at
$12,279,240 for the 1991-92 fiscal year and are detailed as follows:
Prooerty Tax
Original estimates of Property Tax receipts remain consistent with year-end
projections; therefore, no revision is recommended.
DISCUSSION: A comprehensive review of projected revenues and
expenditures for the 1991-92 fiscal year has been conducted. This review included
an analysis of revenues received to date, and an updated projection of revenues
anticipated for the fiscal year. All department heads and the City Manager's Office
have reviewed year to date expenditures and have provided appropriate adjustments.
The result of this analysis is the attached Mid-Year update to the Fiscal Year 1991-92
Budget.
Sales and Use Tax
Sales Tax revenue in the City is projected to increase approximately 12.7% or
$572,853 over original estimates. This increase is directly attributed to the opening
of the new Costco and K-Mart stores.
Franchise Fees
Revenue projections are up $47,428 because of a one-time payment due from one
franchise agreement and because of the addition of Jones Intercable, a new cable
television franchise.
Transient Occupancy Tax
Revenues are projected to be $45,622 less than anticipated due to decreases in travel
due to the current recession.
Develo.oment Related Fees
The state of the economy has had a measurable impact on development fees collected
by the City. The revenue estimates for Building, Planning, and Engineering are revised
downward by $262,096, $6,400, and $318,000 respectively.
Projections in Special Revenue include:
Gas Tax Fund
There are no projected changes in original estimates.
Transportation Funds
The amount of local transportation funds available to the City have been decreased
approximately 62% or $422,487 from original estimates. This decrease is attributable
to the climate of the state economy.
EXPENDITURES
Noteworthy changes in City expenditures are as follows:
Personnel Services
At the time the 1991-92 annual operating budget was adopted, we did not have
actual rates for Worker's Compensation Insurance. Consequently, several City
Departments will require additional funds to cover the Worker's Compensation
premiums.
Overall, the Mid-Year Budget is being decreased by 932,338 for Personnel Services.
This can be attributed to the deletion of the Administrative Assistant position in the
City Manager's Office.
Operations and Maintenance
Overall, the Mid-Year Budget is being decreased 9181,695 for operations and
maintenance. The Planning Department has requested 988,941 to cover the invoices
from the General Plan Consultants. The Consultants estimate that many tasks will be
completed in this fiscal year and not the next as previously anticipated. The overall
cost of the General Plan Consultants has not increased. In addition, the Engineering
Department will be spending 9316,400 less in consulting fees than originally
estimated due to an anticipated decrease in development activity for the year.
The majority of the mid-year increases are being requested in Non-Departmental and
are attributable to unanticipated expenses relating to the move into the new City Hall
building. These additional requests include:
9,664
13,762
40,000
51,233
14,400
35,560
15,000
10,000
Additional request for phone service
Cost of monthly janitorial services
Cost of routine office supplies
Office rent
Xerox machine lease
Utilities
Microfiche/microfilm machines
Radio equipment for Public Works
During FY 1992 the unreserved fund balance in the General Fund has been impacted
by several factors including: the purchase of land totaling 91,425,000, and the
carryover of the encumbrance of the Breathing Apparatus Truck of 9208,000. The
Unreserved Fund Balance as of June 30, 1991 was 94,499, 162. The Unreserved
Fund Balance on June 30, 1992 is anticipated to be 9797,374.
FISCAL IMPACT: Amend the FY 1991-92 Annual Operating Budget as outlined in
Attachment "A"
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" Mid-Year Budget Review of Annual Operating
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1991-92
Attachment "B" Personnel Allocation by department
Resolution No. 91- to amend FY 1991-92 Operating Budget
RESOLUTION 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 1991-92 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the FY 1991-92 Annual Budget of the City of Temecula is hereby
amended in accordance with the "Mid-year Review of Annual Operating Budget, Fiscal Year
1991-92" attached herein as Attachment A.
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 281h day of January, 1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3~Re~o~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 281h day of January, 1992 by
the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/Re~os 227
Z
Z
<
,...]
<
Z
Z
Z
<
ATTACHMENT "B"
PERSONNEL ALLOCATION BY DEPARTMENT
(Full-Time Equivalents listed)
1991-92
Authorized
Department: CITY COUNCIL
Councilmembers 5. O0
Department Total
5.00
Department: CITY MANAGER
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Administrative Assistant
Executive Secretary
Administrative Secretary
Office Assistant
Information System Manager
Network Administrator
Senior Management Analyst
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
Department Total
10.00
Department: CITY CLERK
City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
Administrative Secretary(S. Jones title)
Secretary
Office Assistant
Minute Clerk
Duplicating Technician
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
,50
1,00
Department Total
6.50
Department: FINANCE
Finance Officer
Chief Accountant
Senior Management Analyst
Senior Accountant
Administrative Secretary
Account Technician
Account Clerk
Office Assistant
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2,00
Department Total
10.00
Mid-Year
Amended
.00
.00
.00
.00
(1.00)
.00
.00
.00
( 1. O0 )
.00
1.00
(1.00)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
5.O0
5.00
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
9.00
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
.50
1.00
6.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
10.00
PERSONNEL ALLOCATION BY DEPARTMENT
(Full-Time Equivalents listed)
1991-92
Authorized
Department: CITY COUNCIL
Councilmembers 5.00
Department Total
5.00
Department: CITY MANAGER
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Administrative Assistant
Executive Secretary
Administrative Secretary
Office Assistant
Information System Manager
Network Administrator
Senior Management Analyst
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Department Total
10.00
Department: CITY CLERK
City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
Administrative Secretary(S. Jones title)
Secretary
Office Assistant
Minute Clerk
Duplicating Technician
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
.50
1.00
Department Total
6.50
Department: FINANCE
Finance Officer
Chief Accountant
Senior Management Analyst
Senior Accountant
Administrative Secretary
Account Technician
Account Clerk
Office Assistant
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
Department Total
10.00
Mid-Year
Amended
.00
.00
.00
.00
(1.00)
.00
.00
.00
(1.00)
.00
1.00
(1.00)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
9.00
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
2.00
.50
1.00
6.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
10.00
PERSONNEL ALLOCATION BY DEPARTMENT
(Full-Time Equivalents listed)
1991-92
Authorized
Department: PLANNING
Director of Planning
Senior Planner
Associate Planner
Assistant Planner
Building/Planning Technician
Administrative Secretary
Secretary
Office Assistant
1.00
2.00
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
.00
2.00
Department Total
7.00
Department: BUILDING AND SAFETY
Chief Building Official
Senior Building Inspector
Code Enforcement Officer
Building Inspector
Building/Planning Technician
Administrative Secretary
Office Assistant
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Department Total
11.00
Department: ENGINEERING
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Principal Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Administrative Secretary
Office Assistant
Permit Engineer
Senior Public Works Inspector
.50
1.00
.50
.34
1.00
.33
.00
Department Total
3.67
Mid-Year
Amended
.00
.00
2.00
1.00
.00
.00
1.00
.00
4.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
(.30)
(.25)
(.5O)
(.34)
(1.00)
(.13)
1.60
(.92)
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
11.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
11.00
.20
.75
.00
.00
.00
.20
1.60
2.75
PERSONNEL ALLOCATION BY DEPARTMENT
(Full-Time Equivalents listed)
1991-92
Authorized
Department: PUBLIC WORKS
City Engineer/Director of Public Works .40
Principal Engineer .00
Administrative Secretary .30
Office Assistant .00
Permit Engineer .33
Traffic Technician .00
Senior Public Works Inspector .00
Lead Maintenance Worker .00
Maintenance Supervisor .00
Maintenance Worker 1.00
Department Total
2.03
Department: COMMUNITY SERVICES
Director of Community Services 1.00
Administrative Secretary 1.00
Landscape Development Assistant 1.00
Landscape Supervisor 1.00
Maintenance Superintendent 1.00
Maintenance Worker 2.00
Office Assistant 3.00
Recreation Leader 2.00
Recreation Superintendent 1.00
Senior Maintenance Worker 1.00
Senior Planner 1.00
Senior Recreation Services Coordinator .00
Development Assistant .00
Senior Development Assistant .00
Department Total
15.00
Mid-Year
Amended
.40
.25
.70
2.00
.47
1.00
.40
1.00
1.00
.00
7.22
.00
.00
(1.00)
(1.00)
.00
.00
2.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
.80
.25
1.00
2.00
.80
1.00
.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.25
1.00
1.00
.00
.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
8.O0
ITEM
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER 'y]~f.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
January 28, 1992
Item No. 14 - Avenida de la Reina Study
BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize the staff
forward it to you under separate cover.
JSG
City Clerk June S. Greek
Evaluate the impact of the temporary six-month closure.
report on this item and
ITEM
15
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
January 28, 1992
SUBJECT:
Community Services Funding Request Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve or revise the attached
recommendations for the Community Services funding requests.
DISCUSSION: On October 8, 1991 the City Council appointed Mayor
ProTein Karel Lindemans and Councilmember Mu~oz to an Ad Hoc Committee to
review Community Services Funding Requests received by the City. The review has
been completed and the attached schedule indicates the recommended funding.
Shawn Nelson and I were also in attendance at the meeting.
Subsequent to the application deadline we received a request from Temecula Valley
High School Grad Nite Committee in the amount of $5,000 that was not considered
for funding.
FISCAL IMPACT: The unencumbered balance in the City Council discretionary
account is approximately $52,600 after approval of the mid-year budget.
Current year activity is as follows:
Adopted Budget
Amendment
Public Relations Contract
Miss Temecula
TEAM, Inc.
Balloon & Wine Festival
Temecula Towne Assoc.
Assistance Guild
Returned from Arts Council
$ 300,000
65,800
(260,000
( 500
( 17,000
( 25,000
( 10,000
( 1,366
700
$ 52,634
Attachments: Community Services Funding Requests Detail
0
0
0
ITEM
16
APPROVAL
,
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM: City Clerk
DATE:
January 28, 1992
SUBJECT:
Appointment of Public Safety Commission Member
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint a member to the Public Safety Commission to fill
the unexpired term of Commissioner Kevin Ruddy.
BACKGROUND: A vacancy was created on the Public Safety Commission as
the result of the resignation of Commissioner Kevin Ruddy during the month of
December. Commissioner Ruddy's term is due to expire on October 2, 1993. The
normal procedure for filling such a vacancy would be to advertise in local newspapers
and submit the applications received to the Council Ad Hoc Committee members for
review and a recommendation to the Council.
Since the Council selected a new member to serve on the Public Safety Commission
during the month of December, advertising was placed and a number of applications
were received prior to that appointment. The Ad Hoc Councilmembers consisting of
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans and Councilmember Mu~oz recommend that a selection be
made from among those applications, copies of which have been for'warded to the
Council under separate cover. Each of the Ad Hoc Committee members recommend
the appointment of Deborah Holliday to fill this unexpired term.
Attachment:
Copies of Applications to the Public Safety Commission
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:
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
WORK PHONE: 't
OCCUPATION: ~"'DL~C"'~'Or" 0 f" ,.~.LL~,.'O ,,~'LO..kV-..f._, CL-I~aL~,',~L
EMPLOYERIADORESS:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUN~ OR OTHER CITY COMMI~EE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE Y~R OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional. technical. communiW, se~icel:
BRIEFLY STATE WH~ YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BEL!~E YOU ~E QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additionl paper if
luL~nderstand that a~y or all information on ~is form may be verified. I consent to the release of this(`
information for publicity purposes.
PLEASE NO~: Agglica~o ~1 for ~on of ~re vacancies.
Ream to: C~ C~erk's Office, 43172 ~siess Park D~e, T~G~!a, ~ 9~90 (714l 694-1989
2JformslCOM-OO1
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula
COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
e.Y, EARS RESIDENT
NAME: C ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~=,~ ~c,-~r ~ ~,/~
~, K, ~. ~, ~~ ~. ~ ~ OF TEMECULA:
HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
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
PLEASE NOTE: Applications will be kel~t on file for considerz tion of future vacancies.
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecu a, CA 92390 (7141 694-1989
2/forms/COM-O0 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula
NAME:
OCCUPATION:
YEARS; RESIDENT
WORK PHONE:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service}:
RV
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SE E ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE QUALIRED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if
necessary):
i understand that any or all ' formation on this form may be verffied. I consent to the release of this
information foroses.
,,,,, ,'..;,:.
SI( DATE:
: ' ' ~ file for consideration of futur v
Return to: Ci erk's Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989
2/formsiC OM-0Q 1
WAYNE A. HINGE
298q6 CORTE CASTILLE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, CA. 92591
71~-699-8693
11/i2/91
HIGHLIGHTS OF QUALIFICATIONS
EMPLOYED BY TEXACO INC. 22 YEARS
RETIRED 12/1/88
* PROMOTED TO TEXACO SAFETY DEPT, 3/72
* TEXACO'S SAFETY DEPT. 7 YEARS
* SUPERVISOR OF TRAINING FOR 10 YEARS
* INTERACTED WITH UPPER LEVELS OF MANAGEMENT.
* CREATED OVER 35 TRAINING AND PR VIDEOS
* HOLDS LA, COUNTY STEAM ENGINEERS LICENSE
As SAFETY INSPECTOR, WORKED WITH CONTRACTORS AND FEDERAL 0SHA
OFFICIALS. SET UP AND CONDUCTED CLASSES ON RESPIRATORY
PROTECTION AND LATER PRODUCED A VIDEO ON THE SUBJECT.
MADE THREE FIRE FIGHTING VIDEOS.
IN 1982 WAS PROMOTED TO Los ANGELES PLANT SUPERVISOR OF
TRAINING. TRAINED ALL NEW EMPLOYEES IN SAFETY PROCEDURES AND
PLANT OPERATIONS. CLASS INCLUDED DAY TO DAY SAFETY PRACTICES
AND AN EIGHT HOUR COURSE ON FIRST AID, PLUS A FOUR HOUR
COURSE ON CPR.
IN 1987 DELIVERED A PAPER AT.A CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK CITY
AT A CONVENTION OF PROCESS SIMULATORS ON HOW TO DEVELOP
QUALITY CONTROL TEACHING NEW EMPLOYEES HOW A DISTRIBUTION
PROCESS CONTROL LOOP SYSTEM WORKS AND IT'S BUILT IN SAFETY
GUARDS.
OVER THE TIME PERIOD OF MY CAREER AT TEXACO, I ATTENDED
NUMEROUS COMPANY SANCTIONED SAFETY SEMINARS AND CONVENTIONS.
