HomeMy WebLinkAbout032492 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER -28816 Pujol Street
March 24, 1992 - 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER:
Invocation
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL:
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-05
Resolution: No. 92-16
Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding
Pastor George Simmons, Temecula Valley House of Praise
Councilmember Parks
Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks, Birdsall
Municipal Community Services Month
National Building Safety Week
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council
on items that are not listed on the Agenda 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 PUBLIC
211gendl/032482
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
03/18182
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of March 10, 1992.
3
Resolution ADDrovina List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
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
4
5
21aOenda/032492
Resolution Establishina Records Destruction/Retention Schedule
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS
PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
City Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt the Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy as proposed by
Staff which provides safety, liquidity and yield for City funds.
2 03/18/92
6
Resolution and AGreement Between County of Riverside and Citv of Temecula to
.Permit Issuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates in Lieu of Bonds
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE AND TO PERMIT THE
ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES IN LIEU OF QUALIFIED
MORTGAGE BONDS
6.2
Authorize the Mayor to execute Cooperative Agreement between the
County of Riverside and the City of Temecula.
7
Animal Control Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the County
of Riverside to provide Animal Control Services in the City of Temecula.
8
Award of a Professional Services Contract to Urban Design Studio to Preoare the
Specific Plan for Old Town Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
Award a Professional Services Contract to Urban Design Studio in the
amount of ~154,400 to prepare the Old Town Specific Plan and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said contract.
8.2
Appropriate ~30,000.00 in the CDBG fund for consulting services.
2/aOende/?32492 3 03118/92
9 CFD 88-12 - Ynez Corridor Reimbursement Reoulations
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DECLARING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING CITY EXPENDITURES IN
CONNECTION WITH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 88-12 (YNEZ
CORRIDOR) AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY REGULATIONS (SECTION 1.103-18|
10
Award of Contract for the Construction of Concrete Sidewalks at Rancho Elementary
School. Vail Elementary School and Temecula Elementary School alonq with the
Construction of Ultimate Street Imorovements on Margarita and Moraqa Roads
adjacent to Temecula Elementarv School
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Approve award of contract for construction of concrete sidewalks at
Rancho Elementary School, Vail Elementary School, and Temecula
Elementary School, along with the construction of ultimate street
improvements on Margarita and Moraga Roads adjacent to Temecula
Elementary School (Project No. PW 92-01 Street and Sidewalk
Improvements at Various Schools) to Inland Asphalt and Coating for
$175,890.86.
10.2
Appropriate $193,479.95 (bid amount plus 10% to allow for possible
change orders) from Gas TaXfund balance to Capital Projects Acct. No.
021-199-607-44-5804. After completion of the project, $21,388.00
will be reimbursed to the City from SB-821 funds from the Riverside
County Transportation Commission.
11 ACCePtance of Public Improvements in Parcel MaD No. 23561-2
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Accept the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 23561-2;
11.2
Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds and the
release of subdivision monumentation bond;
11.3
Accept the subdivision warranty bond in the reduced amount;
11.4
Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of Riverside County and the City Clerk of the City of Murrieta.
21~endN032482 4 0311 e/s2
12
Release Faithful Performance Security - Parcel Mao No. 24239
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Authorize the release of street and water system Faithful Performance
Warranty Certificate of Deposit in Parcel Map No. 24239;
12.2 Direct the City Clerk to process the release of funds.
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.
13
Vesting Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie MarQarita Village
(Continued from the meeting of 2/24/92)
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23372;
13.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
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 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
13.3
Approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23372, based on the Analysis and F!ndings contained in the staff report,
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
2/agenda/032492 6 03118192
14
Vesting Tentative Tract 23373 - Buie Maraarita Villaae
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23373;
14.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
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 23373 TO SUBDIVIDE 29.3 ACRES INTO 7 LOTS WITH 348
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND I COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED NORTHWEST OF
CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014
14.3
Approve the First Extensions 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.
15
Change of Zone No. 18, Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18 AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO.
2 CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM
R-A-2 1/2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AND AMENDING THE BOUNDARY OF SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. I TO INCLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
AS PLANNING AREA NO. 36 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE PORTOLA ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-012-006
2/~gende/032492 e 03118/92
16
ADoeal No. 22 - AOOeal Of Conditions of Approval - Public ImDrovements for Tentative
Tract MaD No. 26521
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration Tentative Tract Map No. 26521;
16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26521
TO SUBDIVIDE A 10o80 ACRE TRACT INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND DENY APPEAL NO. 22 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON RANCHO
VISTA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-009-007
17 Reauest to the Governor's Office of Plannina and Research for an Extension of Time
to ComPlete the Preoarati0n and Adoption of the City General Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Authorize City Staff to request a One Year Extension of Time to
complete the General Plan;
17.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF THE THIRTY MONTH TIME
PERIOD TO ADOPT A CITY GENERAL PLAN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 65361
OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
COUNCIL BUSINESS
18 Re~ort on Temecula Sister City Project
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Receive and file report on Sister City Project.
18.2 Approve funding up to the amount of $2,000 for organization expenses.
18.3 After the corporate formation, assign membership in the Town
Affiliation Association and Sister City International to the non-profit
Sister City Corporation.
7 03/18/92
2/igend~/032482
19 18th Year (FY 92-93) Community Develooment Block Grant Project Activities
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Approve proposed projects for submittal to the County of Riverside
Economic 'Development Agency for CDBG funding consideration.
19.2 Authorize the City Manager to submit applications for CDBG funding to
the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency.
20 Uodate On School District Efforts To Select A Location for a School Bus Facility
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Receive and file report.
21 Temporary Pavinq of Parking Lot at 6th Street and Front Street
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Consider paving the City owned lot at 6th and Front Street and approve
appropriation of funds if Council directs staff to take this action.
22 Leaaue of California Cities Inland Empire Division Boundaries
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 Consider request of the League of California Cities task force.
23 Maintenance of Streets Not Within the Maintained Road System
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Receive and provide staff direction.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting on the General Plan, March
25, 1992, 7:00 PM, Main Conference Room - City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California
2/eOenda/032492 8 03/18192
TEMECULA: COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00)'
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-
Resolution: No. 92-
CALL TO ORDER:
President Ronald J. Parks
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should
present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and State
your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of March 10, 1992.
2 Notice of Completion - Rancho California Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Proiect
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Accept Rancho California Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project as
100% complete.
2.2 Authorize final retention payment to Mahr Construction, Contract No.
91-006, to be released pursuant to Section 9-3.1 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works construction.
2.3 Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:
Next regular meeting, April 14, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula
Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
2/Klenda/0.32492 9 03/18192
· TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT!;~GENC~' MEETING ":'
:.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 92-
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson J. Sal Mufioz presiding
AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks,
Mu~oz
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 March 10, 1992.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting, April 14, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816, Temecula, California
21qendk/032492 10 03118/92
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES. DISTRICT MEETING o (To be held at 8:00)
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-
Resolution: No. 92-
CALL TO ORDER:
President Ronald J. Parks
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should
present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state
your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of March 10, 1992.
2 Notice of Comoletion - Rencho California Soorts Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Accept Rancho California Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project as
100% complete.
2.2 Authorize final retention payment to Mahr Construction, Contract No.
91-006, to be released pursuant to Section 9-3.1 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works construction.
2.3 Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:
Next regular meeting, April 14, 19'92, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula
Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21,gendd032492 B 03/18/92
PROCLAMATIONS
& PRESENTATIONS
The City of Temecula
PROCI.,AMATION
WhErEaS, Municipal Community Services Month is an annual observance designed
to focus attention on the variety of community services provided by California cities: child care,
recreation services, housing services, public information, social services, health services and art
programs; all of which are essential to the development and maintenance of a healthy, well-
balanced community; and
WHEREAS, these services facilitate and are instrumental in our intellectual, emotional,
social and physical development; and
~RF~AS, many serious community issues with far-reaching individual and societal
impacts continue to confront California cities in the 90's, and the diverse array of Community
Service programs are designed to proactively address these issues as they strengthen and mend
the fabric of society; and
WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these services, as well as the planning,
design, implementation and administration, are dependent upon the responsiveness, diversity of
experience and talent of Municipal Community Services professionals;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City
of Temecula, hereby proclaim the month of APRIL, 1992 to be:
MUNICIPAL COblMUNITY SERVICES MONTH
in the City of Temecula, and encourage the community to take full advantage of the many
services made available through the City's Community Services Department.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 24th day of March, 1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
The City of Temecula
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, from the inception of this nation, it has been the responsibility of the states
and their local governments to adopt legislation and to enforce laws and ordinances, wherever
necessary, to protect their citizens' health, welfare and safety; and
WHEREAS, among the most basic of the hws and ordinances which have been so
derived, are those acts which assure the public's health and safety in the buildings in which
people live, work and play; and
WHEREAS, the past ten years has been a decade of catastrophic disasters, with
earthquakes, hurricanes, cyclones, floods and fifes occurring throughout the world. Residential
and commercial building of entire communities were heavily damaged by these elemental forces,
while other communities pwved more resistant to the terrible destruction nature is capable of
inflicting; and
WHEREAS, to assure safety, the City of Temecula, enforces a uniform building code
which has been designed and is maintained as an integral part of a jurisdictional safety network
dedicated to preserving human life and the communities future;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City
of Temecula, hereby proclaim the week of April 13 - 17, 1992 to be:
BUH~DING SAFETY WEEK
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City
of Temecula to be affixed this 24th day of March, 1992.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM
1
ITEM
2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD MARCH 10, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:37 PM in the
Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Patricia H.
Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks,
Birdsall
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, 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 (b) and (c) to discuss potential litigation at 5:37 PM.
The meeting was reconvaned at 7:05 PM in regular session by Mayor Birdsall with all
members present.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor David French, Temecula United Methodist Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Mulloz.
PUBLIC FORUM
Glen Daniels, Legislative Affairs of Eastern Municipal Water District, introduced himself and
stated he will be the point of contact for the City to assist with any questions or problems
that may arise.
Tom Fowler, 24482 Leafwood Drive, Murrieta, addressed the City Council regarding the
existing Senior Center, stating it is a multi-use facility, housing such organizations as the
Rancho Music Association, the Kiwanis Haunted House, etc. He asked the every effort be
made to keep this facility operating.
Charlotte Belisle, 38252 Via Oruga, addressed the Council stating that the Rancho Music
Association has used the existing Senior Center for the past six years as a rehearsal facility
and stated this Center is a multi-use facility.
Minutes%3\10%92 - 1 - 03117/92
City Courtoil MimJtee Maroh 10. 1992
Buel Pettit, 40290 Winchester Road, thanked the Council for the $10,000 granted to the
Center. He stated the Senior Center on Winchester Road is · multi-use facility with many
activities and stated he would be providing the Council with a letter listing the services
provided.
Howard Omdahl, 41785 Enterprise Circle South, Suite F, addressed the City Council to
promote his proposed Civic Center Site. He stated this site would be at the center of three
major corridors and would greatly benefit the City. He advised he is planning to take this
decision to the November Election and put it before the electorate so the citizens can become
involved in locating the future Civic Center.
Councilmember Lindemans responded that the City is not looking for a Civic Center Site at
this time, and priorities are focused on jobs for the citizens and parks for the community.
Phillip Colombo, 29000 Front Street, spoke in support of the proposed Civic Center Site
stating it would bring focus and business to the Old Town Area and increase tourist dollars.
Renee Souza-Moore, 39694 Roripauph Road, speaking on behalf of her husband, Danny
Moore, addressed the Council regarding a personnel complaint. She distributed packets to the
Council for their review and asked that a hearing be held as soon as possible.
Mayor Birdsall referred this matter to staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans requested the removal of Item No. 9 from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Mufioz requested the removal of Item No. 5 from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Parks commented on Items 4 and 11 stating that the City has been pushing
to get these projects going to make the necessary improvements and create needed jobs. He
asked if staff is waiting for Caltrans. Director of Public Works Tim Serlet stated that staff is
waiting for Celtrans approval on Bid Documents.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1-4, 6-8, and 10-12.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks,
Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Mieutee%3~,l O~92 -2- 03117/92
CIty Coup311 Mimate~ Mer;h 10. 1992
Standard Ordinance Adoption, Procedure
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda,
e
Mimrtes
2.1
2.2
Approve the minutes of February 25, 1992.