DURING THI.S TIME I STUDIED FOR AND PASSED THE TEST TO BE
LICENSED AS A STEAM ENGINEER IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula
COMMISSI'ON ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE: ~ O, "~ e... Jr'- yr
NAME: G I.F_..,t2 ~, -~ L'~ A.,v l,,j i.l','kJ YEARSRESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
HOME PHONE: & '7 '7 & ~' ~ ?
OCCUPATION: A &("/"C~ r,1 <D "X , ~J 6
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:,'I~'7~'~' ~//AJ '~,~_
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
WORK PHONE:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF 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
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this
information for publicity purposes.
PLEASE NOTE: Applications will be kept on ~e for consideration of future vacancies.
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive. Temecula, CA 92390 {714I 694-1989
21formsiC O M-O0 1
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: r~,,i L[ _ ~-Ci. 2 2
°ccuP'T'°":%i~.~i ~,,.J.~
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
woRK
·
ir~'.i,y,.m.,:,? E... ~., ..,,./.,:,:, ,,. ,.-~
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS: ~ . l .
'?~.:,~r,~,. "- C ~,, ~,,',,,,,L,
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES: :",
.,,'\
J
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: (Professienai, 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
"""s"Tl:. ,- ,~ ~- ,-..-;~-.--:... ~--- ~-/,p-,.~ -~ ~-~ ;"!, ,.u,,,-- ~:-{i.,.~.,-
--.= --,.:,-..'-:' --°f."~,,..,.'5' ..:.,,:..d ,.,.:~ ~,....,.._.,._-,,.._,,,,,:,-.~¢2, ~
...~.~.._~.~,.=~...~. ~- 'F.;: . · ",P .')"5
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this
information for publicity purposes.
PLEASE NOTE: Abplications 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
21formsiC QM-O0 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula
NAME: YEARS RESIDENT
U~ {~CIE~ 03,~\ AC~('~Jf~ OF TEMECULA:
0 E PHONE: :~t WORK PHONE:
H M
EMPLOYERIAkI~DRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMI~EE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE Y~R OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
gRI[FLY STI~ ~HY YOU ~l~H TO ~[RV[ O~ THI~ COnCISe O . ~o ~HY YOu
B[L!~[ YOU ~ ~LIF![~ FOR TH[ ~OSlTIO~, ~[ ~P[~iFI~ {Usa sd~Rionai ~a~sr i{
ns~ssss~}:
inf~mation for pubiici~ purposes. .
PL~SE NOTE: Applications will b or consideration of ~re vacancies.
Remm to: CiW Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Teme~la, CA 9~90 (714) 694-1989
21formsiC OM-OO 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of City of Temecula
COMMISSION ON WHICH YOU WISH TO SERVE:
NAME:
Rita Victoria Hernandez
HOME PHONE:
(7~z1~ 676-5655
OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
SAFETY'
YEARS RESIDENT
OF TEMECULA:
2yr 6 me
WORK PHONE:
Graduate Washingt_on Irving H.S. - New ~ork
College classes at E1 Camino College, 1'orrance CA - no degree
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON WHICH
YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR OF SERVICE:
none
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
Villages II Homeowners Association, Birthrigt~t of Temect;ia
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):
Involvement in my community has always been a top priority
and very important to me. ! e:cpect to reside in Temecula for many years
and am very interested in its growth and developent. _T believe this
commission is a vital part of this city.
I am aware that there are prol~ably many people with degrees after their
name but being an intelligent, agressive individual, I have no doubt tha-
I can hold my own quite well. BESIDES, its time to have a woman on boar-
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of this
information for publicity purposes.
SIGNATURE: DATE:
PLEASE NOTE: Applications w~i be kept on file for consideration of future vacancies.
Retum to: City Clerk's Office, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989
21formstCOM-O01
ITEM
17
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
January 28, 1992
Status Report on French Valley Airport
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
Receive and discuss
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Agenda Report is to provide the City Council with some initial information
concerning the French Valley Airport, the agencies which regulate the airport and surrounding
areas, to identify the role of the City in land use decisions within the Influence Area of the
French Valley Airport, and to address some of the safety issues raised by the City Council at
it's October 8, 1991 meeting.
AIRPORT FACILITIES
The French Valley Airport is a general aviation airport owned and operated by Riverside
County. The airport is located east of Winchester Road north of the City of Temecula.
According to the Aviation Division of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency
(EDA), the existing runway is 4,600 feet long and 75 feet wide with a gross single wheel load
bearing capacity of 30,000 pounds. The airport has lighted runways that enable 24-hour
operation. There is no control tower at the French Valley Airport. Approximately 100 fixed
wing aircraft are currently based at the airport. The runway surface is capable of supporting
aircraft operations for most small private propeller-driven and small business jet aircraft. The
airport facility currently handles approximately 80,000 operations (landings and take-offs) per
year. The operational capacity of the French Valley Airport is approximately 140,000
operations per year.
The French Valley Airport does not have an adopted Master Plan to guide the development
of the airport facility. The EDA is applying to the FAA for a grant to prepare a Master Plan
for the French Valley Airport. The Board of Supervisors approved the grant application on
HOGAND~AIR2.AR 1
January 7, 1992. The current management program for the French Valley Airport facilities
is contained in the 1985 Site Selection Study and Environmental Impact Report.
According to EDA staff, there are currently no plans to lengthen or expand the runway or
apron areas at the French Valley Airport. However, the Aviation Division of the EDA is
planning to enhance the operation of the facility by upgrading the airport from Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) to basic Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The County has applied to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) for the equipment to enhance airport operations.
AIRPORT SAFETY
The safety concerns expressed by Councilman Mur~oz at the October 8th City Council meeting
were addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration. City Staff contacted the local area
office of the FAA. The Councilman's airport safety concerns were discussed with Mr. Carl
Christopher, the Manager of the Accident Prevention Program. It was the opinion of Mr.
Christopher, that there are no significant safety problems at French Valley Airport. His opinion
is based upon his experience in general aviation and his contacts with the safety counselors
at the French Valley Airport. The safety counselors are local volunteers who monitor flight
operations and safety at the airport. Although the Federal Aviation Administration
representative believes that there are no significant safety hazards at the airport, the City
Airport Committee will meet with the FAA, the Friends of French Valley Airport, and airport
safety experts to identify what they perceive to be potential safety problems around the
French Valley Airport. The solutions to these problems will be forwarded to the appropriate
regulatory agencies for consideration.
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT
In addition to the local governments that are responsible for the planning and zoning for the
airport and surrounding areas; four government agencies have some form of legal jurisdiction
over the airport facility and areas of influence. The Federal Aviation Administration is
concerned with the flight safety and manages the airspace over the airport. The Division of
Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) issues operating
permits, conducts airport facility inspections, provides technical assistance to county airport
operation agencies, and reviews airport land use plans for consistency with State Law. The
Aviation Division of Riverside County's Economic Development Agency (EDA) provides staff
support to both the Riverside County Aviation Commission and Airport Land Use
Ccommission, and is responsible for the operation, maintenance, lease management, and
improvements to the County-owned and -operated airports in Riverside County.
The Riverside County Aviation Commission (RCAC) is an advisory body to the Board of
Supervisors. The five member Commission reviews actions affecting the operation of the six
County-owned and operated airport facilities and makes recommendations before the Aviation
Division staff submits matters to the County Board of Supervisors. Each Supervisor appoints
one member to serve on the Aviation Commission from there respective districts. The five
members of the RCAC are: William Harker (1 st District), Peggy Zopf (2nd District), Ron Karge
(3rd District), Frank Wilson (4th District), and Colonel Ed Butler (5th District).
HOGAND~AIR2.AR 2
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has seven members and is
responsible for land use planning around all thirteen airports in Riverside County. Five
members represent the Riverside County Board of Sul0ervisors and two members represent
Riverside County Cities. The five County representatives are the members Of the RCAC. The
two City representatives are Gillar Boyd (Palm Springs) and John Wingate (Riverside). Both
were appointed in 1982 by the City Selection Committee. The City Selection Committee is
composed of all the Mayors for all the Cities in Riverside County. According to EDA staff,
recent changes in State Law concerning the terms of office for the members of the Airport
Land Use Commission, will require that the current City representatives on the ALUC be
reappointed or replaced by the City Selection Committee. The City of Temecula is a member
of the City Selection Committee and will be involved in this process.
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission operates pursuant to the provisions of the
State Aeronautics Act, Sections 21670 through 21679 of the Public Utilities Code. According
to Section 21670, the purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, ensure the continued orderly use and development of
airports in California, and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. Section
21675, requires that a Comprehensive Land Use Plan be prepared for all commercial and
general aviation airports to ensure the orderly growth and expansion of these airports and to
address the unique land usa, noise, and public safety concerns associated with airports.
According to the provisions of Section 21675.1, county airport land use commissions must
adopt a CLUP for all airports in the county by June 30, 1992.
At present time, the ALUC regulates the area of influence of the French Valley Airport under
the 1984 Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. The ALUC amended the interim airport
influence area in September, 1989, to include all areas within 2 miles of the airport. The
previous influence area had included all areas within 1 mile of the airport. Exhibit 1 shows
the present Interim Area of Influence for the French Valley Airport. The current influence area
is also the Study Area for the CLUP.
Until the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, the
Influence Area around the French Valley Airport is managed pursuant to the 1984 Riverside
County Airport Land Use Plan. The Plan established interim policies to direct development
within airport influence areas in Riverside County. The Plan established three specific
influence areas. Area I is the area near the imaginary approach paths into and out of the
facility is the most restrictive management area. Area II is the area around the airport with
potentially significant safety concerns. The entire Area of Influence around the airport is
Influence Area III. Area III is the least restrictive influence area within the influence area of
the French Valley Airport. Exhibit 2 shows the location of interim Influence/Management
Areas I and II at the French Valley Airport.
The current countywide Airport Land Use Plan allows only residential development on lots
larger than 2.5 acres in Area I if the development does not interfere with the approach zones
of the airport runway. In Area II, in addition to the uses allowed in Area I, agricultural,
industrial and commercial uses are also acceptable. In Area III, height limits and avigation
easements are required for all uses, and special sound proofing requirements are required to
reduce interior noise levels in all residential uses.
HOGAND~IR2.AR 3
AIRPORT AREA LAND USE PLANNING
As mentioned above, the ALUC is required to prepare a comprehensive land use plan for all
airports in Riverside County. To prepare the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French
Valley Airport, the ALUC has received a $54,000 grant from Caltrans. The firm of Aries
Consultants has been hired to prepare the Plan. To facilitate the preparation of the CLUP, the
Airport Land Use Commission has created an advisory committee that includes local agencies
and airport users. The French Valley Airport Technical Advisory Committee consists of
representatives of Caltrans, the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Riverside County, the Friends
of French Valley Airport, and local property owners. The first meeting was held in Hemet on
November 27, 1991; a representative from the City Planning staff was in attendance at the
meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the consultant who would be
preparing the CLUP to the French Valley Airport Technical Advisory Committee and to solicit
their issues and concerns. The next meeting has been scheduled for the end of January,
1992.
State Law requires that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport be
adopted by June 30, 1992. City Staff is concerned about the timing of the master plan for
the airport facility and the comprehensive land use plan for the airport influence area. The
Master Plan for the airport facility should be completed before a comprehensive land use plan
is prepared. This is because the CLUP should be based upon the long-term plans and
assumptions contained in the Master Plan. City Staff is concerned that the future size and
use of the airport facility will be constrained by the planning assumptions used to develop the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport. According to Aviation Division
staff, the CLUP may be revised after the Master Plan is completed to reflect the changes in
anticipated use and capacity of the airport.
In addition, the City General Plan will also need to carefully consider future land uses around
the airport in order to prevent future noise and safety problems. The General Plan Guidelines
for the State of California require city general plans to address both existing and projected
noise levels from a wide range of noise sources, including roadways, industrial facilities, and
general aviation airports. The City will have the opportunity to address the noise, safety and
land use compatibility issues during the preparation of the City's first General Plan.
THE ROLE OF THE CITY IN AIRPORT AREA LAND USE DECISIONS
According to State law, the adopted airport comprehensive land use plan was intended to take
precedence over a City or County general plan within the airport's area of influence. The
legislature intended that all development and land use proposals within the area of influence
be consistent with the airport land use plan. All land use development entitlements within the
influence area of the airport, must be approved by the Airport Land Use Commission. If a land
use or development proposal is denied by the ALUC, the City or County (whichever has
jurisdiction of the area) may overrule the decision and approve the development.
To overrule a decision of the ALUC, the City or County must, with a 2/3's vote of it's
legislative body make specific findings that the proposed project is consistent with the
legislative intent as defined in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. The action of a City
HOGAND',AIR2.AR 4
or County to overrule the decision of the ALUC makes the operator of the airport immune
liability for all damages to property and personal injury that results from the decision to
overrule a project denial by the Airport Land Use Commission (Section 21675.1 (f) Public
Utilities Code).
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON INITIAL AGENDA REPORT
Two comment letters were submitted in response to the City's December 10, 1991, Agenda
Report on the Status of the. French Valley Airport. One letter was from a property owner near
the airport, and the other was from the Riverside County's Economic Development Agency.
The letters are attached to the Agenda Report as Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. The letter
from the EDA contained a number of reiterations and elaborations of information originally
provided to City Staff by the Aviation Division· City Staff circulated a draft of this agenda
report to both of these commentors. Borre Winckel responded in writing on January 2nd,
EDA staff responded by phone on January 3rd. The final agenda report has been corrected
to reflect their specific comments to the draft agenda report.
City Staff has reviewed the EDA's December 17, 1991, letter and has identified a number of
additional concerns and issues· Their additional concerns and issues are as follows:
"The airport's runway, given its length, width, and strength, may accommodate most
small propeller driven aircraft and small business jets under 30,000 pounds. The
existing runway may accommodate some forms of commuter type aircraft meeting the
runway length, width, and strength constraints. The Dash 7's and Dash 8's aircraft
mentioned in your city staff report cannot operate our of French Valley Airport at this
time given that the gross weight of these aircraft exceed the runway's weight
restrictions." (Page 2, Paragraph 4 and Page 3, Paragraph 1)
Response: The statement concerning the potential for commercial air service at French
Valley Airport has been deleted from the agenda report.
City Airoort Committee
"We did note that the City formed an Airport Committee. We also noted that the
Riverside County Economic Development Agency/Aviation Division was noticeably
absent from the Committee. It is our opinion that we are the most knowledgeable on
the French Valley Airport, airport operations and requirements, and our absence from
the Committee would not serve the City's best interest. We would be happy to
provide our knowledge to the Committee to ensure the City obtains complete
information." (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Response: No change to the Agenda Report is needed. It was the intent of City
Airport Committee to invite Aviation Division staff to share their expertise and
information on the French Valley Airport·
"The city staff did a thorough job discussing the Airport Land Use Commission
legislation, role, and preparation of the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan· The costs
of the Airport Land Use Plan need clarification. The total cost of the Airport Land Use
HOGAND~IR2.AR 5
Plan is ~60,000. The costs are divided into S50,000 consultant fees and 810,000
administrative costs. The source of the funds for the Airport Land Use Plan are a
854,000 grant from the California Aid to Airports Program and a S6,000 local match."
(Page 4, Paragraph 5)
Response: The exact dollar amount has been included in the Agenda Report.
Another letter was sent by Borre Winckel, President of the Dutch Village Property Owners
Association. Mr. Winckel's letter contained a number of specific comments on the City's
Agenda Report. City Staff has reviewed the Mr. Winckel's December ~ 6, 1991, letter and
has identified a number of additional concerns and issues. The additional concerns and issues
are as follows:
"Page 1, Airport Facilities, Paragraph 1: The count of 80,000 operations (actually
78,000) is an estimate based upon one week acoustical count by Caltrans for 1990
by extrapolation .... "
Response: The comment supports information stated in staff report, and provides
additional information on airport use projections. No change to the Agenda Report is
needed.
"Same Paragraph, Staff Report: The airport is not approved for any commuter or
commercial service. Hence it can not accommodate DASH 7's and DASH 8's with a
current tarmac strength category of 12,500 pounds. Changing tarmac strength will
require new approvals based on new environmental assessments. Currently the airport
may accommodate a limited air taxi service within the general aviation aircraft category
envelope."
Response: The commercial service statement has been deleted from the Agenda
Report. The information on tarmac strength is different than provided by the EDA.
The 12,500 pound runway weight strength limit was used in the Site Selection Study
and EIR. In addition, increasing the weight bearing capacity of an airport will change
the type of aircraft that can fly into and out of that facility.
"Page 1, last Paragraph: There is no Riverside County Aviation Commission. There
is a Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Aviation Department
has applied to the FAA for an instrument approach procedure, which implementation
is fully subject to both the CEQA and NEPA process. Procedurally the problem is that
EIR No. 206 did not sufficiently cover instrument approach procedures which
handicaps meeting the FAA's requirement for an Environmental Assessment update."
Response: According to the EDA, the Riverside County Aviation Commission does
exist, and serves as an advisory board to the Board of Supervisors. No change to
Agenda Report is needed. The issue of the environmental procedures followed by the
Aviation Division is beyond the scope of this agenda report. City Staff will attempt to
determine the correct information.
4. "Page 2, Paragraph 1: The report mentions two Master Plan applications. There is
HOGAND~AIR2.AR 8
only one Master Plan application by the Aviation Department. The report fails to point
out that adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is a requirement by the
State of California, reinforced by SB 255 with an extended deadline date of June 30,
1992. CLUP must use as its data basis the Master Plan and Site Selection Study
information adopted by EIR No. 206 in July 1985. The CLUP may not incorporate any
new information .... "
Response: The Agenda Report discussed only one Master Plan for the airport facility.
No change to the Agenda Report is needed. The deadline for completion of the CLUP
has been added to the agenda report. The issue of the information and assumptions
to be used in preparing the CLUP will be reviewed by City Staff.
"Page 2, Airport Management, Paragraph 3: At present time, ALUC denies, conditions
and approves projects on the basis of the expanded Interim Airport Influenced Area.
The Staff Report is in error when it makes mention of the regulating of land uses by
the ALUC under the 1984 Riverside County Land Use Plan. Hence, Exhibit 1 shows
the expanded Interim Airport Influenced Area as was adopted by the ALUC (only) on
September 21, 1991."
"Page 3, Paragraph 3: Same Comment as immediately above."
Response: The word "Airport" was left off of Page 2. The term Airport has been
added onto Page 2. The correct Plan title was found on Page 3 of the Agenda Report.
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan was adopted on April 26, 1984 by the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. The County Airport Land Use Plan is
a general countywide policy document intended to bridge the gap between the lack of
airport land use plans in Riverside County and the requirements of State Law.
"Page 3, Paragraph 4: The Staff Report incorrectly describes the three categories of
land use in Interim Airport Influenced Areas I, II, and III. The staff report lists them
backwards.
Response: The interim influence area descriptions used in the December 10, 1991
Agenda Report were double-checked and found! to be correct. The information was
taken directly from the 1984 Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. No change to
the Agenda Report is needed.
Page 3, Paragraph 4 "The proper term for airspace easements is "avigation easements"
not aviation easements .... "
Response: The correct terminology for a flight path easement has been included in the
Agenda Report.
"Page 3, Paragraph 5: The CLUP Advisory Committee also has land owner
representation on it .... "
Response: The Agenda Report has been corrected to reflect this fact.
HOGAND%AIR2.AR 7
10.
"Page 3, Paragraph 6: The current plan for French Valley Airport is the same one as
was adopted by the County in EIR No. 206. There are no other valid assumptions for
a different use."
Response: The comment provides an additional information. No change to the Agenda
Report is needed.
"Page 4, The Role of the City Etc., Paragraph 1: Once a CLUP has been adopted,
CLUP will supersede City and County General Plans. However, due to the fact that
Interim Airport Influenced Areas should first be established in consultation and hearing
with involved planning agencies (March 1990 ALUC Rules and Regulations) the
process is assumedly an interactive and mutually agreed to process. Prior to CLUP
adoption, Interim Airport Influenced Areas will not superceede City or County General
Plans."
Response: The comment provides an additional information. No change in the Agenda
Report is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is Staff's recommendation that the City Council pursue the following goals and objectives
relating to the French Valley Airport:
The City Airport Committee should coordinate airport concerns and issues with the
Friends of French Valley Airport, the FAA, the Airport Land Use Commission, and other
airport experts. The Committee should evaluate safety issues around the airport,
determine if feasible solutions are available, and forward any solutions to the
appropriate regulatory agency for consideration. A specific Work Program that
identifies the objectives and activities should be prepared to assist the City Airport
Committee in it's efforts to reduce safety hazards and address local airport concerns·
The City should continue to actively monitor and provide input into the development
of the Airport Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport.
The City Council contact Supervisor Walt Abraham and request that the City be
allowed to provide input into the selection of any future First District representative to
the Airport Land Use Commission.
The Mayor should be actively involved with the City Selection Committee to improve
local representation on the Airport Land Use Commission.
The City should encourage the City of Murrieta to identify and implement possible
solutions to airport issues and concerns.
The City should incorporate airport related issues into the Land Use, Noise, and Safety
Elements of the City's General Plan.
HOGAND~AIP,2.AR 8 ~
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 - French Valley Airport Influence Areas
Exhibit 3 - December 17, 1991 Letter from the Riverside County
Economic Development Agency
Exhibit 4 - December 16, 1991 Letter form Borre Winckel
representing Dutch Investors, Inc.
Article entitled: "Mayday, Mayday - No Place to Land", Plannine,
November, 1991.
· HOGAND~AIR2.AR 9
VICINITy MA2
__ _t. , . ,,i t/%1. I I..,"l"' I" l-M/I.
"' ,AIRPORT AREA OF INFLGENCE' 1 o~" "'
... .z~ i .... ..,"
/
.1
I
[
EXHIBIT 2
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AREAS
AREA I
AREA II b,\\\"q
k\
: ·
//
EDA
EXHIBIT 3
ECONOMIC
EVEI, OPMENT
AGENCY
December 17, 1991
Mayor and City Council
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, California 92590
RESPONSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER REPORT ON
FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The Riverside County EcOnomic Development Agency has reviewed the
December 10, 1991 report from the Temecula City Planning
Department to the City Council/City Manager. Your staff should
be commended for a fine job. However, I feel it is important to
clarify points in the report so that the elected officials have
complete information.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Throughout the report, ~he City staff had a misconception of the
organizational structure of the Riverside County Economic
Development Agency's Aviation Division and its responsibilities
regarding the French Valle~ Airport. The Aviation Division is
one oZ three divisions within the Economic Development Agency.
The Aviation Division has two clear and distinct functions. The
first, function is to provide the administration of the six
County-owned and operated airports. These airports are 'French
Valley Airport, Hemet-Ryan Airport, Thermal Airport, Blythe
Airport, Chiriaco Sununit Airport, and Desert Center Airport. The
second separate and distinct function iS to serve as staff to the
Riverside County Airport Land Use CommiSsion (ALUC).
The Aviation Division staffs two separate and distinct
Commissions. The first Commission is the Riverside County
Aviation Commission. The Aviation Commission is an advisory body
to the Board of Supervisors. There are five members on the
Aviation Commission. Each Board of Supervisor member appoints
one individual to serve on the Aviation Commission from their
respective districts. The Aviation Commissioners are as follows:
William Marker - First District, Peggy Zopf - Second District,
Ron Karge - Third District, Friend Frank Wilson - Fourth
District, and Col. Edw. G. Bu~ler - Fifth District. ActiOns
affecting the administration of the six County-owned and. operated
airports are presented to the Aviation Commission for their
review and recommendations before the Aviation Division submits
the matters to the Board of Supervisors.
Mayor and Temecula City Council
December 17, 1991
Page 2
The second Commission is the Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC). The ALUC is a seven member Commission. The
ALUC is formed by members of the Aviation Commission assuming the
responsibilities of the ALUC, augmented by two members selected
by the City Selection Committee of Mayors. The members of the
ALUC are the above lasted five AviatiOn Commissioners and the
city S~lection Committee 0£ Malone ~ele~tud m~i{~urs F. Gillar
Boyd (resides in Palm Springs) and John wingate (resides in
Riverside). As your staff has indicated, changes in the State
Public Utilities Code has identified terms of appointment for
these two individuals. The City representatives are required to
be appointed or reappointed every four years, with the term
beginning the first Monday in. May.
The Riverside County ALUC is required to adopt airport land use
plans around 13 public-use airports in Riverside County,
including French valley Airport. The Riverside County ALUC has
no jurisdiction over the administration on any of these airport
properties. Further discussion on the ALUC will be discussed
later in the report under ALUC.
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT
The French Valley Airport is a County-owned and operated
facility. Under the direction of the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors and County Administrative Officer, the Economic
Development Agency/Aviation Division is responsible for the
operations, maintenance, lease management, and capital
improvements at the French Valley Airport.
Airport Facilities
The French Valley Airport is a general aviation facility. The
existing runway is 4,600 feet long, 75 feet wide, and has a gross
single wheel load bearing capacity of 30,000 pounds. CALTRANS
Division Of AerOnautics performed aircraft counts with an
acoustical counter in AUguSt o{ 1990. InterpOlating the counts
to an annual basis, we estimate the French Valley Airport has
80,000 annual operations. An operation is considered either one
landing or one take off. One landing and one take off is
considered two operations. The airport has a pilot controlled
lighting system which enables the airport to remain open 24 hours
a day. We have approximately 100 based aircr~£t. The airport's
runway, given its length, width, and strength, may accommodate
most small propeller driven aircraft and small business jets
under 30,000 pounds. The existing runway may accommodate some
forms of commuter type aircraft meeting the runway length, width,
Mayor and Temecula City Council
December 17, 1991
Page 3
and strength constraints. The Dash 7's and Dash 8's aircraft
mentioned in your city staff report cannot operate out of French
Valley Airport at this time given that.the gross weight of these
aircraft exceed the runway's weight restrictions.
The French Valley AirpOrt iS currently a Visual ~'light Rule
airport with no instrument approach. The Riverside County
Economic Development Agency/Aviation Division has requested from
and is working with the Federal Aviation Administration on
obtaining the equipment necessary and the flight procedures for
an instrument approach to =he French Valley Airport.
Future Plans
Currently, the French Valley Airport does not have an adopted
Master Plan Study to guide the future development of the airport.
The 1985 Site Selection and Environmental Impact Report was
sufficient for the site selection of the airport and the
environmental impact to the area. The 1985 document does not
address the future aviation use of the airport. The proper
document necessary to guide the future policy direction of the
French Valley Airport is a Master Plan Study with the associated
Environmental Impact Report (CEQA)/Environmental Assessment
(NE~A).
The Riverside County Economic Development Agency/Aviation
Division has prepared an application for Federal Aviation
Administration Airport Improvement Program funds to proceed with
a Master Plan Study and Environmental impact Report/Environmental
Assessment. The application should go before the Board in
January 1992.
The Master Plan ~tudy and related documents are prepared to
provide an issue-oriented study process. The issue-oriented
Master Plan Study would consist of substantial public involvement
and participation through an advisory committee and public
workshops. The initial meeting would be a scoping meeting in
which the issues would be identified through public involvement.
The issues would be addressed throughout =he course of the study
documentation and formulation. The end result of the study may
make recommendations for 3ustifiable improvements, discard
unJustiflable improvements, and/or where improvements are
justified but cannot be accommodated for an identified reason,
(l.e.z incompatible land use, highly environmentally sensitive,
or lack of sufficient space for development). The Master Plan
and Environmental Impact Report/Environmental ASsessment would
guide the future of the French Valley AirpOrt by solid
I~,*t. RSI~F. CCXjPqrT'Y · .5401 TEX'r14 q.T'RF.f.T · P.O. BOX I lie · ~ CA. ~ · 1114) 7UeiliT(I · I'*/~X i714) 718.|416
Mayor and Temecula City Council
December 17, 1991
Page 4
documentation to dispel rumors and myths at their origin. The
Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Assessment may take up to three years to formulate and adopt.
Safety Concerns
The city staff report discussed concerns raised by Councilman Sal
Munoz at the October 8, 1991 City Council meeting. The city
staff did address adequately the Federal Aviation
Administration's and CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics' role in
the oversight of the French Valley Airport. I would like to note
that the French Valley Airport is inspected at least once a year
by CALTRANS DiviSiOn of Aeronautics as part of the Airport's
Operating Permit. Safety is our number one priority at the
French Valley Airport.
City Airport Committee
we did note that the City formed an Airport Committee. We also
noted that the Riverside County Economic Development
Agency/Aviation DiviSiOn was noticeably absent from the
Committee. It is in our opinion that we are the most
knowledgeable On the French Valley Airport, airport operations
and requirements, and our absence from the Committee would not
serve the City's best interest. We would be happy to provide our
knowledge to the Committee to ensure the City obtains complete
information.
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
As mentioned above, the second separate and distinct function of
the Riverside County Economic Development Agency/Aviation
Division is tO serve as staff to the Riverside County Airport
Land Use Commission. Also, its formation and members were
aiscussed above.