Approve the minutes of February 26, 1992.
Resolution Aoorovino List of Demands
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
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
Award of Contract for the Construction of Street. Storm Drain and Traffic Sional
Imorovements on Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Maraarita Road
(Project No. PW 91-03 - Rancho California Road Benefit District)
4.1
Approve award of contract for construction of street, storm drain, and
traffic signal improvements on Rancho California Road between Ynez
Road and Margarita Road (Project NO. PW 91-03 - Rancho California
Road Benefit District) to Oliver Brothers for $499,716.85·
e
Award of Professional Services Contract to NBS/Lowrv for preliminary Route Design
for the Western Bvoass Corridor.
(Continued from the meeting of February 25, 1992)
6.1
Award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $19,810.00
to NBS/Lowry for a preliminary route design for the Western Bypass
Corridor and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract.
Minutes%3%10%92 -3- 03117/92
C~wCo~nc~ k~nu~N M~roh 10. lgg~
7. Notice of Comoletion - Sam Hicks Monument I~rk. Curb and Gutters
7.1
Accept Sam Hicks Monument Park Curb and Gutter Project as 100%
complete.
7.2
Authorize final retention payment to R.J. Nobel Company, Contract No.
0276, to be released pursuant to Section 9-3.1 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction.
7.3
Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion.
Release of Public Imorovements Subdivision Warranty Bond for Parcel Mao No. ;~36~4
8.1 Authorize the release of subdivision warranty bond for street, water and
sewer systems.
8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer.
10.
Acceotance of Public Imorovements in Parcel MaD No. 23561-1
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
Accept the Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 23561-1;
Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds;
Accept the subdivision warranty bond in the reduced amount;
Authorize the release of the subdivision monumentation bond;
Approve the subdivision agreement rider;
Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
11.
Award of Professional Services Contract to J.F. Davidson Associates. Inc. for Land
Surveying Services on Rancho California Road Benefit District Project {PW 91-03)
11.1
Award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $10,500.00
to J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. for land surveying services on the
Rancho California Road Benefit District Project (No. PW 91-03);
11.2
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.
Minutes%3%10%92 -4- 03117/92
City C~undl Minutes Mereh 10. 1992
12.
Authorize Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract No. ~3304
12.1
Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water faithful performance
bond amounts;
12.2
Accept replacement faithful performance bonds in the reduced amounts;
12.3
Approve an extension of time to January 10, 1993 for the subdivision
agreement for TR23304;
12.4
Accept a one time settlement of ~103,000.00 from Investment
Development Management (IDM) Corporation for construction of certain
street and storm drain improvements;
12.5
Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Developer.
Aareement for Prooertv Ti~x Audit and Information Services
Councilmember Mu~oz questioned the need for a consultant to provide these services.
Finance Officer Mary Jane Henry explained that staff has been concerned that
collections of property tax have only been 89%, where the delinquency from the
County is only at 7%. She explained that the consultant will use a computer
application to do this audit at a very reasonable cost. She stated this will also identify
properties that are not currently being credited to the City.
Councilmember Mu~oz asked why it is necessary to pay an additional bonus as well
as the service fee. Finance Officer Henry Stated the bonus is an incentive to find new
parcels, providing revenue that would otherwise be lost.
Assistant City Manager Ochenduszko stated that only the very large Cities have
staffing capabilities to provide this type of service. He explained that the consultant
feels their services are worth more than $11,000, but are confident they will find tax
revenue, to make up the difference.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
approve the agreement with Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates for Property Tax
Audit end Information Services. The motion was unanimously carried.
Comolqtion and Acceptance of Empire Creek Removal of Sediment and Restoration
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked if the monies spent for this project can be repaid by
the responsible parties.
Minutes%3%10%92 -5- 03117/92
Citv C~mil Minutes March 10. 1992
Director of Public Works Tim Serlet stated staff felt it was important to remove the
sediment from the Empire Creek before more damage was done, but staff will be
happy to pursue repayment of costs by the responsible party.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Lindemens, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
approve staff recommendation.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember Mur~oz asked if the sediment was removed from the site or piled off
to the side. Mr. Serlet stated that the sediment excavated by the City was removed,
however the sediment removed by Caltrans was left on the side of the creekbed.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans asked that Item 16 be heard prior to the public hearings
since it will give background on the French Valley Airport issue.
RECESS
Mayor Birdsell called e recess at 7:55 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the
Community Services District Meeting at 8:21 PM.
Mayor Birdsell reordered the agenda to hear Item 16 prior to the public hearings.
16. Status Report on French Valley Airport
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report, stating the purpose of
this report is to provide the City Council with information on two key issues; land use
planning around the airport and public health and safety issues.
Councilmember Moore asked if the state mandated two mile radius around airports
encompasses airports that service large jet aircraft? Mr. Thornhill stated the two mile
radius is generic until the airport adopts its own specific plan.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans objected to the two mile radius, stating it adversely affects
property owners, with no logical reason to do so. He also objected to the handbook
for land use planning, stating the zoning is too restrictive. He asked that the airport
be defined as to its eventual size.
Mr. Thornhill explained that the two mile radius is a requirement of State law until the
Airport Land Use Plan is adopted. He explained that the only restriction placed by the
two mile radius is to require review by the Airport Land Use Committee.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans requested a copy of the State law.
Mientee\3%10%92 -6- 03117/92
City Courmil Minutes Mar~h 10. 1992
Councilmember Parks stated Caltrans has been granted $54,000 to complete the
Airport Land Use Plan by June 30, 1992 and asked if this is a realistic time frame. Mr.
Thornhill stated he is not in a position to answer that question.
William Harker, 31130-85 'General Kearny, Airport Land Use Committee, gave a brief
history of the airport and stated the main goals of the committee is to protect both the
airport and people on the ground. He stated in the beginning a one mile radius was
approved, but that was changed by Senate Bill 255, which extended it two miles. He
also explained that when the City overrules a decision of the Committee, it assumes
liability.
Councilmember Mufioz asked if the County performed studies or hired consultants to
study noise in area. Mr. Harker answered not to his knowledge.
George Campos, President of Friends of French Valley Airport, spoke regarding the
goals of the organization. He explained the airport is to service industry and business,
a necessity for attracting more clean industry and business to Temecula. He explained
a 24-hour hot line phone number to receive noise complaints and stated airport rules
will be instituted. He announced the airport will also be providing an Automated
Weather Information System and Instrumentation Approach system for the airport.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 9:10 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:11 PM.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked if there is a move to lengthen the airport runway.
Mr. Campoe stated at this time the ultimate length of the airport is not known because
all the facts are not yet in.
Ron Sullivan, Field Representative for Senator Marion Bergeson's Office, stated the
uses must be compatible with the surrounding area.
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans to
receive and file the report.
The motion was unanimously carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
13. Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 25004 and Chanae of Zone No. 5611. Overrulina of
Airoort Land Use Commis;ion Denial
Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Minutes%3%10%92 -7- 03117/92
City CognoB Minutes Mareh 10. 1992
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 9:31 PM.
Murray Dix, 22865 Lake Forest Drive, El Torro, stated he concurs with staff
recommendation.
Councilmember Parks asked if Mr. Dix performed studies at his own expense. Mr. Dix
reported he conducted several studies at his own expense which found the project is
compatible with current uses around the airport.
Councilmember Muf~oz questioned the disclosure conditions. Mr. Thornhill said
Condition 21K states the applicant shall obtain necessary clearances and shall file a
white report.
Councilmember Mufioz asked that signature lines be added for the buyer and that this
information be give to prospective buyers at the time marketing literature is distributed,
not at the time of closing.
Director of Planning Thornhill suggested amending Condition 21 K to include all the
concerns as they have been stated tonight.
Roger Lebbs, Legal Counsel for Dix Development, stated the Airport Land Use
Commission has taken an aggressive and arbitrary approach and discussed the two
mile radius, stating this increases the level of scrutiny, however the City Council has
every right to overturn such decisions. He stated that even in fully developed areas,
the ALUC has taken a position of granting only 2 1/2 acre zoning.
George Campos, Friends of French Valley Airport, spoke in favor of overriding the
ALUC recommendation.
Robert Curtis, 39200 Seraphina Road, stated he owns property I 1/2 miles from the
airport and objects to the two mile radius.
Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 9:50 PM.
Mim~ee~3%10%92 -8- 03117/92
City Ceun{=il Minutes Mer{~h 10. 1992
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Parks to adopt
a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
OVERRULING THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DECISION DENYING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25004 TO SUBDIVIDE 59.0 ACRES
INTO 135 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5611. GENERAL
LOCATION OF SAID MAP BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RITA WAY
AND SERAPHINA ROAD
with the understanding that the project will be subject to an avigation easement for the
benefit of the French Valley Airport and that the developer will require potential buyers
to sign the disclosure included in the report as Attachment No. 2.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans moved to amend the motion to remove the requirement for
an avigation easement and a disclosure statement. The motion died due to lack of a
second.
The motion was unanimously carried.
14.
Change of Zone 5631 - Tentative Tract 25320. Bedford Properties
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Mur%oz to
continue Change of Zone ~5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to April
14, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to extend the
meeting 15 minutes until 10:15. The motion was unanimously carried.
15. Antenna Urgency Ordinance Adoorion
Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 10:00 PM.
Having no requests to speak, Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 10:00 PM.
Minutes%3%10%92 -9- 03117/92
City Courtoil Minutes IVlereh 10. 1992
It wee moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans to.
approve staff recommendation as follows:
15.1
Read by title only and adopt an urgency ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING
CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA
REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF
ANTENNAS
The motion was unanimously carried.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
17. CFD 88-12 Sales Tax Aareement Between City and Tomond Prooerties
City Attorney Field presented the staff report,
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
17.1
Approve and Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached "Agreement
between City of Temecula and Tomond Properties, a General
Partnership, Regarding Sales Tax Revenues of Community Facilities
District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor)" in substantially the form presented,
subject to approval by the City Manager and City Attorney as to the
final form of the Agreement.
The motion was unanimously carried.
18.
Discussion of County Health Deoartment Services
Councilmember Muf~oz outlined his concerns with respect to the service level provided
by the County Health Department. He stated he has received complaints from
restaurant businesses.
City Manager Dixon explained that the City does not have a contract with the County
for Health Services, but rather the County charges a fee for the services they provide.
Minutee~3~ 10%92 -1 O- 03117/82
City Council Minute March 10. 1992
Councilmember Parks suggested referring this to staff to see if this is · personnel
problem, and to see what options are available.
Councilmember Moore asked that City Manager Dixon speak with the County Health
Officer and try to resolve the problem at that level.
Councilmember Parks asked that staff report back on this issue because it is important
to encourage businesses in this community.
CITY MANARER RFPORTS
City Manager Dixon stated he has been chosen as a participant in the ICMA Exchange
Program for 1992, but has declined the invitation.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Mur~oz stated beginning April 1, 1992, the Riverside Transit Agency will
expand service in the City of Temecula.
Councilmember Moore requested that the public be provide with new route schedules at three
or four locations in the City.
Mayor Birdsall stated she spent the day with the film crew from the New Homes Show on
which Temecula will be featured. She stated this will air April 1 lth at 8:30 PM.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans stated he has received a letter from residents on Paseo Golleta
objecting to the closure of their street, and he has received in the message.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to adjourn
at 10:10 PM to a meeting on March 24, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community Center.