The city staff did a thorough job discussing the Airport Land Use
Commission legislation, role, and preparation of the French
valley Airport Land Use Plan. The costs of the Airport Land Use
Plan need clarification. The total cost of the Airport Land Use
Plan is $60,000. The costs are divided into $50,000 consultant
fees and $10,000 administrative costs. The source of funds for
the Airport Land Use Plan are a $54,000 grant from the California
Aid to Airports Program and a $6,000 local match.
RI%,ZRSIC~:; C'(:)UN'TY · ,"&4el 'lYd"~?'l ,~'rlqF,,L'I' · P.O. BOX ! fifo · R~ CA IQtSOS · |714) 781~770 · FAX (714) 7li. 14 hi
AVIATION · ECZ)NOM/C 'a' ~ DEVTI.OgMEJqT ·
Mayor and Temecula City Council
December 17, 19 9 1
Page 5
The City of Temecula is participating on the Airport Advisory
Committee to formulate the Airport Land Use Plan, and we
encourage that continuing participation. It is only with the
par~icipation of the local planning jurisdictions that are
effected by the operations at the airport can we develop an
airport land use plan that is adoptable in each jurisdiction's
respective General Plan. The purpose of the airport land use
plan as identified in Public Utilities Code 21670 is "protecting
the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly
expansion of the airport and the adoption of land use measures
that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that
these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses". This
purpose may only be obtained through the cooperative efforts.
COMMENTS TO CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Riverside County, as the owners and operators of the French
Valley Airport, should be included on the City's Airport
Committee and all airport concerns and issues should be
coordinated with the Riverside County Economic Development
Agency/Aviation Division.
The Riverside County EconOmic Development Agency/Aviation
Division serving as staff to the Airport Land Use Commission
encourages the City of Temecula's participation on the
Advisory Committee for the development of the Airport Land
use Plan for the influenced area around the French Valley
Airport.
Supervisor Walt Abraham appoints one member to the Aviation
Commission. The French Valley Airport is located in
Supervisor Kay Ceniceros' district.
The Riverside County Economic Development Agency/Aviation
DiviSiOn welcomes any of the City's suggestions to the City
Selection Committee for Airport Land Use Commission
representation. we will prepare a staff report to the City
Selection Committee for appointments to the Airport Land Use
Commission. If there are any individuals the City would
lake to recommend, we request the individual's name and a
brief resume on the individual's qualifications be submitted
to us so that they may be addressed in the staff report to
the City Selection Committee for the Airport Land Use
Commission membership appointments.
RIVT, R,e~DF, C:(XJNT'Y · 34~ T'~ I ~T~F IPT · I).O, BOX I 110 · ~ CA ~ · I 714) ~'ll, e170 · FAX (7 |4) ?l&l 4 I.I
AVIATION · ECONOMIC ~D COMM~NI'rY DL"v'~.~OPMENT · RF.D(V~.L,OP,~AE. NT
Mayor and Temecula City Council
December 17, 1991
Page 6
The City oE Murrieta is represented on the
Committee for the French Valley Airport Land
Their participation is strongly encouraged.
Advisory
Use Plan.
The French Valley Airport Land Use Plan should be
incorporated into the City's General Plan to enable the
Airport Land Use Commission and the City to work
cooperatively on land use planning in areas which are
influenced by the airport.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report.
The Riverside County Economic Development Agency/Aviation
Division will be happy to address any concerns or questions the
City Council and the City Manager may have regarding either the
administration of the French valley Airport or the matters
affecting the Airport Land Use Commission.
Sincerely,
David K. McElrOy
Managing Director
County Economic Development Agency
DKM:JMR:sa
EXHIBIT
DL'TCH INVE~TORI$,
4
G. P!I. %Vl N'CK E I,
vice F~res,Oenr
December
Hayor Pro Tel
Karat F, LiMemane
CITY OF TE~ECULA
P.O, Box 3000
remecula~ CR 9g3eO
Dear Cou~llman
Rel City et-ff Rl~ert Frlnrh V.-lley
You have asked me to put in writ&rig my comeanti concerning the
cooplatexes ef the information containlO in referthree Status Report.
I Ihere rheas cooNwonts and my opinions with yOUm aria throu h you wX~h
the City Councltm in my capacity is repreoentattve of · ma~or
landowner wLthin Dutch VIllage 5P 106Cm and am the President of its ~
Property Owners Aesoctattone [ am also a representitive of
Supervisor Centcargo am an appointed member of the French VaZEey
Airport Comprehenelvo Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP).
As far' Re the chrono loglceZ text le concerntam the followings
Page lm Airport Fecllltlesm Paragraph ls The count Of eOmOOO
operations (iGtually 78m000) is an e~tZmate Dilld on a one Nell
acoustical count by Caterins en~ellze~ for l~90 ~y extrapolation.
EZR No, RO& (adopted :uly of 1~85} for French Valley Airport can~alns
an exhlb$e by ~eell ENINertng which fOreCaSt e?~ooo operaSLow by
1995m end ltEm~ operaatonE ~y the year ~OOO,
E/R No, age 8eGtJon [IX, Am Page I s~ateel
"... bemm~ on the proJKted/n~e[ opmra~tonl of 11amO00 by the year
8~ the airport NOUIQ require only · sineta runway which can have In
en~el capacity of up to 1~O.O00 operaStone ~en devoiDpeg unUer
standard conditions with a gage parallel taxlway system and runway
exltm*'.
The queselon ie whether the 80mO00 operations c~unt ie indicative of
current elFDoff undersizing or "mexed out capacittes"e when EZR No.
.ao6 lists much higher real figures within the not too diRtant future.
20 N:ce. South La~ur,~ Cahlc,rn.a 12577
PhOne (714) 499-2895 Fax (714) d~9-1748
DUTCH ZNVESTORI~ ZNC.
Letter to Councilman Lindamass
C~ty of TameGels
December 1~9 1991
~age ~,
Same Parstrophe Staff Reportl The alrport ie not approved far
any commuter or commercial service. Hanoi It can not aCCommodate
DASH ?'e and DASH 8*s ~ith · current tarmac strength cateVery a~
12uSOQ Pounds. Changing tarmac strength will requlre nee approvals
baled on new environmental assessments. Currently taw airport may
accommodate a limited air taxi earvice within the generll avlatlon
aircraft category envelope.
Page 1, lilt Peragraphe There is no Riverside County Aviation
Commlselon. There Is · Riverside County Aviation Department an~ an
AIrport Lend Uii Commitslos (ALUC). The Avlation Department has
appllN to the FAR for an instrument approach procedure, which
ImPlementation te fully eu~lect to both the CEGR end NEPA process,
ProcmOuralZy the problem Is that SiR No, a06 did not mufflelenity
cover tnetr~m~nt approach proc~ure~ which handicaps meet$~ the FR~'s
rmquiremmn~ for in lnv~rommntml Almmllmmnt ~p~mtm.
Page am Paragraph Is The Report mentions two flatter Plan
applications. There 18 only one ~aeter Plan application by the
Aviation Department. The report re'ill to point out that adoptLon of
· Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) iS a requirement ~y the State of
Californiam reinforced Qy 68 a~5 with an aNteneed deadline date of
3~n8 30, 1992, CLUP Net use am ltl data bible the Hotter Plan and
Slte Selection Study information adopted by SIR No. a06 in 3uly of
1~89. CLUP may nek incorporate any nee information.
Riverside ALUC ham net made In AIrport Lane Use Plan for' French Valley
Alrportm using In steadm prior to 6epten~er l~8tm a one mile Zntwrlm
AIrport Influenced Aria boundary "pXan" am its lar~l use review tool.
The '*plan" adopted for Wrench Valley Airport was modelled after the
HwmwttRyan Airport. SB aD~ gives ALUC'I the option to ,ouble these
interim Areas to (arbitrarily chosen) two miles from 'the alrport's
~ounearlee If thmy haO not dieignored m study area thmmswlvea.
Airport boundaries ere not tee proper impact bills measuring poLnte.
The CA. UP process awake to ectentifically and eociw economically
confirm the extent ef airport Influence forecoat by the ALUC on the
Znter%m AreIt or atudy aream based on previoueZy adopted data.
Hencam CLUP can increase or decrease the territory prmvtously
Identified IS the interim Airport Influenced Aream which thereafter
becomes ~hm Airport Influenced Ares.
The Interim mtudy area is seed to damartiSt the extent of property
whlchw in the interimp must come before the COMicsion for review and
comment when an action ta requir~ or requested. Sl e~5 did not
expand the lane use JurledictiOn Of State ALUC's, Out inatituted m
teeq:orsry moratorium on potential law suits filed agalnet ALUC's for
failure to a~opt · CLUP (From State Attorney General Opinion No.
e8-307). ALUC'B mMst ~emonstrate substantial prograil on CLUP to
receive continued legal ~rotecttun and funding coverage under 9O E55.
DUTCH ZNVESTCNqEe ZNC,
Letter to C0~ncitman LLndmmans
City Of Tomeogle
Dmcember tam t991
PaVe 3-
interim AIrport Zrlfluenced Areas Should be annually reviewed and
reconfirmed. Prior to adoption of a CLUPe interim Area
classifications may no~ be use~ to deny or COndttton projects (lance
no CEQA process was observed) but serve. me a guiSenee tool for review
and feedback to esther City or County planning authorities. The
boundaries of the study area (far which CLUP is specifically made)
shesad be established through an interactive process between the ALUC
and the involved planning agencies through consultations and hearings.
This tl tO ensure ~hat City an~ County Senera1 Plans are In "lynch"
with ALUC'e marketed tamks, The process alma recognizes that it Is
the Prerogative of either CIty or County to make Land Use decisions
within their own Jur~sd~ctionl since ~ts motto economic S~akea in the
region ere often higher than theme investeg at the airport proper.
Horseyore ALUC'i ire n~t "equipped" (empowerode staffed or funded) to
carry thil talk.
Because of funQJng Gonltratnta and on account of the provisions Of BE
e~gs Riverside ALtJC ~luat f~rat complete CLUP (on the baits of EZR No.
e~rPor~e ~/ch ~=o ~s~ undergo ~he f~X~ CEQR and N~R process, the
adopted ~ester Plan will requSre an upSetleg of the adop~ CLUP,
etaonce. a Heater Plan Is · rqiDn~tde feasibility study
addresses ~he n~ fgr changes ~ the cUrtoni c~nfigurett~ne aria
aPerm~lonm Of the airport. Hence ~he prelen~ CLUP effor~ tl no~ ~he
forum for lne~Z~utJq Changes to ~hm operatiOnS ~r configurations o~
Page le Airporl Hanagmmenle Paragraph 3w At present time, ALUC
dentist condltiOnl end approves proJKta on the bails of the expanded
interim Airport influenced Area. The Itaff Report is tn error when
ib makes mention of the regu~ating of ~and uses by the RLUC under the
&see Riveraide County Lan~ use Plan. Neecot Exhibit t angel the
expanded Znter&m Airport influenced Area as was adopted by the R~UG
(only) on Beptee~wr EI~ teSS.
Pate 3m PlraVrsph 3m Same comment aa immediately above.
Page as Paragraph 4s The Staff Rwpor$ Incorrectly describes the
~hree catqoriee of land use In Interim AIrport influenced Areas Z.
ZZm ana ZZZ, The Staff Repor~ has them listed backwards,
The proper term for atrmpace easements is "artViSion easements" not
aviation easementS. ALUC may very well require avlga~lon emmamontem
howevere It would be Ihor~ sighted for any agency to w~pec~ the
underlyJn~ or affected propwr~y owner to give up any and a~l ricouric
far adverse impacts lncurre~ by airport operaSteem. Riverside ALUC
egpecta landownere to simply give easwments when in fact a ~
dlm&n&ehment of value, and of usam will occur to the underlying
property ownera
DUTCH :NV~6TORa~ iNC.
4
4
involved agencies should consider conauctin9 economic impact
assessments to avoid the Petefilial for inverse Condemnation
Page i, Paragraph 9; The CLUP ROyleery Committee ales has land
owner representorion on 11.. This II bitlull thoulands of acres are
affected by a ~b~ acre airport. It is apparent from the Staff Repor~
that the intricate impacts on COntiguous lane owners are not yet being
alleased,
Page 3m Paragraph 6m The current plan for French Valley Airport
Is the same one el was adopted by the County In EZR No. 206. There
are ne other vaJtd assumptions'for · different use.
Page 4. The Role Of The City Etc.. Paragraph i: Once s CLUP has
been adopted~ CLUP wilt lupersl~le City and County General Plane.
Howevote due to the fact that Interim Airport Znflue~ad Areas IhouZ~
first be establlmheil In con~itatlon and hearing ,ith l~olved
pZsnnln~ egwnciee (Notch 1990 ALUC Rules & Regulations) the procole is
aaaumedly an intermotive and m~tually agreed to procameo Prior to
CLUIm adoption, Interim Airpor~ Influenced Areas will not 8uperceede
City or County Besets1 Plans.
NQTE ON CURRENT EXPRNDED INTERIN AZRP0t41' INFLUENCED AREAs
Whereas Riverside County ALUC hal adopted the expanaed Interim Airport
Influenced Area. The County Of Riverside ham norm and specifically
reJ~ted l~luelon within IN/Mm tn November of 1989. The County ruled
that adoption of the mxpandld Influenced areas without public input
was not warranted for the adverse Impact luch in aaop~lon would have
on property valueS.
Riverside ~M.UC maintains that II 155m in effKz since 3sOusty Im I~90m
granted RLLJC*B an tmealdiate axpanelon of 1is JurteOlctlon by virtue of
deslgnatirNi an, adopting expertSad Interim Airport lnfluencm:l Areas.
Records ahem that RtveraideC~unty m_UC did not consult nor hear with
involved planning agencies in the establishment of ~he expanded
Interim Areas.
NOTE 13N FLIIHT PATHem
Thm current flight pattern at French Vailmy Airport Is in violation of
[IR No. loaf and detr/~ntally affKts proper.ty'owners.
hope theme commence are of interest to the CLay.
DaJTCH~VEBTORB.
8 Planning, :qovcmber ] ~.:.'
Mayday, Mayday'-
No Place to I_and
All over the country,
general aviation airports
are feeling the suburban
squeeze.
05 -I 3 88
5E 2000
By Ruth Eckdish Knack
F~ or a first-time passenger, circling
around northern New Jersey's High
Point Monument in a tiny Piper Cherokee
gives new meaning to the term "bird's eye
view." It also gives fresh insight into the
devotion many small plane pilots feel
toward their craft and toward their air-
field--and why they're so distressed at
the rapidly diminishing number of gen-
eral aviation facilities in the U.S. Since
1970, according to the Federal Aviation
Administration, we have lost some 1,500
"public use" general aviation airports (air-
ports with little or no commercial service
and that max,' be privately owned but that
are open to the public}. leaving us with
some 5,000. During the first half of this
year alone. FAA figures show, 13 public-
use aviation facilities were closed for good.