ATTEST:
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL, MAYOR
JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK
Minutee~3~l 0~92 - 11 - 03/17/92
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLLrrION 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 RF~OLVE,
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
$891,194.48
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 24th day of March, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
CRY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
0N07/~ TOTAL CHECK RUN:
03/09/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
03/13/9~ TOTAL CHECK RUN:
03/12/92 TOTAL PAYROLL:
$106,323.11
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 3/24/92 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTSBY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL
016 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND (RDA)
019 TCSD
021 CAPITAL PROJECTS-CITY
029 CAPITAL PROJECTS-TCSD
PAYROLL:
001 GENERAL (PAYROLL)
019 TCSD (PAYROLL)
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE
I, MARK OCHENDUSZKO, ASSI~'A~ MANAGER
S663,246.12
$3,674.80
$114,601.27
$10,331.50
$611.74
$80,321.78
$18,407.27
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
,HEREBY CEFTRFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
03107192
Fiscal Year: 1992
Check Date Vendor Name
lnvoLce Date PIO
00009464 03104192 PIESSENT Pleas ENTERPRTSE
113091CR 02101192 10927
111~!92 02101192 10927
113092CR-1 02101192 10927
City of Teeecula
Date hscription
10102/91A~/.F. RPLDYWENT POSITIO~
10102/91 ~V.EItPLOYWaT PO~ITIOND
10/02/91P~V.EMPLOWENT POSITIONS
00009466 031091~2APA
013192
Check Totals:
MtERICAN PLANDIN6
02/01192 02101192 lENDERSHIP RBEM
00009467 03109192 DAVLIN DRVLIN
89-23:155 02120192 11313
Check Totalst
02119192 COPIB OF TRNISPORTATIOll TAPE
00009468 03109192 DHUilItil DHL AIRgAYS, IMC
020192 02101192
Check Totals:
02101192 ~ESSBroB SERVICE
Check Totals:
00009469 03109192 FRANICLIN FRAMICLIM SENINDRS
6818082 02124192 11290 02113192 RASTER FILLER TC~
00009470 03109192 6ETPAGE~ GET PAGED
OG99125-IN 02110192 10987
0099125-2 02110192 0228
08~9125-3 02110192 0246
0899125-4 02110192 0219
Check Totals:
10107191 fEllTilL PAGERSI~ARCH
071011911~ITAL PaGEale
09106191PAGER RENTALINLREH
07/15191 RENTAL PAGERIMARCH
Check Totals:
00009471 03/09192 6LENNIES 6LEM!IIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
94489-0 02128192 11314 02119/92 TCSD OFFICE ~IPPLIES
00009472 03109192 ICRA ICHA
022792 02/27192
Check Totals:
02127/92 COPY OF LOCAL 60VEJI. 6UIDE
00009473 03109192 IC~ABETI IC!IR RETIRERENT
2DF~.69 02127192
022892 02128192
2DFCR.67 0211;192
Check Totals:
02/27/92 Moral Payroll
02/28/92 REtiRERENT FOIl FEB. 92
02/13/92 MORItL P/R: 02/13192
00009474 03109192 LEAGUE
022592
Check Totals:
LEASE OF CAL[F. CITIES
02/25/92 02125/12 REGISTRATIONI4122-4124/PD,EH
Check Totals:
00009475 03109192 MAB[LYNS MAR[LYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
030292 03102192 11173 12117191BIEAKRDD~ SUPPLIES
Check Totals:
0000947& 03/09/92 PARADISE PARABIDE CHEVROLET
T92123CR 02/28/92 11178 12/15191 S-10 EXTENDED CAB PICK-UP
T92123 02/28192 11178 I2/151V18-10 EXTENDED CAB PICK-UP
00009477 03109192 PAYLESS PAYLESS DRUG STORES
Check Totals:
6ross
136,72-
218.70
0.40
168.00
168.4)0
34.48
34.48
~.29
12.50
12.50
37,50
212.50
324.98
324.98
35.50
35.50
606.57
10,520.68
586.~
11,713.62
300.0O
30.66
30.66
397.0O-
16,258.80
15,861.80
Discount
0.0O
0.00
0.00
0.0O
0.0O
0.00
O,O0
0.00
0.0o
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0O
0.0o
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.0O
0.0O
0.00
0.0O
0.0O
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Page:
Station:
136.72'
218.70
0.40
82.38
168.0e
168.0O
34.48
34.48
22.50
22.50
33.29
12.50
150.00
12.50
212.50
324 .V8
324.98
35.50
606.57
10,520.68
586.37
11,713.62
300.00
3OO .0O
30.66
30.66
397.00-
1/.,258.80
15,861.80
03107192
Fiscal Year: 1992
City ot Teeecula
Check Rqister
hge:
Station:
Check
Date VLmdor tim
lnveLce )ate P!O Dat~ kscriptiee
1501 02121192 11031 101:31191 FILII PR/)CESSIMGI~iS;24EXPOSUR
Check Totals:
00009479 0~109192 ~ PJIIDB MATFi
1046200026 02105192 02105112 12/10-01107192
1040101926 02/05/fi 02/051~2 12/IHll0742
1090015118 02105PD 02/~!92 12112-01110/92
1077007326 02/HI92 02/05/g2 12/1141109192
1O40108026 02105192 02/05192 12110-01/07/92
1042790026 02105192 02105192 12/10-411ffl92
1041451106 02105192 02105192 12110-01107192
1040401516 02Y05192 02/05192 12/IH1107192
1062720036 02105192 02105192 1211H11ff192
1150301016 02119192 02119192 12119191.01117192
1240009026 02119192 02119192 12123191.01122192
1240097016 02119192 02119/92 12/23191.01122/92
1244450016 02119192 02119/92 12123191.01122192
1240250016 02119/92 02/19/92 1212:3191.01122192
1240191816 02119192 02119192 12123191-01122192
1240002026 02119192 02119192 12123191.01122192
11&0364316 02119192 02119192 121191r11'01117192
1105038426 02112192 02112192 12113191.01113192
1105038526 02112192 02112192 1211:3191'0111:3192
1240001526 02119192 02119192 1212319141122192
0113200002 02112192 02/12192 12117-1114
0107600771 02105192 02105192 12111-119
1312150126 02119192 02119192 1212:319141122192
0124016971 02119192 02119192 12123-1122
0131170052 02119192 02119192 12123-1/22
0115015002 02119192 02119192 12119-1117
1117040516 02112192 02112192 12116191.01114192
1240073226 02119192 02/19192 12123191'01/22192
Check Totals:
00009480 03109192 RIVERHA8 RIV. CO. HABITAT CORSERVATIli
022892 02/28/92 02/28/92 K-RAT/FEB 92
Check Totals:
00009461 03109192 RIVERSt!) RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
105610-0 02/27192 11301 02118/92 CALCULATORS; PEKIL LEAD
105611-0 02/27/92 11259 01/29/92 FOLERS, LABELS
00009482 03/09/92 SCHAF SCHAF
022792 02127192
Cluck Totals:
02127192 TEAR REGTSTRATTQti
00009483 03109192 SIRSPEED SIR ~PEEDY
4752 02~25~92 10928
4751 02/25/92 10928
Check Totals:
101021911US.CARDS F~ EM ERFLOYEES
101021fi BUS,CARDS FOR NEI EtiPLOYEES
Check Totals:
00009486 03~09~92 SOUTHCED SOUTHERN CAL[F EDISON
87970296 02110192 02110192 5377126790103000:31116-214
7170399176 021211rZ 02/21192 &&77584607102000811/21-2121
2083430106 02126192 02126192 66775850~002000111121-2120
203O056246 02/26192 02~26~92 6677795991302000311/21-2/20
6ross
10.01
10,01
22.09
9.67
18.7~
13.94'
Q.92-
44.48
15.09
28.01
42.02
47.67
141
53,55
57.08
2.49
37
37,02
7.91'
35
474 .~-
74 ,~-
27.27
14.19-
17.15-
14
89.94-
15.55
74.6&
74.6~
19.00
21 -RS
180.00
180.00
28.77
155.16
163.93
125.92
214
258.42
Discomnt
0.00
O,00
0,68
Q.OO
O.00
O.00
O.e0
O.e0
o.o0
o.oo
Q.00
0.00
O.00
O.00
O.00
Q.00
O.00
Q.OO
Q.00
0.05
O.00
0.00
0.00
O.00
O.00
O.00
0.00
0,00
O.00
0.00
O.00
0.00
Met
IQ.vo
9,67
18
13.94-
0.92'
04,48
15.09
26.01
42.02
47.87
141.91
53.55
57.58
2.49
44.97
37.02
26.88
28.68
7
35.43
474.72-
74 ~
27.
14.19-
17.15-
14
89
15,50
74.b&
18.M
21
180.00
180.00
28.77
155.16
183
--~
26.,L0
214.F/
258.42
03107192 Page:
Fiscal Year: 1992 Skition:
City oi lenecula
Check Register
Check
Date Vendor Naoe
Invoice Date PIO Date
Y717508__11-9_ 02126192 02126192
N170120126 02126192 02126192
7367100116 02126192 02126192
2084321016 02126192 02126/92
T/17507~36 02126192 0212b192
850176850 02106192 02106192
34~i76~696 02114192 02114192
Y7174289~ 02126192 02126192
B~76780~ 02101P/2 02101192
Y717449~16 02126192 02/26192
20~i34H06 02101192 02101192
86957450 02119192 02119192
857678106 02101/92 02101192
3085i76806 02118192 021i8192
3085172150 02118192 02118192
85767809 02101192 02101/92
67667976 02118192 02118192
857473966 02101192 02101192
208784136 02118192 0211BI92
877~5196 02116192 02116192
VARIOUSDEC 02101/92 02101192
857~0~626 02/i4192 02114192
~600NAR 02101192 02101192
3063938196 02114192 02114192
31134666 02114192 02114192
H1009176 02114192 02114192
856745086 02127192 02127192
857932926 02114192 02114192
2084469896 02114192 02114192
N105184666 02126192 02126192
2083428076 02118/92 02116/92
3084045316 02106/92 0210~!92
Description Gross Discount
66775048061010001101/21-02/21 443.49 O.O0
667740506770250001il21-2120 221.6g O.O0
6677584B069010003101/21-2/21 418.43 0.00
66774051H0020008/1/21-2/20 231.02 0.00
66775848065010007/01/21-02/21 334.59 0.00
5,TI7850fiOIO100HI113-2/I 199.40 0.00
5~TI105102105000111111,2111 9,34) 0,00
6~775048067020004101121-02/21 557.44 0.00
4.TfTOT/516542111/~-12131 151.74
66775648057010007/01/21-02/21 911,1a 0.00
4T/707751N02/12/31-1/31 39.34 0.00
IATI4117670630006101111-02111 9,30 Q.O0
4,TT/077518502112/31-1/~1 38.25 0.00
bOT/4110011020000/I/L1-O2/U 9.30 0.00
60774117649020005101111-02/11 9.50 0.00
4TT/077516502/12131-1/31 40.06 0.00
&0774111095030006101111-02/11 9.30 O.O0
43-77-077-535002/12/31-1/31 7103 0.00
60774111(W4034)007101111-02/11 9.34) * 0.00
607741102550.~)004101/11-02/11 9.66 0.00
4T/70775600011ROV.-JAN 15.91 0.00
59777992504034)003101/10-02/10 9.~0 0.00
11122-12/31 4377077560001 3,627.42 0.00
59778025422034)000101111-02110 9.00 0.00
5977902H14030000/01/11-02110 10.21 0.00
59777~4085030006101110-02/10 tO,H O,O0
67778639414020002/01/22-02/21 250,88 0.00
59774164505010003/01/10--02/10 268,96 0.00
59774162307020006/01/10-02/10 205.83 0.00
6677795043~040000/01/21-02/20 20,98 0,00
60774nIO9303000S/OI/U/O2/U 10.80 0.00
~778061811030007/.0~/03-01/31 8.40 0.00
Net
443.49
221.68
418,43
231.02
334.59
188.40
9.I0
~$7.44
15i .74
9ii
39.34
9.30
38.25
9.30
40.06
9.30
73.03
9.30
15.91
3,627.42
10.21
· 18.03
250 .fi
268.96
205.83
20.98
i0.80
8.40
00009467 03109/92 TOYOTA TOYOTA OF TERECtH. A
022792 02/27192 02/27192
Check Totals: 6,787.76 0.00 8,787.76
SERVICE E~UIPHEKT 57.47 O.OO 57.47
00009486 03/09/92 USCH USCR
2PTRT.69 02127/92 02127192
3PTRT.69 02/27192 02127192
Check Totals: 57.47 O.OO * 57.47
Normal Payroll 63.94 O.O0 83.94
Normal Payroll 63.94 O.O0 63.94
0000~489 Q3109192 MASTEROff MASTE IIARA6EHEMT INC.
000253CR 02101192 02101192
0002,~ 02101192 02101192
CMck Totals: 167.88 O.O0 167,88
CREDIT HERO/OVER CH6. 446.70- O.OO 446.70-
FEBRUARY SERVICES 739.75 O.O0 739.75
00009490 03109192 MILLIA~S KAY MILLIA~
030292 03102192
03/02192
Check Totals: 293.05 O,O0 293,05
90Z CONTRACT CLASSIRODELIN6 80.00 O.O0 60.00
00009491 03124192 CALIFLAN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
~08520226 02/04/92 11275 02104/92
3085252 02112/92 0252 08/28/91
Check Totals:
TREMCHING;IRRIG.TECHNICIAN
LANDSCAPE HAIMT/FEBRURRY
1,325.90 0.00
29,026.40 O.O0
1,325.80
29,026.40
Check Totals: 30,352,25 O.O0 30,352.20
Fiscal Yean 1992
Check Date Vendor
Invoice Date PIG Date
00009492 03/24192~TI6HEJ JO!OI~CT1BIIE &ASSOCIATES
920202 02/14/92 0296 10/24/91
00009493 03124192 PETHI~Jl PETIUL.~
500750 02120192 10994
195033 02/21/92 11292
10/21191
02/10192
00009494 03124192 RAIlTEl RAIlTEE
3792 02124192 0341 02124192
3924 02/24192 0361 02/24192
3925 02124192 0341 02/54192
3904 02124192 0361 02/24192
3930 02101192 0351 01129192
00009495 03124192 MILLDAN MILLDM ASSOCXATES
4004184 02101192 02101192
' 4004184-102/01192 0318 11119191
4004184-2 02101192 0319 111191fi
4004184-4 02/01/92 02101192
40041M-5 02101192 02101192
4004184CR 02101192 02/01192
4004184-~R 02101192 02101192
4004184-3 02101192 0321 02/01192
City o! leeecuLa
Check Register
kscriptim
STLI~Y FIB CDST REIDVERY PIG.
Cluck Totalsz
Bross
2,550.00
2,550.00
Discout
P~e:
Station:
Net
0.00 2~55~
O.O0 2,550.00
FIE./&H/FD, 19.45 0.O0 19.45
CIVBtT Sl0 TIIUCEIfi1410 1,42&.96 0.00 1,42&.96
(:beck Totals:
1,44&.41
4,463.86
813,95
2,551.24
3,534.04
11,454.69
109,108,87
1,194.00
1,469.00
4,252.50
90.00'
4,074.38-
10,~1.50
122,344.49
20&,839.74
CATDI BASIN i 131NIlEL CLENI
CATCH bEIi i CIMIBIEL CL/RII
CATill BI~SIII & CHNalEL CLEAN
CATCH B~SIN i CIWINEL CLEM
E!IERBEJLq/FUEL
CAKI Totals:
NOV. 1-410V. 30
SB-821 PIJMI CIIEC[/NOV.
SIXTH STREET E/TEEIOII;PUMI
NIW. I-tW. 301EN61JlEERIM
NOV. I-lW. 30/ENIINEERII
lIEDIT IIE!IO/OVE~ 1316
CODIT llEg0ING lln_~ EIC.P~
RO!0 CAL.RD.DglEFIT D[gTRICT
Check Totals:
Nepert Totals:
0.00 1,44&.41
O.O0 4,463.86
O.O0 813.95
O.O0 2,551.24
O.O0 3,556.H
O.O0 69.60
0.00 11,454.&9
0.50 109,108.87
0.00 1,194.00
0.00 1,4&9.00
0 .O0
O.O0 4,252.50
0,00 90.00-
0.00 4,074.38-
0.00 10,331.50
0,00 122,344.
· 0.00 206,639.74
4
03107192
Report Writer
FUI~ CHECK RUleR CHECK DATE
001 00009464 03104192
001 00009466 0~!09192
001 00009467 0~109192
001 00009468 03109192
001 OU00~470 0~109192
001 00009470 03109192
001 00009470 0~109192
001 00009470 0~109192
001 00009472 03109192
001 00009473 03109/92
001 00009473
001 00009473 03109192
001 00009473 03109192
001 00009473
001 00009474 03109192
001 00009475 0110~192
001 00009476 0II09192
001 00009477 03/09192
001 00009480 01109/92
001 00009481
001 00009481 01109192
001 00009483 0II09192
001 00009486 01109/92
001 00009486 0II09192
001 00009486 03/09192
001 000094~ 01/09192
001 00009486 01109192
001 00009486 01109/~2
001 00009487 0II09192
001 00009488 01/09192
001 00009492 03/24192
001 00009493 03124192
001 00009493 03124192
001 00009494 03/241~2
001 00009494 01124192
001 00009494 01/24192
001 00009495 01124/92
001 00009495 01/24192
001 00009495 01124192
001 00009495 03124192
001 00009495 01124/92
001 00009495 03/24192
001 00009495 01/24/92
001
019 00009469
019 00009470
019 00009471
019 00009473
019 00009473
Or9 00009473
019 00009474
019 00009479
019 00009479
019 00009479
019 00009479
019 00009479
01/09192
03109192
0I!09192
03109192
0II09192
03/09192
03109192
03109192
03109192
03109192
Voucher Detail
CHECK LISTING BY FUND
VENDOR NAE
PESS ENTERPRISE
NIERICAN PLNOIIN6 ASSOC
NWLIN
DHL AIRNAYS,
bET PAlIF.)
GET PAGED
GET PAin
6ET PAGED
El:HA RETIREIF. lIT
IC~A RETIREBT
[ILIA RE"rIRERENT
ICRA RETIRERENT
LEABUR OF CALIF. CITIES
RARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
PARADISE CHEVROLET
PAYLE~ 8RIJ6 STORES
RIV. CO. NAiITAT CONSERVATION
RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY
RIVERSIDE OFF1CE SUPPLY
SIR SPEEDY
~UTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
TOYOTA OF TENECULA
aou1 ~CTIOi!E & ASSOCIATES
PETROLARE
PETRDLANE
RARTEK
RANTEE
RANTEl
MILLDAN ASSOCIATEG
MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
MILLDAN ASSOCIATEG
MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
MILLDAN ASSUCIATEG
MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
DESCOIPTION
ADV.E!IPLDYENT PHITIO~
FRANIMN SERINANS
GET PAGED
6LEMNIES OFF]CE PRODUCTS
ICRA RETIREHEBT
ICRA RETIRERENT
ICMA RETIRERENT
LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES
RANCHO WATER
RANCHO MATER
RANCHO WATER
RANCHO MATER
~NCHO NAT~
StatiCs: 3
HEDBERSHIP REEl SFtLF,~H~BB 168.0'
COP]ES OF TRRMSPORTAT?ON TAPE 34.4:
RESSENGER SERVICE 22.~
RENTAL PAGER/IIARCH
PAGER REIITAL/IINU:H 12.5~
IBTAL PAER/NtRCH
RBITAL PAGF. RS/MRCH 12.~
COPY OF LOCAL 60VERN. 6UIE 35.5~
RETIREEilT FOR FEI. 92
NORNIL P/R: 0211~192 H3.7'
RETIEIIENT FOR FED. 92 1,347.4:
Normal Payroll 56I.r
RETIREENT FOR FEB. 92 159.4a
REGZSTRATION/4/22-4/24/PO,EH 150.0~
BBKROON SUPPLIES
S-IO EITENDED CA) PICK-OP 15,661.88
FILM PRUCESS[NG;S&S;24EXPOSOR 10.01
K-RAT/FEB 92 74.61
FOLDERS,, LARELS 18.04
CALCULATORS; PENCIL LEAD 3.81
BUS.CARDS FOR REM E~PLOYEES 183.9:
66775849067020004/01/21-02/21 557 .~
66775846057010007/01/21-02/21 911
66775948061010001/01/21-02/21 14~ .4I
66775948065010007/01/21-02/21 ~34.5
66775948069010003/01/21-2/21 418.4:
66775848071020008/1/21-2/21 12L9:
SERVICE EOUIPtiENT 57.4~
Normal Payroll 146.7,
STUDY FOR COST RECOVERY PRO6. 2~50.(~
FUEL/B&S/FEB. 19.4'~
CONVERT SIO TRUCK;091-010 1¶426.91
CATCH BASIN i CHAIEL CLEAN
EEROBICY FUEL 69.6~
CATCH BASIN & CHANREL CLEAN 6,92~.2:
NOV. 1-NOV. 10/EIi61EERING
CREDIT HEllOlOVER CHG 90.0~
S9-621 PLAN CHECUNOV. 11194.0,
CREDIT REHOIANT BILLED EXC.PN 4,074.31
NOV. 1-NI)V. 301EN6IEERTIIG 4,252.5a
IlOV. t-NOV. 30
SIXTH STREET EXTENSION;PLAN 1~469.0q
156,69~.6:
RASTER FILLER TCSD ~.?
RENTAL PAGERIRARCH 75.01
TCSD OFFICE OUPPLIES I24.9~
RETIREMENT FOR FEB. 92 2r208.0:
NORHAL P/R: 02113192 42.5:
Normal Payroll 42.51
EG l STRAT ION/4 122-4/24/P!~, EH 150. O,
12/10-0~/07/92 1~.0'
12/13/91-01/11/92 2LGa
12 / L2-01 / 10/92 18.7:
12/11-1/9 474.7:
12/2.~/91-01/22/92 99
iei~rt idter
Oi9 00009479
Or9 00009479
Or9 000e479
Or9 00009479
0~9 0e009479
ot9 00009479
Or9 00009479
et9 00009479
0~9 00009479
Or9 00009479
Or9 00009479
Or9 0000947~
Or9 00009479
Or9 00009479
Or9 00009479
Or9 00009479
Or9 00009479
0t9 00009479
0t9 00009479
Or9 00009482
0t9 00009486
0t9 00009486
N9 00009486
0t9 00009486
0~9 00009486
0t9 0000948~
0t9 00009486
0t9 00009486
0t9 00009486
0t9 00009486
0B 00009486
0t9 00009486
0B 00009486
0t9 0004W486
0~9 00009486
0t9 00009486
Or9 00009486
0~9 00009486
0Z9 00009486
0t9 00009486
019 00009486
0t9 0000948&
0t9 00009486
0~9 00009486
0t9 00009486
0t9 00009486
0t9 00009486
N9 00009486
0t9 0000~408
~9 00009489
0B 00009490
019 00009491
019
CBECK LISTIN6 BY FUND
VENDOR NAIE
~ MTEB
SOUTHERN ~ZF DISON
SQUTBERN C~LIF F. DI~II4
b'OU~BEa C~LIF
~)UTE$~ C~LIF DlS~i
~ C~L[F
S~TBERN C~.IF
~IUTBERN CAL[F
~UIBEi~ C&IF
~UTlii~ C~.IF EDISON
~OUIBERN f~LIF
~UTBERN C~IF El)[SeN
HUTERN C~LIF EBIS~
~UTERN C~LIF DIS~
SOUTHERN CALIF
bOUTBERN CALTF ET)ISOll
SOUTHERII CALIF EDISQN
SOU11~RN CALTF EDISQN
SDUT1ERN CALIF EDISON
SDUTBERN CAL)F EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISQN
SOUTBERN rN. IF EaI~DN
~QUTBERN G~IF EDI~II
,30UTBESN rat. IF F. II~DN
· XITBERN CAt. IF E~l~Oll
~DUTBERN C&IF DI~N
SOUTHERN C~IF E~ISQN
~DUIBERN CN. IF EDI~QN
II~TE lt~IAEBENT INC,
II~TE ltN~fXENT I1~,
MY ItILLIP~
C~.IFORNIA LRIIDSC~PE
C~LIFORNIA Li~!)~RPE
CALIFQRNI~ L4ND~APE
rage:
Station:
DESCRIPTION
12/2,3-1/22 27.27
12/23/91-01122/92 48.