Both the airports and the aircraft that
use them vary widely- from single-seat
crop dusters. vintage 1940, to the biggest
Grumman jet, and from a grass strip on a
former sheep farm in Lagrange, Ohio, to
Meacham Airport in Fort Worth, with
almost 500.000 takeoffs and landings a
year reputed to be the busiest general
aviation airport in the U.S. Most are
little guys--with maybe 10 to
20 operations a day--but
many are substantial with so-
phisticated instru-
ment landing facilities
and runwavs long
enough to accon'~modate
the largest business jets.
And man.v are endangered,
particuiarl.v those in the pri-
vately owned, publicly used
category lor POPU, the acro-
nvm coined by Douglas Nichols,
who owns that grass strip in Ohio].
:.' / ,-- h'r </ t. t ~
·#., ,,
5on .~osc E~sT-& C18q56
In the Pittsburgh area, to cite one ex-
ample. half of the eight general aviation
facilities are up for sale and may not
survive as airports. according to H. Alan
Speak, program manager for the South-
western Pennsylvania Regional Planning
Commission. "We are losing a national
resource when we lose our general avia-
tion airports," says Speak. "But if the
current trend continues, in 20 years we
could lose them all."
Under fire
It's the airport owners, a quirky group
dominated by ex-military pilots, who feel
the pressure most. At New Jersey's
Princeton Airport, owner Richard Nie-
renberg volunteers a "tale of woe" about
his longstanding battle with neighboring
residents who complain that planes from
the airport are buzzing their expensive
houses (not true, he says), and with Mont-
gomery Township officials, who, he says,
routinely side with the residents even
though "all the complaints come from
three people."
Nierenberg, with his wife and son. bought
the field on Route 206, just outside
Princeton, in 1984, and proceeded to drum
up new business, including a thriving air
taxi service, while complaints about noise
increased. A year ago, the township zon-
ing administrator ruled that the airport's
helicopter school violated the local zoning
ordinance, a decision subsequently upheld
by the zoning board. Robert Marmion.
the township's director of community de-
velopment, notes that the airport overlaps
three zoning districts: research and office;
highway commercial; and single-family
residential. In all three, it's a nonconforming
use. As required by state law, the town-
ship has also created an airport hazard
overlay zone.
The family's decision to challenge the
zoning board's decision in court set off a
year-long debate, stirred up recently by
the neighbors' contention that the airport
was allowing jets to land and refuel. and
even offering training for jet pilots. This
September, the township committee voted.
as it has before, to consider acquiring the
airport. either through outright purchase
or through eminent domain.
"They've got us in an economic
stranglehold, · says the feisty Nierenberg.
"They say they value the airport, but they
When California's Reid. Hiliview
Airport was built, it ~uas surrounded by
orchards. Today, a major shopping
center lies within its run,say protecaon
:one Iclear zone].
10 Plann:ng November 1991
keep approving development right next
door. They tend to think of general avia-
tion as a bunch of rich doctors with their
own planes. But a lot of people use this
field for lots of things, including MedEvac,
and a lot of people make a living from it."
The airport emplo.vs ~,5 people, says
Nierenberg's son Ken, the airport man-
ager.
In California, a similar controversy
caused the Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors last year to vote to consider
closing a county-owned general aviation
airport that has drawn numerous com-
plaints about noise and possible safety
hazards. The 50-year-old Reid-Hillview
Airport, eight miles southeast of downtown
San Jose, is completely surrounded by
development, including a regional shopping
center at one end of the parallel runways.
The mall dates from the early 1970s,
about the time when the state legislature
passed a law establishing an airport com-
patibility land-use commission in every
county with an airport {all but San Fran-
ciscol. The law sets compatibility standards
for development around airports, but in
this case it was too late.
"We've done what we can," says Jannell
Waldo, the county planning and develop-
ment department staffer who works with
the airport compatibili~- commission. That
means, for example, requiring pilots to
enter the airport at a 45-degree angle, and
commissioning studies by experts. The
most recent of these, a land-use safety
compatibility study prepared by the Santa
Rosa aviation planning firm of Hodges &
Shutt. recommends the creation of two
supplemental safety zones that would ex-
clude such uses as hospitals and schools.
It also suggests that the county consider
acquiring any open space south of the
airport and buying and demolishing a
small number of residences to the north.
The supervisors' next step, says county
aviation director Donald Flynn, will be to
hire a consultant to prepare the environ-
mental assessment required for any rede-
velopment of the airport site.
Favored status
Both Princeton and Reid-HAl]view have
been designated by the FAA as "reliev-
ers' --a status muchsought after by airport
operators because it'aut0matically makes
the facilities eligible for federal funding
of capital improvements. The agency be-
gan applying the reliever label in the
early 1970s as a way to ease the overload
at commercial facilities. Since then, it has
designated 285 general aviation airports--
all of them close enough to the big air-
ports to attract a substantial portion of the
small plane traffic--and provided them
with funds for new runways, lighting,
instruments, and other improvements. The
10-year airport plan released by the FAA
last spring assumes the construction of 71
additional relievers--at a Cost to the fed-
eral government of $50 million.
In the Chicago area, the major reliever
for O'Hare International Airport is
Palwaukee Airport eight miles to the north.
Its location has helped it attract a large
number of corporate aircraft, including
jets, and its 5,000-foot main runway can
accommodate them.
Palwaukee is a success story. A few
years ago, the 45-year-old privately owned
ah'port seemed likely to be swallowed up
by the suburban development surround-
ing it. But in late 1987, two adjacent
suburbs, Wheeling and Prospect Heights,
signed an intergovernmental agreement
to buy the 253-acre facilit1:-. An eight-
member commission (four from each town l
now runs the airport. "Palwaukee is a
significant example of how things can
work right in the aviation industry," says
Much of the continuing
debate about the Princeton
Airport has been carried out
· in the pages of the local
newspaper, the Princeton
Packet. Tlze cartoon
accompanied one of the
stories. 'Fro tired of all the
figh tin8,. says owner Richard
Xierenberg. 'l just want to be
able to run my business. ~
Quonset ttut hangars at ProFess Field in Fre.zont. Ohio.
Residential development adjacent to
suburban Chicago's Palwaukee Airport
makes expansion difficalt.
Services
35~
Real Estate 10%
Education 5%
Agriculture t%
Finance 6% Construction
Retail Miscellaneous
Trade ..1.% Manufacturing 7%
Wholesale Machinery
Trade 6% ManufactCiring 5%
Utilities Electronic
2% Trm~Por:Equipment
tation Manufacturing
Services 7%
9%
A survey by Cambridge Systematics
showed the wide range of businesses in
Massachusetts using general aviation
airports. More than a third are from
the service sector.
its manager. Fred Stewart.
But, Stewart notes, a public airport
must meet a higher standard than a private
one. And that's difficult in a crowded
suburban area like Palwaukee's. The fo-
cus now is on finding a way to smooth
approaches by relocating an adjacent in-
tersection, as well as the drainage ditch
that separates the main runway from the
site picked out for new hangars.
With the FAA kicking in for 90 percent
of such improvements. it's clear that reliever
status is a benefit. The trick is to get the
designation. Few private airports are re-
lievers, says Benjamin D. Manton III,
AICP, who is the aviation program manager
for the four-county Central New York
Regional Planning and Development Board
in Syracuse. Manton has mounted a sort
of crusade to "level the playing fieid"--to
get the FAA to apply the reliever de-
signation to privately owned, public-use
airports.
Last year, a task force Manton chaired,
with representatives from other regional
agencies, the state transportation depart-
ment, and the New York district office of
the FAA. worked out a new way of mea-
suring the importance--including economic
importance--of a region's small airports.
As a result of the process. which assigns a
numerical rating to each facility, six of the
region's private airports were declared
eligible for reliever status, and three have
completed the master plans needed for
funding.
"These are airports that didn't have the
money to improve their facilities to allow
business aircraft to land," says Manton.
"Now they'll be able to make those im-
provements. The entire focus of our ef-
forts is to enhance local economic devel-
opment opportunities by providing better
services to businesses."
Manton notes that not all fields that
are designated will necessarily be devel-
oped. "Some may be near wetlands. for
instance, and some aren't suitable for
other reasons. Plus, we may not need
that many relievers. Nevertheless," he
concludes, "the tellever designation can
be seen as a sensible way of banking
airport sites for the future."
Where to get help
For nonreliever small airports, the FAA
does not offer a great deal of guidance
except for some general recommendations
that development be Hmited in runway
protection zones and that height limits be
set in approach zones. Every. two ~.'ears,
however, the Office of Airport Planning
and Programming does prepare a ~ong-
range national plan of integrated airport
systems (NPIAS), which provides an
formative overview of the entire network.
The 1990-99 pian proposes 3 19 new loca-
tions for general aviation airports.
To fill the gap. state and local planners
have been taking an increasingly active
role. In Prince George's County., Mar~'land.
for example. Tom Lockard, AiCP, a senior
12 Planning November 1991
planner in the zoning division. reports
that the planning department's new sub-
regional plans will offer guidelines for
dealing with some of the legal, economic,
political, and land-use issues involved when
a general aviation airport and residential
development must coexist in a crowded
suburban setting. The planning depart-
ment is particularly interested in the issue
in the wake of two recently filed suits
challenging its decisions in airport expan-
sion cases. One was filed by an airport,
one by a residents' group.
On the state level. the Tennessee De-
partment of Aviation has hired a consult-
ing firm to prepare action plans for 12
publicly owned general aviation airports.
Stacey Morris. assistant director of the
Mid-South Division of Buckhart Horn in
Memphis, says the pilot program is intended
to produce "community-specific,' five-year
development plans to bridge the gap be-
tw. een day-to-day decisions and the tradi-
tional, 20-year airport master plans.
"Hindsight analysis shows that there was
often a gap betxveen the recommendations
of those long-range plans and the financial
realities of community budgets," Morris
says.
California has done more--although a
recent brouhaha makes it clear that having
a law on the books is no panacea. A
provision of the state's public utilities
code requires counties to establish airport
land-use commissions like the one in Santa
Clara County and to prepare airport com-
patibility land-use plans. The plans were
due June 30. About half of the 87 counties
involved have complied or are in the
process of doing so, says Theresa Ishikawal
coordinator for policy and public awareness
for the California Division of Aeronautics
in Sacramento.
The holdout is Los Angeles County. A
bilt passed by the legislature and, as of
early October, awaiting Gov. Pete Wilson's
signature, would exempt the county, with
its 17 airports i13 of them general avia-
tion}, from the state's planning require-
ments. The exemption is appropriate,
argue county officials, because airports
are covered bv local general plans and
by the s'tate's' stringent environmental
quality law. A similar measure was vetoed
last year by former governor George
Deukmejian.
The aviation division opposes the ex-
emption. says ishikawa, noting that exist-
ing state laws do not adequately address
the issue of compatible land uses around
airports. Even stronger opposition is voiced
by Jay White, a lawyer and former airline
pilot who is president of the California
Airport AlIiance, a coalition of groups
that support general aviation. He observes
that airports in the county have benefited
from millions in federal grants. making
them a kind of public trust that should be
preserved. White contends that the ex-
emption is being pushed by local develop-
ers who resent any restrictions on their
rights.
Planners, take note
"For some reason," says Katherine Houk,
"we as planners have failed miserably in
most cases to make communities realize
that their airport, whether publicly or
privately owned. must be protected. It
has never been politically popular to tell
on guidelines to help local governments
with such issues.
Another Texas planner, Chris~^nher
Basham, AICP. a consultant with ~ :les
Willis & Associates in Arlington ~and a
captain in the Air Force Reserve~, advises
taking a broad view. "Planners should be
looking at the overall benefits of a general
aviation airport, ~ he says, ~and asking, for
instance, whether the land around it could
have a multipurpose use, maybe for cor-
porate headquarters."
The}, should also be honest enough, he
adds, to say when a new airport is not
needed. That's what his firm concluded
in a just-finished plan for a west-central
In the early 1950s, the Los
An8eles Basin had 36 airports.
Toda~ there are 20. A red X
marks the losses.
people they can't build a 500-foot radio
tower in the approach to a runway, or
that they can't use their land for its high-
est and best use because that use is in-
compatible with low-flying aircraft." Houk
is an aviation planner for the Houston-
Galveston Area Council, a 13-county re-
gional planning agency in southeast Texas.
(She also holds a pilot's license. ~
Houk says she is concerned that plan-
ners are often ill-equipped to advise com-
munities that are considering acquiring a
local privately owned airport. Too often,
she says, community officials are told by
airport owners and their consultants that
the only choice is between buying an
airport or losing it. In fact, the community
may be able to keep the airport in service--
as a private facility--by suggesting man-
agement changes and alternative funding
sources. Houk's agency is now working
The Oshkosh air show draws
about 14.000 aircraft and 900. 000
visitors, some of whom camp out
next to their planes. Next year's
show [$ ~ttt for July 31 to August 6.
Texas agency.
In the process of working on an avia-
tion systems plan for southeast Michigan
over the last two years, Robert Davis,
AICP. came to some similar conclusions.
Now a senior planner for the Detroit city
planning commission, Davis was formerly
the airport planner for the Southeast
A much smaller event at the Sussex
Airport in .Vew Jerse,v attracts its
own following. Budding acrobatic
pilots can also take lessons there.
Let's Go!
..
See The
ANNUAL
..j
AIRPORT
Fri., Sat. & Sun.
AUG.
23,24&25
Michigan Council of Governments. The
council picked one airport in each of the
seven counties covered by the plan for
expansion. necessarily disappointing the
losers, he says. The plan was expected to
be adopted in late October.
Working on the plan also turned Davis
into something of an advocate for general
aviation. "If people could understand the
benefits of having a small airport nearby,
they would be more tolerant of it," he
suggests. He notes, for instance, that as
an expanding field, aviation offers all sorts
of job opportunities, with particular pos-
sibilities for minorities.
The economic value of general aviation
airports has been documented by Glenn
Weisbrod of the Massachusetts consult-
ing finn, Cambridge Systemaries. "Contrary
to the popular view. 'flying private planes'
is far from just a recreational activity," he
wrote in the January. issue of Transporta-
tion Quarterly. Weisbrod estimates that
nationally some 26 percent of general
aviation flights are made exclusively for
business purposes and another 60 per-
cent partly for business purposes. And 23
percent of the 250 respondents to his
firm's survey said they considered the
proximity of a general aviation airport a
major factor in selecting a location for
their business.