12/23-1m
12/21/91-oL/22/92 iT.se
12/10-0U07/~ 0,92
12/i6Ri-01/H/92 ~4
12110-01109P/2 44.4B
12117-1114 35.43
12/10-01107192 28,01
12/19191-01117192 37.02
12/211tl-01122192 141
12/L9-1117 17.1,5
12/13191-01111192 28.68
12119191411t7192 47.8'/
12110-41109192 42.02
12123191'-01122192 82.92
12111-01109192 13
12110-01107-92
12110,.01107192 22.09
TEN! RE6ISTRiTION 180.00
5977416210702000& 101110-02110 2e5 · 81
41770775600011NOV,-JAN 15.91
~77~&110255010004101111-{)2111 9 .i~
&0774111091030001101111102/11 10.60
5177B061811030007101103-01131 8.40
59777994085030006101110-02110 10 ·
597741tA505010002/01110-02110 2&6. 96
607741[7649020005101111-02/11 9.30
43-77 -077- 535002/12/31-1131 "'~. 03
607741100110200001t111-02/11 9
60774111094010007101111-02/11 9
667740,51H002000811121-2120 211.02
5977802H14010000101111-02/10 10.2/
5977682542201000010 1111-02/10 9.00
537785091010100HI113-2/1 188.40
417707751854)2/11130"L2131 151.74
11/22-12/:;51 4377077560001 3,627.42
&077411767003000&/01/11-02/11 ~
66774050677020000/1/21-2/20 221
4377077515802/12/31-1/31 I9
t~777958060040000/01121-02/20 20 .~
66777~59913020003/1/21-2/20 258.42
59777992504010001/01/10-02/10
67778639414020002/01122-02/21 294 .M
bO77411109503000&101/11-02/11 9.34
5977805102103000111111-2111
5,57712&790107AH)O3111&-214
667758M90002000111121-2/20 2~ 4
4~77077518502/12/31-11~1 78.31
Narmal Payroll 21.14
FEBRUARY SERVICES 739.75
CRE!)[T BE~!OVER CHG. 446.7e
80Z CONTRACT ~IKDDELTNG BO.Oe
TRENCHING; ]RRT6 .TECHNTCIAR
LANDSCAPE ltEITIFE]RUARY 19,361.6e
03107/92
Report #riter
Voucher Detail
CHECK LISTINS IY FOND
FIll) CHECK MUItBER CECK )ATE VENDOR MARE
021 000094~ 03124192 MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
Page:
Station:
DESCRIPTION AllOtIT
RCHO CAL.RD.BEIEFIT DISTRICT lO,~l.5
FLscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station:
Check Date Vendor hoe
Invoice hie P/O eate Description
00009460 03102192 CLAIRWOM CtJIR~T, ED
Q21492 02/14/~2
021141~2 REFUNDIC~CELLED
DrHs
Discount Met
16Q.OQ O.OO i~ ~
Check Totals=
00009462 031HI92 BESTBEST BEST ESTERN HOTEL OF NITBOP
030292 03102/92 03102192 CIXFEIUa(CE/1161Ra,JC,PD
iDO.OO 0.00 160.00
117.70 O.O0 117.70
Chick Totals:
QOOlW463 031HI92 CITY/UNI CITY OF UINCADTER
030292 03102192 D:3102192 TRAININ CLAHIRa,PB,,1C
117.70 O,O0 117.70
60.00 O.O0 60.00
00009497 031~/I12 ALFAI ALFAI
TO86tO-KIS 02125192
Check Totals:
02125/92 CHAIR/CADDY/iRa
60.00 0.00 60,00
274,97 0.00 274.97
00009498 03/09192 ALLIED ALLIED BARRICADE
120%3-00 02125192
120964-00 02125192
120927-00 02120192 0356
Check Totals:
02125192 NISC. S1616
021:~5192 SPECIAL SIBISIHARNANEIINSTAL
02113/92 BATTERIES FOR BARRICADES
274.97 0.00 274.97
142.15 O.OO 142.15
148.70 O.O0 148.70
555.45 O,O0 555.45
000094F) 03109192 CALIFORM CALIFORNIAN
11281 02114192 10626
Check Totals:
07101191HOTICEOI2114192
646.30 O.O0 846.30
39.49 0.00 39.49
Check Totals:
00009500 03109192CALMEST CALMEST REXTAL CENTER
078387~ 02121192 02121192 POST HOLE DI66ERIAUGER
078257A 02/19/92 02/19/92 PILOT/AUDER TEETH
I9.49 O.QO 39.49
161.&~ O.OO 161 "~
27.79 O.O0 27.,
Check Tufa)s:
00009501 03109/92 CITICORP CITICORP N0RTH A!IERIC&
0128697 03101192 03101192 ~ARCtl PAYHENT
189.42 O.OO 169.42
1,427.57 O.O0 1,427.57
Check Totals:
00(X)1502 03109192 CONPUALE CO!tPUTER ALERT SYSTERS, INC.
001158~-IN 03/01/92 11082 10/01/91ALA~ ~ONITORIKG/4TH OTR
1,427.57
135.00
Q.OO 1,427.57
0.00 135.00
00009503 03109192 COOP DOBALD COOP
021392 02113192
Check Totals:
02/13192 REFUND PORTION OF FEES
135.00 0.00 135.00
246.00 O.O0 246.04)
0000~504 03~09~92 DAVLIN DAVLIN
69-23:158 02126192 11297
89-23:149 02111192 11297
89-23:147 02/25/92 11341
89-23:1~ 02125192 11341
89-23:157 02125192 11341
CMck Totals:
02111192 TAPE 2126192 WEETIN6
02111192 TAPE NEETIN611122192
02125192 TAPE COUNCIL I~ETIK6/II28192
02125192 lID[O/VIDEO COUNCIL 2111192
02125192 lIDID/VIBEO COUNCIL 2125192
246.00 O.O0 246.00
134.20 O.O0 134.20
130.00 0.00 130.00
834.11 0.00 834.11
619.07 O.O0 619.07
612.71 0.00 612.71
Check Totals:
O0O09505 03109/92 6LENHIES GLENNlEO OFFICE PRODUCTS
q~755-0 02126192 1130~ 02125192 TONER CARTRIHEiLASERaETIlIS1
p45&D-O 02127192 11350 02127192 PACEING TAPE;LABELS
2,~0.09
160.55
19.65
O.O0 2,~30.~
O.O0 16O~-r~
0.00 1~
Check Totals=
160.20 O.OO 160.20
00009506 03/09/92 HREHA OODEPH HBEHA
03109192
Fiscal Year: 1992
CI~y oi lelecu~&
Check Register
Station:
Check Gate Vendor Name
Invoice Gate PIO Gate Description
030592 03/05/92 03/05/92 TRAVEL REIIg/CONFr5/I-314 JH
00009507 03109192 ZCHA IC~A
034292 0314192
Check TotaZs:
03103192 RUMTCZPAL YEARBOOK
04409508 0310~192 aO~SAVAT aOBS AVAILAS$f
204067 02124192 i1315
Check Totals:
02114192 AaVERTISIIIGIN:CIXEITAMTI212419
00009509 03109192 KINKO'S KINKO'S CDPIES
005170 02118192 11281
Check Totals:
02113192 P~PER
Check Totals:
,9533; 03/09/92 N~GICKIN NAGIC MOUNTAZ~T ...... ..-
030392 03103192 03103192 ElITRY TZCI(LrTS (NOT
OOOffSii Hlff192HOOREPE6PF. G iIO~E
022492 H!~192
Check Totals:
02124/92 REIRB 2122192
Check Totals:
00009512 03109192 PERSRETI PERS EHPLOYEES' RETIREeT
2PEAR,69 02127/92 02127192 Normal Payroll
030692 0310&i92 03106192 RETIREaENT F~ 2127192
00009513 03109/92 PETTYC PETTY CASH
030692 03106192
Check Totals:
03106192 REIK9 CASH~iGI92
00009514 03109192 PliESSENT PRESS ENTERPRISE
~3191 02101192
Check Totals:
02101192 DISPLAY ADD 12130
0~9515 03/09/92 RAmmL NANCHO BLUEPRINT
39668 02111192 iX7~4)
40200 02125192 11300
39204 02/11192 11300
39139 02/1il92 11300
Check Totals:
02111192 BLUEPRINTS; ENGIIEERIil6 DEPT.
02111/~2 BI. UEPRINTSI ENGINEERING DEPT,
02/11/92 BLUEPRINTS; EM6IMEERIM6 DEPT.
02/11192 BLUEPRINTS; EMGIMEERIMG MPT,
Check'Totah:
OOOO95i6 031091q2 SANDIE6Q SAN DIEGO UMIOIUUNION TRIBtlIE
785861bO 0210W92 11277 02105192 SECRUITNEWT D;NAINT.$UPERINT
Check Totals:
00009517 03/09192 SDAPA SAN DIEGO AIF. RICAN PLAN, ASSO
030392 03103192 03103192 REETTNGIII2OI92/HF
00009518 03109192 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
020592 02/05/92 02105192
Check Totals:
BAN
OANUARY CHGS
Check Totals:
0000~519 03109192 SWTHCED ~OUTNERN CALIF EDISON
56006 02101192 0210i!92 4T77077560OO11JAN CHGS
Gross
610.01
610.01
72.00
72,00
72,80
72.80
1,350.00
1,350.00
56,36
253.17
12,830.65
13,083.82
253.2~
253
253.26
253.26
21,08
3,49
31M)J4
290.36
5O.O0
50,00
27&.!1
276,11
3,510.69
Disc~nt
0.00
O.H
0,~
O.OO
0.~
O.M
0.~
0.00
0.~
0.~
0.00
0.~
0.~
O.M
0.00
0.~
0.00
0.~
0.~
0.00
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.00
0.~
0.00
0.~
O.O0
0.~
0.00
Net
&lO .01
610.01
72.00
72.00
72.80
84,58
1,350.00
253.17
12~834.65
13,083.82
25~ .25
25~,25
2b~ .2&
25~.26
21.08
3.49
290.36
50 .OO
50.00
276,11
27&.11
3,5i0.b9
*'9510 VOID
Fiscil Year: 1F~2
Check
Date Vendor bee
Invoice Date PIO Date
52006 02/01/92 02101192
5200H 02/01/92 02101/92
5200] 02/01192 02101/92
52003 021011~ 02101192
850829446 02126192 02126192
T/1717&146 02126192 0212&192
Y71750e,~ 02126192 02/26/~
hscriptio~
43T/OT/520001110V BILLtIN
4~r/OT/5200011JM CHGS
43770T/5200011iEC. CHSS
45770T!52000110CTIROV CHGS
1177795846283000911/21-2/20
bb 77~4 505&O100H I I I21-2121
I~TISHBN~I200(RI1121-2121
00009520 03109192 SIIRISEI! SUIIiSE RATERIALS COI~NIY
150~0 02114192 11282 02114192
Check Totals:
MIDRAGS Flit Fjekk~Y;FLOO)
0000~521 03109192 SURVEYOR SURVEYOR SEItVICES
5408 02118192 11269 01129192
Check Totals:
II LEVELS; PUB. IIORES DEPT.
00009522 03109192 TARGET TARGET STORE
022892 02126192 02128192
CMck Totals:
IIISC 6AWES FOR TEEIt CENTER
00009523 05109192 TEECOLA TBECULA CREEK .61
022092 02120192 02120192
Check To~ls:
FE)BUARYCHGS
Check Totals:
00009524 03109192 UNIGLOSE UMIGLOE BUTTERFIELD TRAVEL
022792 02/27/92 02/27/92 TRAVEL/2/25/92/PH,P6
Check Totals:
00009525 0310~192 UIIITO6 UNIT06 REIITAL SEWICE
8771570228 02/26/92 0331 12/10/91 UIIZFORH SERVICES/2/28/92
8771570221 02/21/92 0311 L2/10/91 UIIIFOR!t RENTAL SERV.02121/92
8772570221 02/21/92 11180 12113191 UIiIFORR RENTALS .02/21/92 TCSD
Check Totals:
00009526 01109192 fiLLAGES THE VILLA6ES ASSOC 12
022492 02124192 02124192 RE]U FOR LAMDSCAPE RAIlIT
Check Totals:
0000~527 03109192 V/ELECTR V 3 ELECTRONICS, ILK;.
20251 02126192 11270 01131i92 PA SYSTE!I; TCS9
Check Totals:
00009528 03109192 IIASTER6~ IIASTE IINtRGE!IEIIT [IIC.
015079 03101192 01101192 F/188011~RCH CHSS
015221 01101192 03101192 891880 NMICH CHGS
015291 03101192 03101192 891880 RAREH CHSS
Check Totals:
00009529 03~09~92 MINTERS8 IIINTERSERGER, EUGEIIIE
~0292 01102192 03/02/92 REFUND/CANCELLED DAIICE CLASS
Check Totals:
000095,I0 03124192 COUNAUDI COUNTY OF RIVERS[DE
030492 01104192 03104192 CORECT SECUE9 TAX ROLL CSD
Check Totals:
6ross
13,923.27
14~028.79
189.24
798.70
67.12
43,25&.22
754
754
100.85
100.85
441.69
441
23.47
21.47
196.00
19b.00
12.50
12.50
12.50
37.50
12,965.38
12,965.H
~5.15
8&5.15
49.7B
149 .T~
49.78
248.B9
11.00
13.00
3,140.00
Discmt
0.~
0.~
O.e
0.~
0.9
0.9
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.9
O.ff
0.9
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.~
O.e
0.9
0.00
0,~
O.e
0.~
O.e
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.~
0.~
O.e
0.~
0.~
llet
2,,905.50-
11,64~.91...
189.24
798.70
67.12
43,2h.22
754.25
754.25
100.85
100.85
441.&9
441.69
21.47
21.47
196...
12.50
12.50
12.50
12,965.~6
12,965 .~
9&5.15
8&5.15
49.78
149
4¶ .76
248.99
13.00
13.00
3,140.v0
3,140.00
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register
Check Date Vendor Neae
InvoKe Date PIO
,_,0000t5~10~i2~192 RN(TEK RAHTEK
/ 3iS& 0212BR2 D~50
~929 021011c/2 0351
3V29-I 02101192 0350
Date Description
01129192 STREET MINTI211b-2120
01129/~ EHER6EHCY FUEL
011291~2 EER6ENCT FUEL!l121&112~
Check Totah:
0000t532 0~/241t2 STRACHOT S11iACHOTA INSURH~
022892 021281t2 02128192 AETIIA PROPERTY POLICY
Check Totals:
Report Totals:
6ross
17,347.92
:$0.40
30.50
17,408.82
~5,8~6.00
IOb,'SZ3.11
Discount
0.00
0.~
0.00
0.~
0.00
O.N
O.N
Net
17:347.92
30.40
'30.50
17,406.82
:$~67.L00
3,87&,N
Relmrt Iiriker
001000094A2
001 00009463
001 004)09498
001 00009498
0001 00009498
001 000094~
001 00009502
0010000950:~
001 00009504
00t 0M09504
001 00009507
001 00009508
001 00009509
001 00009,511
001 00009,512
001 00009,512
001 00009,512
001 00009,51:5
001 00009,51,5
001 00009,516
001 00009,517
001 00009,51B
001 00009,519
001 00009,519
001 00009,520
001 00009,521
00009525
00100009,52,5
001 000095:51
00100009531
001 00009531
001 00009532
019 00009460
019 00009497
019 00009500
01,9 00009500
019 00009510
019 00009512
019 00009,514
019 00009,519
019 00009,519
019 00009,519
019 00009,519
019 00009,519
019 00009519
019 00009,522
CHECI DtlTE
0:$1HI92
0:$104192
0:5109192
0:5109192
05109192
031,09192
0:$109192
01102192
0~109192
0~jI09192
0:5109192
0:5/09192
0:~/09192
0:5/09192
0:5109192
0:5109192
0,1109192
. 0:5109192
0:5109192
0:5109192
~H£C[ LISTING BY FiJ!O)
VERHR MARE
BEST MESTEilIi ROTEL OF MITELOP
CITY OF L.NICASTER
ALLIED BARRICADE
ALLIn IAORICARE
ALLTED BARRICADE
F~.LIF~tINI
~ ~'IT SVWff.~ I~.
O!.~NIES
PE~ ~
PL~ F.J~.OV~S' RETIREI~NT
PER5 F.~LOVES'
~UT~RN ~.IF EOI~
~ISE ~TERIALS CONPN~
'ff..~OL~ CP~E~ INN
I~II~LO~ ~fi.~FIELD TP~VEL
~IT08 R~TAL S~VI~
RlffiEK
RANTEN
STRN:HOTA iNSURE
CI. AIaONT, ED
ALFAI
CAL lEST RENTAL CENTER
tAL EST RENTAL CENTER
M6IC KINGDOI( CLUB I~,!~ERSHIP
PERS ERPLOTEES' RETIRERENT
PRESE ENTERPRISE
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CIILIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
HUTHERN CALIF EDISON
TARSET STORE
DESCRIPTION AROUNT
COMFERENCEI$1blRS, aC, PB 117,70
TRAINIRO CLASSIRS,PR,JC
MTTERIES TrOt BARRICAMS
SPECI~ SI6NS/HARIMLf~/INSTN.
ROTICESI2114192 Yl.49
liRCH PAYlENT 1,427.,57
ALNi~ RONTTORiNGI4TK OTR
~ PeltTiN OF FEEl 24&.00
TiIPE COUiI:IL REETWtll128192 834.11
AUBIOIVtKO COUNCIL 2125192 &t~.71
TAPE 2/2&/92 tIEETIRO 134.20
TkeE ~EETIiI611/22192
AUDIOIVtDEO COUI:IL 2111192 &19.07
PikCi:IRO TIIPF.;LARELS 19.&5
TOIER CADTRIHE;LADERJETIIISI IAD.55
TRAVEL REIRO/COIFI::$/I-:~/4,1H 610.01
iUIICIPAL YENt HOg
ADVERTISINGIACCOUNTADTI212419 72,80
PAPB 84
REIRO 2/22/rz
RETIRERENT FOR 2/27/92 2,:$13.09
ilormil Payroll 2~.L7
RETIREIBT FOR 2127/92 7~9tI.70
REIRO CASHr~/&/92 253.25
8LUF. PRINTS ; EROIilEERIRO DEPT.
RECRUITRENT AD;NAINT.SUPERINT
WETIRO[3/20/92/~
aNetARY CHGS
~77H480L~0120009/1/21-2/21 ~7.12
SANUBAH F~ EIBSENCV;FLOO9
HAND LEVELS; PUB. NORi:S DEPT. 110.85
FEBRUARY CHGS 2~.47
TRAVEL/2125/92/PR~PB
ONIFORfi RENTAL SBV.02/21/92 12.50
ONIFONH RERVICF. S/2/28/92 12.50
STREET lIINT/2/I&-2/20
ERERGERCY FUEL 50.40
EIBGERCY FUEL/I/21&1/23
AETNA PROPERTY POLICY
41J&7.H
REFIJ~IC~I FD
CHAIRICADDYIHNIGERS
POST HOLE DIHER/AUGER
PILOTINJGER TEETH
ENTRY TICETS (100)
RETIRERENT FOR 2/27/92
DISPLAY ADD 12/:$0
4377077520001/OCT/NOV CHGS
4577077520001/REC. CHGS
41[T/OT/5200011ROV BILLING
4:5770T/~600011JAN CHGS
437707752000~IJAN CH6S
667779~4H62030009/1/2~-2/20
NISC 6ARES FOR TEEN CENTER
274
161 ./~
27.7q
1~:350.0(
2,250,8~
251.2a
14,028.7'
2,905.,51
189.2.
441.6'
Report IIriter CHECK LIST!fiG BY FUND Station=
FUND CHECK NU~BER CHEC[ DATE VENDDR NA~E DESCRIPtiON AKOUNT
01¶ 00009525 0310rt1~2 UIIITD6 RENTAL SERVICE UNIFOR~ RENTALS 02121192 TCSD 12.5(
019 00009526 0310~192 THE V[LLA6ES ASSOC 12 REIItB FOR LMDSC&oE NAZIIT 12~965.3~
019 0000~527 031091~2 q J ELECTROliICS~ INC. PA SYSTER; TCSD 865.1!
019 00009528 Q3I(Ytle/2 MASTE IIANAGERENT INC. F/188O/RARCH CHGS
019 00009528 03/09/92 IIASTE MIIASEHENT INC. B91860 IMRCH CHGS 199.1]
019 00009524/ 03109/92 II[NTERSBERSF. R~ EU6EN[E REFUNDICMCELLED DANCE CLASS 13.0(
019 00009530 03/24/92 COtfiftY OF lIVERSlIE CORRECT SECURED TAX ROLL CSD 3,140.0C
106,323.11
Fisca! Year: 1992 Check ReV~ster Station: 3369
Check Date Vendor Nae
Invoice Date PIO Date hscri;tion
00009534 03111192 LURCHiST LUNCH t STUFF CATERING
031092 03110192 03110112 DI~R FOR ~IL
031131~2 ALLIED
121269-00
121~31-00
ALLIED BItlCADE
03102192 11267
03106192 0358
Check Totals:
01131192 SPECIAL SIIISIHARNAEIINSTAL
o2/t3/92 BATTERIES FOR RARRZCA~.=~
00009538 03113192 ARTS
031092
Check Totals:
THE iTSgOUMCILIW TBECIA~
03110192 03110192 CO~I~IITY SERV FilDIN6 PRO6
00009539 03113192 ASSESSOR COUNTY ASSESSOIl
11104192 02101192
Check Totals:
02101192 221 ASSESSORS ~ COPIES
00009540 03113192 AT&T A T & T
69419896 02125192
Check Totals:
02125192 714-694-19891FEB BILLIN6
00009541 03113192 AVP AVP VISION PLAN
031092 03110192
Check Totals:
03110192 PRENIU~ FOR NUtCH 92
00009542 03113192 BENEFIT BENEFIT ANERICA
031092 03110192
031092-1 03110/92
Check Totals:
03/10/92 HED i EPEND CARE 2/26/92
0~/10/92 RE & DEPENDENT CARE 2/15/92
Check Totals:
00009543 03113192 BIRDSALL BIRDSALL, PATRICIA
031192 03111192 031111'92 REIHB LUNCH/NEN HOES SHOe
Check Totals:
00009544 03113192 CARLGCOD CALIFORNIA BUILDIN6 CODE
030692 03~06~92 03106192 TRAINING ACCESS STNG)ARDS
00009545 03113192 CALED CALED
031092 03110192
Check Totals:
03110192 REGISTRATION FEEI411OI921DD
00009546 03113192 CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN
05604 02~26~92 10626
Check Totals:
07101191NOTICESI2126192
00009547 03113192 CAPPOINC CAPPQ~ INC.
031192 03111192
030692 03106192
Check Totals:
03/11/92 RESISTRATION/4/24/921AT
03/06192 CITY NENBERSHIP
Check Totals:
00009548 03113192 CHOCOLAT THE CHOCOLATE FLORIST5
030492 03104192 03104192 SPONSORED ikqKE CONTEST
Check TotaLs:
00009549 03113192 COLONIAL COLONIAL LIFE k ACCIDENT
031092 03110192 03/10192 INSURANCE PHE~IIMS FOR KAR 92
Gross
90.00
90.00
60
175
235.97
110.50
110.50
336.50
336,50
599.90
599,90
1,152.76
L,912.96
3,065.72
70.99
70.99
55.00
55.00
295.00
295.00
75.00
45,00
120.00
6A ,00
64.00
1,061.25
Discount
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.04)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
~et
90.Ou
175.63
110.50
110.50
59~.~0
599.90
.1,152.76
3,065.72
70
70.f9
~5.~
~5.~
~.30
1~0~1.25
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 3369
Check Date Vendor hoe
Invoice Date PIO
hie Description
000O9550 03113192 CRQMEJll JtAIE CROE
022092 02128192
Check Totals:
02120[92 KILEN3E R~I~1217-2/20
00009551 03113192 ~VLIN ~VLIN
~-23:156 02124192 1O942
Check Totals:
O9127/~1 T~[ PLANNING CO~ISION/2124
Check Totals:
00009552 03/13192 DENTICAR DENTICARE QF CALIFORNIA
031092 03110/92 03110192 PRENIUH FOR RANCH
Check Totals:
00009553 03113192 FARALLON FARALLON CORPUTING, INC
021292 02112192 0359 02119192 SUPPORT I HAINT.1YR; 412192
00009554 03113192 FERNO~LS FERN OAKS INN
03O992 03109192
Check Totals:
03109192 CITY CLERKS EfflNG!312019236
Check Totals:
00009555 03113192 6LENNIES 6LE!IIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
95686-0 021041t2 11331 03102t92 GRAPHIC TN~E;PLARNING DEPT.