Roots
But for all the emphasis on increasing
business use. the mainstay of general
aviation is still the hobbyist whose flying
is limited to short hops in a little Cessna
or Piper Cub. That plane, by the way, is
likely to be an old one because aircraft
manufacturers have all but stopped pro-
ducing new models, in part because of the
soaring price of liability insurance.
It's at the air shows that dot the sum-
mer calendar in places like Dayton, Ohio;
Muskegon, Michigan; and Sussex, New
Jersey, that the recreational flyers come
out in force. At the biggest air show of
all--in Oshkosh, Wisconsin--they also
provide a major economic benefit to the
town. According to Ben Owen, director of
information services for the Experimen-
tal Aircraft Association, which runs the
annual Oshkosh Fly-in Convention and
Airshow, the annual weeldong event draws
some 900,000 visitors. The association,
which started in 1953, has 130,000 mem-
bers and 700 chapters around the world
and maintains a staff of 1.30 in Oshkosh.
"That's a major business in a town of
50.000," Owen notes. "Part of the reason
we're here,' he adds, "is that both the
town and the state have been so support-
ive." The association is based at city-
13
owned Wittman Field.
Help needed
"The POPU airport is the alpha and omega
of aviation in the U.S.." says airport owner
Doug Nichols. And it's the POPU owners
who seem most in need of help if the
airports are to survive. Some, like Gene
Damschroder, a former Navy. pilot who
owns the Progress Airport in Fremont,
Ohio. say they're almost buried under
mounting taxes and e.,cpenses. Damschroder
recently lost a long battle to get Sandusky
County to buy and improve his 56-acre
field. This fall, an engineering firm hired
by the county to conduct a feasibility study
of several sites, including his, recom-
mended an alternative several miles away.
Damschroder says politics were involved
and that the site chosen is too far off the
main road to be profitable. :'But we'll
show them." he says. "It'll be a white
elephant. When it comes to private enter-
prise competing with government, there's
no question who'll win."
It's those airports that Alan Speak of
the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional
Planning Commission is struggling to keep
alive. Speak, who has been involved in
regional aviation planning for over 10
years, says he's proud of the record in his
region, where eight public-use airports
are still open for business--despite peri-
odic threats. "I like to think that part of
the reason is our airport systems planning
program," he says. Ironically, one of those
eight fields was about to be sold for a
housing development--until it was found
to be built atop a played-out mine and
thus subject to subsidence. It's an airport
again.
Speak argues that general aviation air-
ports are a threatened resource that deserves
to be saved but that only a targeted pres-
ervation approach makes sense. "We can't
save them all," he says.
His "preservation guide for privately
owned, public-use airports' includes these
recommendations:
· The FAA should establish a fund for
endangered airports.
* The state should establish a strike
force to step in when closure is imminent,
and it should increase the aid available
for privately owned airports, with fund-
ing to come from the jet fuel tax.
* On the local side, airport owners.
managers, and users should form airport
action groups to publicize the airport's
needs, win community. support, and work
with regional planning agencies on a
solution.
Ruth Knack is the senior editor of PZannmg.
ITEM NO. 18
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Chief Building Official ~
January 28, 1992
APPROVAL:
CITY ATFORNEY
Consideration of an Ordinance to Require Fire Resistive Roof Covering
RECOMIVfF~NDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the first reading and set a public hearing date
and time of Tuesday, February 25, 1992, 7:00 p.m., to hear any objections to the adoption of
this ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
In an effort to address the concerns of the Public Safety Commission, staff has developed
regulations restricting the f'tre resistive class of roof covering used within the City to that which
is rated as Class B or better.
In developing these regulations, consideration was given to architectural features typically found
in the Old Town Historical District, the City' s estate size custom home developments and roof
coveting of single family room additions. These reguh~ons are designed to restrict the use of
roof covering to that which has a fire resistive rating of a minimum class B with the exception
that roof covering which has a fire resis~ve rating of Class C may be used as permitted by this
ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 92-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457, "UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE" ADOFrED BY REFERENCE BY
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, BY AMENDING'
SECTION 3203 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING
FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF COVERING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 4, "Uniform Building Code," Subsection I, of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457 as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal
Code by City Ordinance No. 90-04, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"I. Section 3203. The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code shall be as
specified in Table No. 32-A and as classified in Section 3204, except that no roof covering shall
be less than a Class B roofing assembly.
Exceptions 1. The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code within
the Historical District Oreflay, generally known as the Old Town Temecula Historical
Preservation District, shall not be less than a Class C roofing assembly.
2. The roof covering of any structure located on a parcel with a minimum of one-half
acre in area may have a roof covering of not less than a Class C Roofing Assembly when
approved by the Building Official.
3. The roof covering for all re-roofing shall conform to the applicable provisions of this
section as amended herein, except that the roof covering for the re-roofing of ten percent (10 % )
or less of the area of any roof may consist of material comparable to the remainder of the roof."
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the provision of this ordinance
are declared severable.
SECTION 3. CITY CLERK. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
3/ORD$ 34
"" PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this day of lanuary, 1992.
AT'FEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the XX day of January,
1992 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek
City Clerk
3/ORDS 34
ITEM NO. 19
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJEC T:
CITY OF TEMECUL4
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
David F. Dixon ~
January 28, 1992
Promotional Program
Attached is a list of five questions from Councilman J. Sal Mu~oz for discussion
among the City Council. He has specifically asked that this be put on the Agenda of
January 28th. You will also note that under separate cover I responded to each of his
questions.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
2EFE2ENCE:
Dave Dixon - Mark Ochenduszko
J. Sal Mu~oz, Councilmember
January 14, 1992
Promotional Program
I would like to put the promotional program back on the City Council Agenda for
January 28, 1992. The following are issues that should be addressed:
Clarify the City Council position on the use of the name Rancho California
and how the City of Temecula is going to be marketed in the program.
How the particular consultant was chosen and by whom. What business
connections, if any, exist. between the business consultant and
Counciimembers?
A better definition of the cost breakdown and the rationale for the
expenditures in a particular area.
What specific program, if any, is being developed for the promotion of Old
Town to the local tourist community.
How much of the total package is going for professional services versus
actual expenditure for advertising.
JSM:ss
[Dictated but not read]
ITEM NO. 20
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER '~'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
City Manager
January 28, 1992
Item No. 20 - Consideration of Site Selection and Establishment
of Senior Center
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
City Clerk June S. Greek
1.
Consider selection of one of the two proposed sites
for operation of a Senior Center;
Appropriate funds from the noted source (dependent
upon the site selected - see fiscal impact) to provide
for the establishment of a Senior Center.
BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize the staff report on this item and
forward it to you under separate cover.
JSG
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
DATE:
JANUARY 28, 1992
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED SENIOR CENTER OPTIONS
PREPARED BY:
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Consider selection of one of the two proposed sites for operation of a Senior
Center:
A. Paloma Del Sol Information Center
B. Old Town Facility (Bus Barn).
Appropriate funds from the noted source (dependent upon the site selected -
see fiscal impact) to provide for the establishment of a Senior Center.
DISCUSSION: The City Council directed staff to investigate possible
locations in establishing a Senior Center in the City of Temecula. Staff has compiled
information concerning the fiscal impacts of developing a Senior Center at either the
Paloma Del Sol Information Center or at the Old Town Facility now owned by the City.
The Information Center (approximate 3,800 sq. ft. building on 22.03 acres) would
involve a two (2) year lease with Bedford Properties at $1.00 per year. In
consideration of this lease, Bedford's Representatives have requested the City be
responsible for paying 1/2 of the annual property taxes and assessments on the
property, and maintain all structures and grounds on the property. The City's costs
associated with the initial start-up costs and annual operating costs are estimated at
$132,~.45 ($243,560 for two (2) years). These figures do not include any tenant
improvements that might be required for the building.
On August 27, 1991, the City Council authorized staff to purchase the Old Town
Facility (0.73 acre site with an approximate 4,600 square foot building which was
formerly the School District's Bus Barn Facility). The City is currently working with
the California Department of Forestry (CDF) to lease the property adiacent to the Old
Town Facility to be used as a parking lot for the facility. The start-up costs
associated with rehabilitating the Old Town Facility are estimated at $356,960
excluding parking improvements. Annual operation and maintenance costs of the
grounds and building are estimated at $25,434.
The benefits associated with the Information Center include the attractive location and
surrounding aesthetics of the property. The negatives include:
Costs associated with leasing and maintaining the property ($243,560
for two (2) years).
2. City would forfeit the site at the end of the lease.
3. Any desired tenant improvements would be in addition to existing costs.
Monies to cover expenditures would be appropriated from the City's
General Fund Balance Reserve as a loan to be repaid by the TCSD.
5. The City would still have to locate a permanent facility for the seniors.
The benefits associated with the Old Town Facility include:
Renovation costs would be permanent improvements to a City owned
facility.
2. The design of the facility would create a fully operational Senior Center.
Maintenance and operation costs would be significantly lower than the
Information Center on an annual basis.
Renovation costs could be funded from Development Impact Fees and
Community Development Block Grant Funds.
The negatives concerning the Old Town Facility include:
Parking improvement costs have not been identified and the lease of the
adjacent property for parking has not been consummated.
Normal completion of this type of public works project from hiring an
architect to construction documents to public bid process to final
completion is approximately nine (9) months.
However, if the City Council selects the Old Town Facility, staff further recommends
that the Council authorize the City Manager to hire an architect from the eligibility list
established for the Community Recreation Center Project to design and prepare
construction documents for the Senior Center at a cost not to exceed $35,000. On
a fast track program, the Senior Center could be constructed within six (6) months.
Finally, it is recommended that, regardless of the site, the two senior groups in the
City coordinate efforts in providing a successful senior services program through the
Senior Center.
Attached are spread sheets identifying the costs associated with developing either
facility as a Senior Center. These costs have been compiled based upon staff's best
estimates. It is important to note that if the City Council approves the use of one of
these sites, staff may be required to request additional funds for the completion of the
project at a later City Council meeting as the cost estimates provided herein were
compiled quickly as estimates. Costs do not include any tenant improvements for the
Information Center or parking lot improvement costs at the Old Town Facility.
FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with the Information Center are
estimated at $132,445 ($243,560 for two (2) years) excluding tenant improvements.
if this option is selected, it is recommended that $132,445 be appropriated from the
City's General Fund Balance Reserve to appropriate accounts in #019-196, as a loan
to be repaid by the TCSD under terms to be developed and submitted at the next City
Council meeting.
The costs associated with improving the Old Town Facility plus required parking
improvements can be funded with Development Impact Fees and Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. If this option is selected, it is recommended
that $356,960 be transferred from the Development Impact Fees fund and be
appropriated to the TCSD Capital Project Fund (Account #029-190-999-~.~.-5804).
However, CDBG funds may be available for this project. Staff will research the
possibility of using CDBG funds and if available, a recommendation will be brought to
the City Council for consideration at a later date. The annual $25,434 operation and
maintenance costs would be included in the FY 1992-93 TCSD operating budget.
PALOMA DEL SOL INFORMATION CENTER
PALONA OEL SOL INFORMATION CENTER - 28250 YNEZ ROAD, TEMETEMECULA
INITIAL ANNUAL
START-UP OPERATING
ITEM COSTS COSTS
GENERAL TAX (50~) 32,97~
SPECIAL TAX (50~) 17,285
FACILITY LEASE 1
SECURITY 1,000 600
PEST COMTROL 150
ELECTRIC/GAS 200 9,600
UATER 25 20,400
TRASH 0 0
CABLE TV 55 &O0
TELEPHONE 200 600
LANOSCAPE 22,200
LAKE 2,400
FACILITY IHPROVENENTS 1,000
FF&E'S 18,850
SUPPLIES 11,800
MISC. REPAIRS Z,500
/-/,,4.J O .¢r-.4
OLD TOWN FACILITY (BUS BARN)
OLD TO~4N FACILZTY - 28528 HERCEDES, TEHECULA
[N|TIAL ANNUAL
START-UP OPERATING
ITEH COSTS COSTS
GENERAL TAX
SPECIAL TAX
PARKING LEASE
SECURITY
PEST CONTROL
ELECTRIC/GAS
t,{ATER
TRASH
CABLE TV
TELEPHONE
LANDSCAPE
DESZGN COST
FACZLZTY INPROVENENTS
GROUI}$ INPROVEIqENTS
FF~J=#$.
SUPPLIES
NiSC, REPAIRS
1,000
200
25
55
200
0
0
250
600
150
7,200
3'50
0
600
600
1,ze43~.
35,000
281,1~0
16,740
22,&00
11,800
2,500
TOTAL S356~960
CITY OF TEM]ECULA
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBIECT:
Shawn Nelson
Community Services Director
Anthony Elm~
Chief Building Official
Xanuary 17, 1992
Temecula Senior Center/Former Bus Barn
I have studied the proposed remodel of the former bus barn building for use as a senior center.
In doing so, it was apparent that square footage must be added to adequately accommodate
handicapped accessible restroom facilities and provide necessary storage ~ for support of a
kitchen operation. The age of the building will make it necessary m address the roof/exterior
wall connections to m~t current seismic criteria. I have calculated in an estimated cost for an
automatic fn~ sprinkler system for this building. One other factor we must consider is that most
likely for energy purposes, we will be required to install insulated walls along the concrete wall.
There will be a lot of work involved, but the building can be modified. The estimated cost of
improvements as I see it is:
Fiz~ Sprinklers ' = $ 8,100.00 @
$1.60 per sq. foot
Handicapped Restrooms
Male and Female
= $ 23,040.00 @
$80.00 per sq. foot
Exterior, Interior
Seismic and Energy
Improvements
$250,000.00 @
$56.40 per sq. foot
_. Totni Improvement
$281,140.00'
*This total does not include parking lot improvements.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Gary L. King
Robert M. Kast ~_,_~~
Maintenance Superintendent
Janua~ 17, 1992
Rus R. rn LRndscal;e
As per your request, I went out to the Bus Barn and measured the area around
the building. The area that needs to be landscaped measures 5,400 square
feet. Landscape improvements should consist of the following:
A. Site clean-up
B. Ught grading
C. Soil amendments
D. Irrigation system
E. Tuffgrass (sod)
The cost will be 93.10 per square foot. The total will be 916,740.00. The
maintenance of the landscape will be 9117.00 per month. The maintenance
cost will include mow, edge, fertilizer and water.