00009556 03113192 OREAT G.R,E.A.T.-TRUST
031092 03110192
Check Totals:
03110192 PRE~II~ FOR NARCH 92
00009557 03/13/92 6TEBILL 6TE
69986328 03107192
699-2~098 02~28~92
695-3539 02128192
694-19896 02/28192
676-09326 03107192
Check Totals:
03107192 714-699-66321FB CHGS
02128192 714-699-23O91FEB. CHGG
02128192 714-695-3~391FEB DIGS
02128192 7147-694-19891FEB CHGS
03107192 714-676-09321FE9 CH~
00009558 03/13/92 HANKSHAR HANKS HARDHARE
126600 02101192 11366
02129/92 02129192 11242
013192 02101192 11379
0229~2 02/29192 11379
123191 02101/92 11379
Check Totals:
02101192 OPEN ACCOUNTINI$C.PUNLIC NKS
01122192 NISC, ITEI~; TCSDIFEB CHGS
02101192 HAINTEHANCE NTRL8; CITY HALL
02101192 HAINTENANCE HTRL$; CITY HALL
02101192 HAINTENARCE !rrRLS; CITY HALL
00009559 03/13/92 JENNACO JENNACO
2348 03102/92 11368
Check Totals:
02~27~92 CARPET CLEANING; CITY HALL
00009560 0~/13/92 JOHNSONS JOHNSON, SHARON
030592 0~/05192
Check Totals:
0~/05192 HILEAGE REIN61214-315
Check Totals:
00009561 0~!13192 KIDSPART KIDS PARTIES,ETC.
030~92 0~/03/92 03103192 ENTERTAINENT ~OI~Y & HE
0~1092 0~/10/92 0~110192 CLOtIN PERFORNANCES/GRAND OPEN
Gross
1,061.25
4.76
4.76
148.40
1~8,40
831.00
831 .O0
600.00
600.00
85.60
85.60
17.48
17,48
790.00
790.00
16,51
23.42
29.M
2,626.16
17.12
2,712.75
140.85
297.72
133.72
640.H
1,403,41
668.00
666.00
25.00
350.00
Discount
O.OO
0.00
0.00
O.O0
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.O0
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.00
O,O0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.00
0,00
0.00
O.00
O,O0
0.00
0,0o
0.~
0.00
Net
1,061,25
4.76
4.76
148.40
148.40
831.00
831.00
600.00
600.00
85,60
85.60
17.48
17.48
790.00
790.00
16.51
23.42
29,54
2~626.16
17.12
2,712.75
140.85
297.72
1~.72
I90.M
1,403.41
668,00
668.00
115.36
115.36
25.00
350.00
Fiscal Year: X~ Check keg~ster $La~on: ~b~
Check Date Vendor Naoe
Invoice Date P/Q Date
hscription
Check Totals:
03113192 LONCHtST Lt~CH & STUFF CMERIN6
031092-I 03110192 03110192 DOt LUNCHES CRCC flEETIE 3112
CMck Totals:
OO00~563 03113192 HAURiCE HAORICE PRINTERS OUICK PRINT
236. 02/20199 11295 02/19/92 PRINTINGJBIPLOYENT APPLICA.
00009564 03113/99 ~EYERJOH EVER, JOHN
031099 03/10/99
Check Totals:
03110199 REI!9 FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES
00009565 03113192 NESG.TOR NED 6. TORGA
022192 02121192
Check Totals:
02121199 RILEA6E REINBIll31199-2121199
Check Totals:
00009566 03/13192 PARADISE PARADISE CHEVROLET
426 02121192 11305 02121199 BRAKE PADS FOR DLAZER
00009567 03113192 PEi~
031092
Check Totals:
PERS (HEALTH INSOR. PREHIU!t)
03110192 03110199 INSURANCE PREHI~ HARCH 92
00009568 03113192 PETTYC PETTY CASH
030992 03109192
00009569 03113192 POSTHAST POSTHASTER
9244626 02107192
Check Totals:
03109192 EIHB PETTY CASH
Check Totals:
02107192 EXPRESS HAlL/JAN SEHV.
000~570 03113192 RESIDEtIC RESTEKE INN
030592 03105192
Check Totals:
03105199 CORVENTIONISI10-141DD
Check Totals:
OOOOt571 03113192 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN
0949G 031Mi92 0310419947980200000109491FE8. CHGS
Check Totals:
00009572 03113192 SO CAL-2 SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO.
515D 03/12/92 11304 02/13/92 PORTABLE PHONE; CAR PROME
000515 03112192 11304 02113192 PORTABLE PHONE; CAR PHONE
Check Totals:
00009573 03113192 SPEEDYOI SPEEDY OIL CHANGE
01672004 02120/92 11268 02104192 REPAIR 6 HAIHT,CITY VEHICLES
00009574 03/13/92 TENHARD
030992
Check Totals:
TERECULA HARDMOODS
03109192 03109192 HATER)ALS CA;INETSISNACDAR
00009575 03/15192 TIGERSOF TIGER SOFTHARE
030992 05109192
Check Totals:
03109192 UPGRADE OF SOFTUANE
Gross
375.00
97,30
97.~
226.28
226.28
51,08
51,t)6
4~.66
43.68
322.16
322.16
1%218.45
19~218.45
1T3,65
173,65
885,70
885.70
115,00
115,00
286,16
28~.16
494,38
214.99
699,30
106.18
106,18
465.48
465.48
76,90
Discount
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O,OO
0,00
0,00
O,O0
O,O0
0,00
0,00
O,OO
O.OO
0,00
O .OO
0.00
0,00
Net
375.00
97.30
226.28
51.09
51.08
43.68
43.6e
322,16
322.16
19,218.45
19,218.45
173.65
SO5,70
665.70
115.00
115.00
296.16
286.16
484.38
214.92
699,34)
106.18
106.18
465.46
46~..'
76.90
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register
Check Date Vendor Nine
Invoice Date P/O Date Description
Check Totals:
00009576 03113192 UNIHLOBE tINTGLOBE BUTTERFIELD TRAVEL
031092 03/10/92 03/10/92 CTY CLERES MEET/4/28-29
0000~577 03/13/92 uuun
0~1(w2
Check Totals:
UNU~ LIFE INS. CO. OF ANERZCA
03110/92 01110192 INSURANCE PIEIlllII~ MR 92
Check Totals:
00009578 03/13/92 HASTEIron HASTE HAHAGEHENT INC.
015122 02/25/92 02/25192 RANCH SERV.18tIBHO
00009579 03113192 HESTLUIIB lIESTERN LUHDER
030692 03106192
00009581 03124192 ALHAHHRA ALHAMBRA GROUP
7717 02128192
Check Totals:
03106192 HATERIALSISPORTS PARE CONCESS
Check Totals:
02/28/92 FEB CHARGES
00009582 03124192 ALLCITY
1272
Check Totals:
ALL CITY MANAGERENT
02/24192 0293 10108191 TRAFFIC CONTROL/219-2122
Check Totals:
00009583 03~24~92 BURKE,ilK BURKEy NILLIARS i SOREiI~N
06044 02/01/92 02/01/92 12f31/91 CHARGES
08454 02121192 02121192 JAN SERVICES
84550 02/21/92 02/21/92 nAN SERVICES
06456 02/21/92 02/21/92 JAN SERVICES
Check Totals: -
00009564 03124192 6ILLIS-I C. N. "HAl" 6ILLXS
010192 02101192 015~ 02101192 JANUARY SERVICES
Check Totals:
00009585 03124/92 6RAFFITI 6RAFFITI REItOVAL SERVICES
4479 02~29~92 0303 10101/91 6RAFFITI RE~OVALIFEB 92
00009586 03/24192 HGHASSOC HEN ASSOCIATES
PTEH92.001 02101192
PTEH92.002 03102192
PTEH91.001 02101192
Check Totals:
02101/92 SERVICES FROM 12/19-1/17
03102/92 FEB 24 CHARGES
02101192 1116-11/13 SERVICES
00009587 0~/24/92 NEET,JOH JOHN P NEET, HAl
030692 03/06/92 0360
Check Totals:
02/18/92 FORHAL APPRAISAL 909-120-018
00009588 0~/24/92 ORANEE
0019627
0019629
0019628
Check Totals:
ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVIC
02129/92 0853 01/29/92 CURB PAINTING; PAVENEKT NRK6
02/29/92 0363 02124192 STRIPING & STENCILING
02129192 0355 01729192 CURB PAINT]HE; PAVENENT MRKG
Check Totals:
Gross Discount Net
76.90 0.04) 76.90
404.00 0.00 404.00
404.00 0.00 404.00
2,101.19 0.00 2,101.19
2,101.19 0.00 2,101.19
224.~ 0.00 224.I3
224.33 0.00 224.33
146.26 O.O0 146.26
146.26 O.O0 146.26
4,637.34 0.00 4,637.34
4,6~7.~4 0.00 4,637.34
4,768.36 0.00 4,768.36
4,768.36 0.00 4,768.36
14.00 O.OO 14.00
3,150.00 O.O0 3,150.00
1,800.08 0.00 1,800.08
860,80 0,00 860.80
5,824.88 O.OO 5,824.89
4~625.00 O.OO 4,625.00
4,625.00 0.00 4~625.00
1,22~.00 0.00 1,22~.00
1,22~.00 0.00 1,223.00
6,809,00 0.00 6,809.00
505.13 0.00 505.13
259.20 0.00 2H.20
7,57~.33 O.OO 7,57~.33
2,800.00 O.O0 2,800.00
2,800.00 0.00 2,800,00
390.00 0.00 390.00
1,165.00 0,00 !,165.00
2,155.00 O.O0 2,155.00
3,710.00 0.00 3,710.00
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 3361
Check Date Vador Nee
Invoice Date PIO
00009589 03124192 RANTE~ RANTEl
0213192 03~0
Description
01/29192 STREET fiAZNTI2124-2128
Check Totals:
03124192 IU)BERT~ ROBERT BEllit liB. FROST & ASSO
1-11033 02101192 0260 06/~)!91 EN6.PLANSIIIFROVE 6T!I ST.
1-11033CR 02101192 0260 08130191 CR~IT lIBlOIRE/JIB COSTS
00009591 03124192 SHERIFT CQUIITY [ RIVERSIDE
030Y/2 03103192 0212II92
0~592 02101192 02101192
020792 02107192 02107192
Check Totals:
EXTM h~rY It~ ~ 2/2~
tail El~:i)Ra)G/aANOARY 92
EXTRA NJTYITMIENT SEEP
00009592 03124192 SPACESAV SPACE SAV~R SYSTEX, INC.
4291 02101192 0367 03103/92
Check Totals:
BALANCE DUE;COi0263;STRG.SYST
03~24~92 STEINYIC STEINY & CO. INC.
8477-1R 02101192 0288 10101191
6477-1 02101192 0296 10101191
Check Totals~
PR~.IPM 91-02VTDIHt CliTR SGle.
PROLIPII fi-O2;TOIIN CHTR SGNL
000(R594 03124192 TEH PIPE TEHECLLA VALLEY PIPE
2~685 02124192 11079 11112191
2T~45 02127192 11302 02111192
23847 02/27/92 11303 02111192
Check Totals:
IRRIGATIOH a IiISC. EOUIP.CSD
COHTROU. ER;CABI. E;VALVE SPLICE
TOOL KIT;CABLE;CONTROLLER
00009~95 03/24192 HILLDAN rILLDAN ASSOCIATES
4004179 02101192 02/01192
4004179CR 02101192 02101192
Cheer Totals:
SERVXCES 2127191-7124191 EN6
CREDIT ERO/AH TOTAL INV.
Check Totals:
Report Totals:
Gross
2~B63.B7
63.87-
2~800.00
2,080.41
280e144.97
544,92
282,770.~0
1,875.00
1,875.00
1.,591.49-
7,957.48
6,365.99
118.46
798.51
868.93
1,7e5.92
T3~874.09
195.00-
T~,679.09
4799~02.58
Discount
O.O0
Q.O0
O.O0
Q.O0
O.O0
O.O0
O.O0
0.00
0 .OQ
O .OO
O.O0
O.OO
O.O0
0.00
Q.O0
O.O0
O.O0
0.00
0.00
0.00
Net
5,331.38
2~863.87
63.67-
2,800.4)0
2~080.41
290,144.97
~4.92
282,770.30
1,875.00
1:875.00
1,591.49-
7,957.48
6,~5.99
118.18
798.51-.~
1,785.92
7~,B74.09
195.00-
479,302.~8
r~
Report Nriter CHECK LISTING ~Y FUN]) Station:
FUND
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
081.