3~imem~elrmkO(X3O l ,mine
011792
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORTS
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
DAVID F. DIXON
DATE:
JANUARY 28, 1992
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
PREPARED BY:
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
The Restroom/Snack Bar Project at the Rancho California Sports Park has passed final
inspection by our Building and Safety Department. Some minor partition work will be
completed within two weeks, and then staff will pursue the Notice of Completion
process. A 10% retention has been held in compliance with the City's Public Works
Construction Standards.
Two (2) community workshops and a telephone survey have been completed
concerning the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The first draft of the master plan
will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Committee, the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and will be submitted for final approval by the City Council.
The first draft of the plan will be completed by mid-February.
Staff has been in the process of remeasuring all slopes that are maintained by the
Community Services Department. This information will be used to update the TCSD
Assessments for FY 1992-93. An assessment update will be presented to the City
Council in March, well before the public hearing in June. This will give the Council
and the public an opportunity to ask questions prior to the public hearing process.
A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) was released by the City to landscape architectural
firms to provide design services for the park site on Pala Road. $800,000 was
earmarked in the Capital Improvement Program for the design and the first phase of
development of this park during this fiscal year. The total development of this park
will be pursued as development fees (Quimby) are collected.
The City will pursue the development of an initial bike way once the first draft of the
parks master plan is completed. SB 821 funds will be used for the development of
the bike way which will include signs and striped bike lanes. The streets that receive
striping will be inspected by Public Works to ensure safety for bicyclists.
The first meeting of the Project Committee for the Community Recreation Center
Project will be held on January 27, 1992. The Community Recreation Center Project
consists of the following capital improvement projects approved by the Board of
Directors on July 2, 1992:
1. Community Recreation Center/ ~3,500,O00
Amphitheater
Community Pool
Parking
750,000
400,000
$4,650,000
Staff has received quotes to plant mature trees around the playground area in Sports
Park to address the shade needs during the summer months. The installation of these
trees will be completed by the end of February.
The 1992 Winter/Spring Recreation Brochure was direct mailed to every resident in
the City of Temecula. The brochure provides information on a wide variety of
recreation programs and activities for all age groups in the community. The brochure
has been well received and many registrations for classes and activities have already
been taken as a result of this process.
The tenant improvements for the Teen Center, located in the Southcreek Mall on Front
Street, will begin by the end of January. It is planned to open the Teen Center during
the mid-part of February. Our new Senior Recreation Services Coordinator, Julie
Crowe, will be organizing the teen program with the assistance of the Teen Council.
Election of officers will be completed by the Teen Council by the first part of February.
In addition to a wide variety of recreation programs, the City's first Adult Men's
Basketball League will be held on Sundays at the Temecula Valley High School
Gymnasium. League will begin on Sunday, March 22.
Staff is now coordinating with the Temecula Valley School District to implement the
Summer Day Camp and Aquatics Program at Temecula Elementary School. A meeting
with the Director of Curriculum will be held on January 30.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Planning Department
January 28, 1992
Monthly Report
PREPARED BY:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
Discussion:
The' following is a summary of the Planning Department's
caseload and project activity for the month of December:
Caseload Activity:
The department received applications for 24 administrative cases and 6 public
hearing cases. The following is a breakdown of case type for public hearing
items:
* Plot Plans (2)
* Conditional Use Permit/Public Use Permit (1)
* Change of Zone (1)
* Appeals ( 1 )
* Tract Maps ( 1 )
Ongoing Projects:
General Plan: The Design Charette held in mid-December was a success.
Department heads and planning staff heard presentations on preliminary
projections from the economic consultant, an update on the circulation
opportunities and constraints from the traffic consultant, and preliminary
urban form concepts from the Planning Center.
beaudlr\PLAN\MTHYRPT2,DEC
During the monthly management meeting, The Planning Center provided
staff with an updated master meeting and product schedule. In the
upcoming months, joint Planning Commission and City Council and
Public Workshop/Town Hall meetings will be scheduled to review and
provide direction on Urban Form Concepts, the Issue Papers, Preliminary
Alternative Plans, Preferred Alternative Land Use Policy and Circulation
Map, and Draft Fiscal Impact Report.
Old Town Boundary Expansion: After receiving public testimony at its
January 14th meeting, the council continued this item to the February
11, 1992 meeting to allow staff time to respond to certain concerns.
Directional Sign Ordinance: A selection committee heard proposals from
four consultants. A final ranking was conducted and negotiations will
begin with the top firm. A recommendation will be forwarded to the
Council at an upcoming meeting.
Antenna Ordinance: After receiving public testimony at its January 6
meeting, The Planning Commission continued this item to its February
24th meeting to allow staff to meet with the local amateur radio
operators club and respond to their concerns.
Outdoor Advertising Displays: Staff has scheduled this item for the
January 27, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
* Noise Ordinance: City Staff is currently reviewing the draft ordinance.
Old Town Master Plan: Three firms have been selected as finalists and
required to submit further detailed information regarding their proposals.
It is anticipated that a recommendation to the Council will be forwarded
in February.
French Valley Airport: Staff is monitoring the development of the
Airport Land Use Plan being prepared by Aries consulting firm for the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission.
beaudlr\PLAN\MTHYRPT2 .DEC
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Report: Staff is continuing to review the Specific Plan and EIR. The
final responses to comments on the draft EIR are expected shortly.
Winchester Hills and CamDos Verdes Soecific Plan and Environmental
Impact Report: Staff is continuing to review these Specific Plans
and EIRs.
Ib
Murdy Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report.
Staff is in the final review stage and anticipates taking this Specific Plan
and EIR forward to Public Hearing in the next few months.
beaudlr\PLAN\MTHYRPT2.DEC 3
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER '~,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works'
January 28, 1992
Public Works Monthly Activity Report (December)
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Monthly Activity Report (December) for
the Department of Public Works.
pwOl\agdrpt\92\O128\moactrpt. 12 011392
0
C::}~
00
0
00
00
~1'
0
0
APPROVAL:
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER .._~ ;,.
CITY MANAGER z ~. ~.~'---.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official/'~-
January 28, 1992
Building an,d Safety December Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
The Building and Safety Department activity for the month of December saw 203
building-related permits issued which represents $1,478,363 in building construction
valuation. Revenue from these permits totaled $19,874. Total building construction
valuation for calendar year 1991 was $97,944,254. This past calendar year has seen
the completion of the Costco and K-Mart stores, the Temeku Theaters, General
Dynamics offices along with near completion of Advanced Cardiovascular Systems'
and Paradise Chevrolets' buildings.
Code Enforcement staff has been involved in two major activities:
Interviewing qualified firms to implement the City's Directional Sign
(kiosk) Program
2. Public nuisance abatement of property on Pujol Street
The kiosk RFQ process has had presentations given by the four (4) most qualified
firms with selection of the, top firm forthcoming. An inspection warrant was issued
allowing a site inspection .o be done on the Pujol property and staff is proceeding at
this time with a public nuisance declaration.
Building and Safety December Activity Report
January 28, 1992
Page 2
The following is an update of projects of special note that staff is currently involved
with and/or recently completed:
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems
Paradise Chevrolet
General Dynamics
Commerce National Bank
Primadonna's Restaurant
Main Street Emporium
Soup Exchange
K-Mart
Jefferson Creek
Costco
90% Complete
75% Complete
100% Complete
90% Complete
95% Complete
100% Complete
100% Complete
100% Complete
100% Complete
100% Complete
v:%wp',agenda.rep\cccn~0128 r~t
PLANS CHECKED:
Residential
Commercial
Industrial/Warehouse
Others
TOTAL:
PERMITS ISSUED:
BUILDING
Value
Fees
ELECTRICAL
Fees
PLUMBING
Fees
MECHANICAL
Fees
TOTAL PERMITS:
tOTAL FEES:
THIS MONTHS PERMITS:
SINGLE FAMILY
DUPLEX
MULTI-FAMILY
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
RELOCATE/DEMO
SWIMMING POOLS
SIGNS
OTHER
ALTER/ADD
TO DWELLING
TO COMMERCIAL
This
Month
TO INDUSTRIAL
TOTAL:
JILDING VALUATION
This Fiscal Year to
Last Fiscal Year to
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
Monthly Activity Report For: December,
Last Month This Last
Fiscal Fiscal
Year Yr/Date
5 9 32 69
15 9 41 99
0 0 0 1
4 5 19 65
24 23 92 234
1991
Last
Calenda
r
Yr/Date
0.00
This
Calandar
Yr/Date
47
102
5
49
203
82 90 586 816 1,432
1,478,363 3,426,540 27,066,535 33,402,172 97,944,254
12,814 19,565 150,336 176,413 477,906
53 46 377 423 986
2,878 3,623 31,580 40,892 84,704
46 32 278 256 751
3,163 4,046 31,385 22,632 86,148
22 15 189 151 587
1,019 1,119 13,551 10,482 38,279
203 183 1,430 1,646 0.00 3,756
19,874 28,353 226,852 250,419 0.00 687,037
NO. OF NO/UNITS PLA~ CHECK PERMIT TOTAL VALUATION
PERMITS YR/DATE FEES FEES FEES
11 77 1,136 9,260 10,396 877,518
0 0 0 0 0.00 0
0 5 0 0 0.00 0
I 14 638 930 1,568 125,276
0 0 0 0 0.00 0
0 5 0 0 0.00 0
6 46 471 1,098 1,569 52,135
12 56 425 992 1,417 36,290
57 217 1,028 3,372 4,400 123,I91
18 149
6 83
0 0
111 652
Date:S27,066,535
Date:S33,402,172
1,004 1,713 2,717
1,181 2,509 3,690.0
0
0 0 0.00
5,883 19,874 25,757
This Calendar Year to Date:S97,944,254
Last Calendar Year to Date:
98,508
165,445
0
1,478,363
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
/ f'
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS. CALIFORNL~ 92370
(714) 657-3183
December 12, 1991
To
Attn
RE
: Temecula City Council
Temecula Public Safety Commission
: Mr. David Dixon
Temecula City Manger
: TEMECULA FIRE SERVICES
November 1991, Activity Report
The following statistics reflect the monthly fire suppression and
fire prevention activity for the month Of November, 1991.
Temecula farad well through the strong winds during this period
with no major incidents of newsworthiness to report.
If you have any questions or concerns relative to your Fire
Protection Services, please contact me, Chief Brodowski or Division
Chief Wright.
Signed,
Glen J. Newman, Chief
by:
J.z Winder
Battalion Chief
Z
0
<
Z
0
<
>
<
0
<
0
FIRE PREVENTION BATTA/~ION 15
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT.
MONTH NOVEMBER
YEAR 1991
PROGRAMS ............................................. TOTAL 1 HRS. [
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES ................................. TOTAL
HRS.
SCHOOL PROGRAMS ...................................... TOTAL i HRS. 3
FAIRS AND DISPLAYS ................................... TOTAL
HRS.
CONPANY INSPECTIONS:
PREVENTION BUREAU. .TOTAL
STATION 12
............ ............................... TOTAL
10 HRS. 20
HRS.
STATION 73 ........................................... TOTAL
HRS.
~J. AED REDUCTION
PREVENTION BUREAU .................................... TOTAL 6
HRS.
STATION 12 ........................................... TOTAL
HRS.
STATION 73 ........................................... TOTAL
HRS.
INVESTIGATION 2 12
........................................ TOTAL HRS.
TRAINING(FORMAL) ..................................... TOTAL
HRS.
TRAINING(SELF STUDY) ................................. TOTAL
MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE TIME .............. ' ...... TOTAL
HRS. 16
HRS.
24
OTHER INSPECTIONS STARTED ON APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITHIN THE CITY
TEI4~CULA BATTALION
PUBLIC A~AIRS/EDUCATION PROGRiNS
INFOIRgATION FORM
1) TYPE OF PROGRAM: FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION
2) DATE OF PROGRAM: 11-13-91
3) TIME AND PLACE OF PROGRAM: 0900-1200 AT VAIL ELEMENTARY
4) CONTACT NAME AND PHONE NUMBER: p. YAUNO
5) NUMBER OF PERSON(S) ATTENDING: 360
6) AGE OF PERSON(S) ATTENDING: 7-10 YRS
7) LENGTH OF PROGRAM: 1 HOUR PER GRADE
8) NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: P-15 W V.I.P'S AND STATION 12 PERSONNEL
9) SUMMARY OF AGENDA AND INSTRUCTION: FIRE SAFETY TIPS, HOME ESCAPE DRILLS,
9-1-1, EQUIPMENT ORIENTATION
Plq-I BY: P-15
TENECULA BATTALION
P~BLIC AFFAIILS/EDUCATION PRO(IRANS
INFO~NATION FORM
1) TYPE OF PROGRAM: FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION
2) DATE OF PROGRAM: 11-08-91
3) TIME AND PLACE OF PROGRAM: 1000 HRS @ RANCHO VISTA ACADEMY
4) CONTACT NAME AND PHONE NUMBER: JUDY COOK
5) NUM3ER OF PERSON(S) ATTENDING: 30
6) AGE OF PERSON(S) ATTENDING: 3-5 YRS
7) LENGTH OF PROGRAM: 1HR
8) NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: P-15
9) SUMMARY OF AGENDA AND INSTRUCTION: CHECK ON PROGRESS OF TREE PLANTING PROGRAM
STATED IN OCTOBER
BY: P-15
CITY OF TEMECULA FIRE SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
To : Temecula Public Safety Commission
Date: December 12,1991
From: Glen J. Newman, Chief
Re. : Trauma Intervention Program
Enclosed are copies of the Community Service Funding Program
Application, the TIP organization has filed with the city. Also
a revised copy of the budget proposal for 1992.
Virgina Rodriguez will be attending the meeting scheduled for
December 19, 1991. She will be presenting a video of a recent
documentary done on the TIP organization. Following the
presentation, she will be available for any questions you may have.
Feel free to contact me with any question or concerns.
Signed,
Glen J. Newman
by:
John J. Winder
Battalion Chief
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDiNG PROGRAM
APPLICATION
Amount Requested: $ 10,000
Project Name: Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc. (TIP, Inc.]
Project Starting Date: January 1, 1992
Project Ending Date: December 31, 1992 for start UD period, then onqoing
ORGANIZATION,S BACKGROUND:
Name of Organization: Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc.
~ailing Address~ 2560 Orion Way, Carlshad, CA 92008
Telephone: 619/931-2104 Year Founded 1985
Number of paid staff: 2.5 FTE Number of Volunteers 120
Geographic area(s) served 9 cities in No. San Diego County includin~
Fallbrook
Is this organization incorporated in California as a non-profit organization?
Yes _.X No
If "yes":
Date of incorporation as a non-profit December 16, 1988
Federal identification number 33-0317893
State identification number 1629482
include a copy of your statement of non-profit status from the
State of California
If "no":
Name of sponsoring organization
Its federal identification number
Its state identification number
This application has been authorized by the organization,s:
Executive Committee __ Board of Directors
Members-at-large
X
City of Temecula
Community Service Funding Program
ApplicaUion Page 2
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Based on your organization's last fiscal year)
Balance Sheet as of
Asset
Cash and investments
Receivables (detail)
Inventory
Fixed Assets
Other Assets
Total Assets
December 31, 1990
$ 75,706.47
79.42
1,577.09
75.00
$ 77,437.98
Liabilities & Investments
Current payables $ 888.75
Notes payable
Fund Balance
76,549.23
Total Liability
& Fund Balance
$ 77,437.98
Income Statement for the Year Ended
Income
Fundraising $ 17,850.26
Foundation Grants $
United Way $ 2,107.62
Government Funds $ 48,000.00
Other Sources $ 3,858.20
December 31, 1990
ExPenses
Salaries $
Operating Expenses $
Community Services $
Amount sent to
national/parent
organization $
Other Expenses $
25,807.70
15,324.~
257.48
Please note with an asterisk any amount ~hat require additional explanation,
and comment on these items.
· Interest Income
In addition, please attach the organization's most recent treasurer's report,
financial statements and footnotes. (it does not require a CPA's audit, but
please submit if available.)
City of Temecula
Community Service Funding Program
Application Page 3
Your Organization,s Mission:
Briefly describe the goals and objectives if your organization and the major
community services it provides. Include discussion regarding the specific
ways your organization meets the City's criteria listed on page 2.
The 3 DUrDOSeS of the Trauma Intervention Program (TIP) are: 1) to
provide immediate emotional and practical support to victims of
traumatic events; 2) to reduce the job stress of emergency first
respondors who because of time restraints are unable to deal with the
human problems and the "people pain" they often encounter; 3) to enhance
the effeotiveness of both the emergency :esponse system (police, fire,
paramedics, hospital emergency room) and the human care service delivery
s~stem (mental health, social services, victim assistance, self help) by
operating a programwhich serves as a bridge between these traditionally
separate systems.
The major Problem addressed by TIP is the lack of capacity of the
emergency response system to provide the emotional and practical support
needed by victims of traumatic events. Consequently many victims
and
their families feel "re-victimized,, by the system itself (the second
injury) while emergency respondors are frustrated by their inability to
help.
To address this crcblem, citizen volunteers are trained to respond at
the reqlaest of police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, and hospital
personnel to assist victims of traumatic events on a 24 hour, 7 day a
week basis. Volunteers assist family members following a death, fire
victims, crime victims, survivors of suicide, etc. The program is
funded and utilized by 6 cities, 2 fire protection districts, 2 hospital
districts, the County Coroner,s Office, and a major federal military
base. Currently the program has 60 volunteers serving a population of
approximatel~ 500,000 citizens. We firmly believe that by joining
together and involving citizen volunteers in public safety, government
a~encies in San Diego COunty have found a "better way" of providing
emergency services.
How this Dropram Meets Citv's Criteria: SEE APPENDIX A
City of Temecula
Community Service Funding Program
Application Page 4
project(s) needing funding
How will your organization use any funding awarded? Give the project's
objectives, number of persons served, are where services are provided, and
number of volunteers involved. Be specific. Note any equipment or services
that award money would purchase and why its needed. Please include a
detailed budget and a schedule of significant activities related to this
project. Please attach a maximum of one double-spaced typewritten page of
information if you need to expand your answer beyond this space.
TIP, Inc, will use the funds mrovide~ to establish a TIP proqram in the
Temecula area, The program's obiectives durinq the 'start up" phase will be
to (1) identify a-~ train a local "Temecula Team Leader", (2) recruit and
train local citizens tc be TIP volunteers. and (3) establish a local TIP
office with necessary e~uimm®nt to o~erate a local Dro~ram. Services will be
provided in the City of Temecula usinq ammroximately 25 local volunteers.
See attached budget and procram activities (Appendix
We hereby certify the information contained in this application is true to
the best of our knowledge and belief.
(Sign both if same)
AND
(Signature and title of individual preparing application form)
(Signature and title of President or Authorized Officer)
Trauma Intervention Programs, Inc.
(Organization Name)
2860 Orion way. Carlshad, CA 92008 (Address of Organization)
619/931-2104
(Telephone)
(Date)
Return Completed Application to:
Community Service Funding Program
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
City of Temecula
Community Service Funding Program
Application - Appendix A
How This ProGram Meets Citv's Criteria
E:
Community service excellence: TIP, Inc. has a documented record of
excellent service and recently was a recipient of the 1991 Innovations
Award from Harvard University and the Ford Foundation (see attached
material).
Size and makeup:
citizens).
2.5 staff, 120 volunteers serving 9 cities (500,00
Public reaction: see attached feedback.
Fiscal ManaGement: the organization conforms with generally accepted
accounting Procedures·
The purpose of the start up money is to establish a TIP-Temecula Branch
which once started will be sustained by the local community and TIP,
Inc.
TIP .~s a non-profit 501 (c)3 organization.
History of satisfactory service to other jurisdictions on file.
TIP, Inc. has an up to date affirmative action policy and does not
require attendance or Participation in any political, religious
social activity. ,
or
see attached financial statements.
see attached 1991 budget.
TIP, Inc. services are offered free of charge to any citizen identified
b~ emergency service personnel as needing immediate emotional and
practical support.
TIP, Inc. routinely sends an evaluation form to every victim served and
to every emergency provider who requests a TIP volunteer. Results
file). ( on
City of Temecula
Community Service Funding Program
Application - Appendix B
TRAUMA INTERVENTION PROGRAMS, INC.
Establishing city of Temecula Tip Program
Exmenses Total:
$44,399
Expected Income Total:
$44,399
I. Personnel ...... $10,000
· TIP Inc. program specialist to conduct
program development
activities 10,000
I. Contributions from City of
Temecula ...... $10,000
II. Trainin~ Costs .... $15,700
· 25 volunteers
x 500.00 = 12,500
· Training local
coordinator 3,200
III. Non-Personnel
·
·
·
·
·
.... $18,699
Travel 2,700
Equipment 3,799
Telephone 1,200
Office Space 6,000
Supplies,
printing,
postage 5,000
II. Contributions from Trauma
Intervention Programs,
Inc. and local
grantmakers .... $34,399
Program Activities
Pro~ect
Time Line
· establish local advisory committee ............... month
· procure in kind support .................... month !
· beyin local fundraising .................... month 2
· assess local resources and establish local linkages ...... month 3
· conduct community forums on TIP ................ month 4
· identify local program director ................ month 5
· orient and train local program director (volunteer) ...... month
· develop local operations plan and resource manual ...... months 7
· recruit and train local TIP volunteers .......... months 8,9,10
· train local emergency personnel in how to use TIP ...... month 11
· TIP Program On-Line ..................... one ~r
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM
NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD JANUARY 14, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:15
PM by Vice President J. Sal Mulloz.
PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS:
ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz
Parks
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko,
City Attorney Scott F. Field and City Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
James A. Meyler, 29930 Santiago Road, President of Arts Council, addressed the Board,
speaking in favor of the City supporting the Arts Council for $42,000 during the 1992-93 FY
Budget so that services such as the Arts Festival and Concerts on the Green can continue.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve Consent
Calendar Items I and 2.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Minutes
1.1
1.2
4 DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz
0 DIRECTORS: None
1 DIRECTORS: Parks
Approve the minutes of December 10, 1991 mailed.
Approve the minutes of December 17, 1991 as mailed.
Selection of Financial AdviSor to Evaluate Bond Caoacitv
2.1 Select Fieldman Rolapp and Associates as Financial Advisor to perform
bond capacity study.
CSDMIN\011492 -1 - 01 I17/92
CSD Minutes January 14. 1992 -~
DISTRICT BUSINESS
3. Desian Services - Community Recreation Center Project
Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, introduced the staff report.
Director Birdsall reported she was a member of the review committee and that the
process was very thorough and she agrees with staff recommendation. President
Mur~oz concurred that the firm of RJM is best qualified to provide this service.
Director Lindemans stated he is concerned that the Bond Issue is not taking place
quickly enough. He stated he believes the Community Recreation Center should be
held to an expenditure of 3 million dollars and the additional proposed 1.5 million be
reserved for a Senior Center.
Vice President Mur~oz stated the agenda item deals with awarding a contract to RJM.
and funding for CRC is not on the agenda.
Director Birdsall stated she believes the Board needs to see a complete design in order
to assess areas that might be deleted.
Director Moore recommended approval of staff recommendation, stating there is time
later to look at component parts.
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Lindemans to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
3.1
Award contract to RJM Design Group, Inc. to provide conceptual
schematic design drawings, construction documents, and project
administration for the Community Recreation Center Project.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: None
Director Lindemans requested that a discussion of the manner in which CFD 88-12
bond funds are to be expended be placed on a future agenda.
CSDMIN\011492 -2- 01 / 17/92
CSD Minutes January 14, 1992
It was moved by Director Birdsall to nominate President Parks and Director Lindemans
to serve on the Project Committee for the Community Recreation Center.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS:
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS:
ABSENT: I DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz
None
Parks
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT
General Manager Dixon reported that the scope of work 5.0 (a, b and c) addresses the
matter of a conceptual and preliminary design. He stated the type of structure
planned will be reviewed and a facility built that will receive the greatest utility at the
lowest cost level.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
None given.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
Director Birdsall stated she attended the quarterly meeting of the League of California
Cities for Community Services in Ontario last Friday and final plans were formed for
the April Conference.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Lindemans to adjourn at 8:36
PM to a meeting on January 28, 1992, 8:00 PM at the Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street.
Ronald J. Parks, President
ATTEST:
June S. Greek
City Clerk/Secretary of the TCSD
CSDMIN~O11492 -3- O1/17/92
ITEM
NO.
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
January 28, 1992
SUBJECT:
Use of Bond Proceeds
RECOMMENDATION:
of Bond Proceeds.
That the City Council receive and file the schedule of Use
DISCUSSION: At the January 14, 1992 Council Meeting, the City Concil
requested a schedule detailing the use of the Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD) and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) bond proceeds as follows:
RDA Project Name Amount
Auto Mall Marque
Sixth Street Parking - Old Town
Parksite
Old Town Specific Plan
Sam Hicks Monument Park
Addition (L-shaped property)
Sam Hicks Monument Park
Addition (Senior Center)
Santiago/I- 15 Interchange
Modification Study
280,000
900,000
4,300,000
30,000
900,000
500,000
25.000
6.935.000
TCSD
Project Name
Amount
Community Pool
Community Recreation Center
Sports Park Parking Lot
Riverton Park Development
Pala Road Parksite
750,000
3,500,000
400,000
200,000
100.000
4.950.000
The above projects are included in the City's Capital Improvement Program.
ITEM NO. 3
APPROVAL
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/Board of Directors
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
January 28, 1992
SUBJECT:
Mid-Year Review of FY 1991-92 Budget
Prepared by: Grant M. Yates, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
1. Approve the Mid-Year Budget as set forth in Attachment "A".
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
CSD RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92
ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN ESTIMATED REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS
DISCUSSION: A comprehensive review of projected revenues and
expenditures for the 1991-92 fiscal year has been conducted. This review includes
an analysis of revenues received to date, and an updated projection of revenues
anticipated for the fiscal year. The result of this analysis is the attached mid-year
update to the Fiscal Year 1991-92 Budget.
Revenues:
Revenues in each of the five (5) service levels have been revised downward from
previous estimates. These decreases are due to the various exemptions given to
property owners throughout the year. The decreases include:
City Wide ($ 182,545)
Service Level A ($ 7,757)
Service Level B ($ 1,400)
Service Level C ($ 22,530)
Service Level D ($ 2,029)
Expenditures:
The majority of the mid-year requests is for Personnel Services and includes funding
for the Senior Recreation Coordinator position for the teen center. Additional funds
are also required to cover workers compensation premiums. The 1991-92 annual
operating budget was adopted before the rates were available.
On December 17, 1991, the City Council approved the interim teen center and also
~delayed the implementation of the tennis lighting project. Accordingly, $ 250,000 was
cut from capital outlay and $50,000 was appropriated for the teen center.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Attachment "A".
Amend the FY 1991-92 annual operating budget as outlined in
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" Mid-Year Budget Review of Annual Operating
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1991-92
CSD RESOLUTION 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT AMENDING THE HSCAL YEAR 1991-92
ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN ESTIMATED
REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District does hereby
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the FY 1991-92 Annual Budget of the Temecula Community Services
District is hereby amended in accordance with the "Mid-year Review of Annual Operating
Budget, Fiscal Year 1991-92" attached herein as Attachment A.
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFFED this 281h day of January, 1992.
Ronald J. Parks, President
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/CSD PESO 01
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Temecula Community Services at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 281h
day of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
BOARDMEMBERS:
BOARDMEMBERS:
BOARDMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/C5D RESO 01
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0 0 0
· [:: -~ -~
2 0 0 0
TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AGENDA
ITEM
NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD JANUARY 14, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:37
PM.
PRESENT: 4
ABSENT: 1
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindernans, Moore,
Mur~oz
AGENCY MEMBERS: Parks
Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, Assistant City Manager Mark
Ochenduszko, City Attorney Scott F. Field and City Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
AGENCY SUSINESS
It was moved by Member Birdsall, seconded by Member Moore to staff
recommendation on Items 1 and 2 as follows:
Minutes
1.1 Approve the minutes of December 17, 1991 as mailed.
Selection of Financial Advisor to Evaluate Bond Caoacitv
2.1
Approve staff recommendation to select Fieldman Rolapp
Associates as Financial Advisor to perform a bond capacity study·
2.2
The motion was carried by the following vote:
Approve a $4,500 draw from the City advance.
AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz
NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Parks
and
RDAMIN'~O11492 -1 - O1/22/92
RDA Minutes Januarv 14, 1992
EXECUTIV; DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Dixon reported an action plan will be brought to the Board in the
near future which will put in place the Advisory Board along with contracts for the Old
Town Specific Plan, in which the RDA will share in some of the costs.
AGENCY MI:MBER'S REPORTS
Member Mufioz thanked former Chairperson Peg Moore for the Redevelopment Agency
Hammer (gavel), which she passed down from the first year with his name added as second
Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Member Birdsall, seconded by Member Birdsall to adjourn at 8:40 PM to a
meeting on January 28, 1992 at 7:00 PM at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol
Street~
J. Sal Muf~oz, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
RDAMIN~011492 -2- 01122/92