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
00!
001
001
001
001
001
CHECK NUHBER
00009534
00009537
00009537
00009538
00009540
00009541
00009542
0000~542
00009542
00009542
00009542
00009542
00009543
00009544
00009545
0000954&
00009547
00009547
00009549
0000955!
00009552
00009553
00009554
00009555
00009556
00009557
00009557
00009557
00009557
000~9558
00009559
00009559
00009563
000095H
00009567
00009570
0000957~
00009572
00009573
00009575
00009576
0000958~
00009582
00009583
00009584
00009585
0000958&
00009596
0000959~
00009589
0000958~
00009599
00009590
00009590
CHECK DATE
0~111192
03113192
0311~192
03113192
0311I!92
0M1~192
03113192
0II11192
03/13192
0~/13192
03113/92
0~113192
0I/1M92
0311~/92
03/13/92
0~113192
03/1I!92
03/11/92
0I!13192
03111192
03113192
0I/1I!92
0M13192
0I/1~/92
0M13192
0I/1I!92
0MlII92
0M13192
0~/13192
03/11/92
03/1II92
03/13/92
03/11/92
03/13/92
0M13192
03113192
0M13192
03/IM92
01124192
0M24/92
03/24/92
03/24192
01124192
0~124192
03/24/92
03124192
0M24192
0~/24/~2
0II24/92
0M24f92
0~/24R2
VENDOR NAG
LUNCH & STUFF CATERIN6
ALLIED BARRICADE
ALLIED BARRICADE
THE ARTS COUNCIL OF TEHECULA
ATIT
AVP VISION PLAN
~diEFIT ANERICA
BENEFIT ANERICA
BElIEFIT MIERICA
BENEFIT AHERICA
BENEFIT ANF. RICA
BEEFIT AERICA
BIRDSALL~ PATRICIA
CALIFORNTA BUILBiND CODE
CALEB
CALIFDRNiAR
CAPPO, INC.
CAPPO.. INC.
COLONIAL LiFE & ACCIDENT
DAVL I N
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA
FARALLON COfiPUTING.,
FERN OAKS [NN
6LENNIE5 OFFICE PRODUCTS
G.R.E.A.T. TRUST
6TE
GTE
6TE
GTE
HANKS HARDIARE
HANKS HARDMARE
JENRAC8
fiAURICE PRINTERS OUICK PRINT
HEYER~ OOHe
NES 6, TORGA
PARADISE CHEVROLET
PENS (HEALTH INSUR, PREfiI~)
POSTeASTER
RESIDENCE INN
SECURITY PAC/F]C RATIONAL BAN
SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO,
SPEEDY OIL CHANGE
TIGER SOFTMARE
UNIGLOBE BUTTERFIELD TRAVEL
UNUH LiFE INS, CO, OF ANERICA
ALHAI~RA GROUP
ALL CITY HANAGEHENT
BURr, E~ eILLIAfiS & SORENSEN
C, H, "~X' GILLIS
GRAFFITI REfiOVAL SERVICES
HGfi ASSOCIATES
fiGH ASSOCIATES
fiGH ASSOCIATES
ORANGE COUNTY STRIPING SERVIC
DRANBE COUNTY STRIPINa F, ERVIC
RAHTE[
ROBERT BEIN, Nfi. FROST ~ ASSO
ROBERT BEIN~ NI~, FROST & ASSO
DESCRIPTION
DINNER FOR COUNCIL STAFF
BATTERIES FOR BARRICADES
SPECIAL SIGNSINARDMARE/INSTAL
C09~fiUNITY SERV FUNDING PROD
714-694-1989/FE8 BILLING
PREHIU~ FOR NIRCH 92
flED & DEPEND CARE 2/28/92
HE & DEPENDENT CARE 2/15/92
flED & DEPEND CARE 2/28/92
HE & DEPENDENT CARE 2/15/92
NED & DEPEND CARE 2/28/92
fE & DEPENDENT CARE 2115192
REIN9 LUNCHlEg HONES SHOe
TRAINleD ACCESS STANDARDS
REGISTRATION FEE/4/10/92/DD
NDTICES/2/26/92
CITY HEfiBENSHIP
REGISTRATION/4/24/92/AT
INSURANCE PRENI~S FOR eAR 92
TAPE PLANNING COtlNIGIONI2124
PRENIUfi FOR HARCH t2
SUPPORT & fiAINT.1YR~ 4/2/92
CITY CLERKS HEETIN611120192~6
GRAPHIC TAPE~PLANNIN6 DEPT.
PREfilUN FOR NARCH 92
7147-694-19891FE8 CH6S
714-699-2~091FED, CHGS
714-699-86321FEB CH6S
7H-b95-3519/FEB CHGS
HAINTENANCE fiTRLS; CITY HALL
OPEN ACCDUNT;fiISC,PUBLIC iNS
CARPET CLEANING; CITY HALL
PRINTING:EfiPLOYHENT APPLICA,
REIfiB FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES
NILEARE REI~8111Sl192-2121192
BRAE PADS FOR BLAZER
INSURANCE PREKI~ fiARCH 92
EXPRESS RAIL/JAN SENV,
CUNVENTIONISIIO-I~!8D
479902000001084~/FEG. CHGS
PORTABLE PHUNE~ CAR PHONE
REPAIR & fAINT.CITY VEHICLES
UPBRADE OF SOFTMARE
CTY CLERKS HEET!4128-29 J6~S3
INSURANCE PREMIUfi HAR 92
FEB CHARGES
TRAFFIC CONTROLl219-2122
~AN SERVICES
JANUARY SERVICES
6RAFFITI REHDVAL/FEB 92
11/&-11/I$ SERVICES
FEB 24 CHARGES
SERVICES FROH 12/19-1117
STRIPING & STENCIL]HE
CURB PAINTING; PAVEfiENT fiRK6
STREET ~AINT/2/24-2120
CRDZT fiEfiO/REifi~ COSTS
E~G,PLANS:ZHPROVE 6TH ST.
AfiOUNT
90.0C
60.~
30,000.0(
;36.5C
471.2:
387.66
66.6~
66.6~
~8.1~
70.9¶
55,0C
295,0~
45.0G
75,0~
706.25
~48.4~
62LOG
6OO,OC
BS.6Q
17.46
620.00
2~626.1~
23.42
16.51
29.54
964.~4
140.85
668.00
226.28
51.06
41.68
]22,1&
15,249.17
813,90
lZ5,00
286.1&
699,30
106.IN
76.90
404.00
1694.87
4,617.34
4,768.36
4.950,08
4,625.00
~,223.00
259.20
&.809,00
~J65.00
6187
2.863.87
Report Nriter
FOND CHECK ~ER CHECK DATE
VENDOR NAE
CHEC[ LISTING mY FUND
DESCRIPTION
Stauon: 53~
OOI 00009591 05124192 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
001 00009591 03124192 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
001 00009591 03124192 COONTY OF RIVERSIDE
001 00009591 03124192 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
001 00009592 03124R2 SPACE SAVER SYSTEK~ INC.
001 00009595 03124192 STEINY & CO. INC.
001 00009595 03124192 MILLDAN ASSOCIATES
001 00009595 0512AI92 NILLOAN ASSOCIATES
001
LAM ENFORCENENTI ,]AKUARY 92
EXTRA DUTY ROD RUN 2123
LAN F. NFORCEIFJiT/aANUARY 92
EXTRA DUTYITP. IISIENT SNF. EP
BALANCE DUE;COBO2&3;STRG.SYST
PROD,IF1 91-02;TONN CNTR
CREDIT HE~OIAH TOTAL
SERVI~S 2/27/91-7/24/9]. EN6
016 00009583 03124192 BURICE~ IILLIARS & SONENSEN aAR SERVICES
016 00009585 03124192 BONICE~ NILLIARS & SSRERSEN 12151191 CHARGES
016 00009597 05124192 30HN P NF, ET~ HAl FORIlN, APPRAISAL 909-120-018
39,749.2e
2,080.41
6~565.99
195,00-
75~B74,0~
8&O.!O
14,00
2~BOO,O0
019 00009559 03113192 COONTY ASSESSOR 221 ASSESSORS NiP COPIES 110.50
019 00009541 05113192 AVP VISION PLAN PRENIUH FOR MRCH 92 128,65
019 00009542 05115192 BElIEFIT AHERICA HED i DEPEND CARE 2128/92 585,99
019 00009542 03115192 BENEFIT AHERICA NE & DEPENDENT CARE 2115192 790,44
019 00009548 05113192 THE CHOCOLATE FLORIST5 SPONSORED Bile CONTEST &4.00
019 00009549 03113192 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT IRSUR~CE PRENIONS FOR KAR 92
019 00009550 03/15/92 OULIE CRONE HILEAGE REINB/2/7-2/20 4.76
019 00009552 03/15/92 DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA PRENIUN FOR RARCN 92 208.00
019 0000955~ 05/15/92 6.R.E.LT. TRUST PRERIUH FOR NIRCH 92 170.00
019 00009557 0~/1~/92 6TE 71&-&7&-O932/FED CHGS 17.12
019 00009559 03/13/92 'iNKS HARDMARE NISC. ITERS; TCSD/FED CHOS 297.72
019 000095~0 05/15/92 JOHNSON, SHARON RILEAOE REI1~/214-3/5
019 000095&! 05/13/92 KIDS PARTIES,ETC. ENTERTAINKENT I(OII~Y & E
019 000095&1 05/13/92 KIDS PARTIES~ETC. CLONN PERFORIWICES/ORAIID OPEN
019 000095&2 05/15/92 LONCH & STUFF CATERIN6 BOX LUNCHES CRCC flEETIN6 ;112 97.~0
019 000095&7 0~/1~/92 PEAS (HEALTH IHSUR. PREHI~) INSURANCE PRENI~ RARCH 92
019 000095&8 05/15/92 PETTY CASH REI~ PEITY CASH
019 00009559 03/15/92 POSTeASTER EXPRESS RAIL/OAR SERV. 51.80
019 00009577 03/13/92 UNU~ LIFE INS. CO. OF AHERICA IRSONARCE PREHION ~ 92 406.32
019 00009578 05115192 HASTE HANA~EHT INC. NARCH SERV./891SSO 224.~
019 00009594 03/24/92 TENECULA VALLEY PIPE IRRIOATION & RISC. EOUIP.CSI) 118.49
019 00009594 05/24/92 TEHECULA VALLEY PIPE CONTROLLER;CABLE;VALVE SPLICE 798.51
019 00009594 03/24/92 TEHECULA VALLEY PIPE TOOL KIT;CABLE;CSHTROLLER 868.93
019
9,~1,14
029 00009574 03113192 TENCCULA HARDMOODS KATERIALS CA~IRETSISNACICBAR 465.4i
029 00009579 03113192 MESTERN LURSER NATERIALSISPORTS PARK CONCESS 14&.2i
029
bli.7a
479,302,
ITEM
NO.
4
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
City Clerk
DATE:
March 24, 1992
SUBJECT:
Records DeStruction/Retention Policy and Schedule
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS
PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BACKGROUND: The City Clerk's office has been charged with the responsibility to
develop a comprehensive records management program for the City of Temecula. The
purpose of that program is to. process documents efficiently through professional
records management. The goal of the program is to manage the records of the City
so as to maintain those records essential to the operation of the City and to dispose
of those that have served their' usefulness.
The City Clerk and City Attorney have researched the Government Code Sections that
deal with mandated retention periods and have designed the attached policy in
accordance with the codes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Resolution
Exhibit "1" - Records Policy
Schedule A - Retention Schedule
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE
DESTRUCTION. OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS AS
PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE
GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the keeping of numerous records is not necessary after a certain period of
time for the effective and efficient operation of the government of the City of Temecula; and
WHEREAS, Section 34090 of the Government Code of the State of California provides
a procedure whereby any City record which has served its purpose and is no longer required
may be destroyed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 34090, the City Attorney has
reviewed and approved the Destruction of Obsolete Records Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit
"1" and incorporated by reference: herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL~ by the City Council of the City of Temecula
as follows:
SECTION 1. The records of the City of Temecula as set forth in groups on Schedule
I, which schedule is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby
authorized to be destroyed as provided by Section 34090 of the Government Code of the State
of California and in accordance with the provisions of said schedule upon the request of the
department head and with the consent in writing of the City Attorney, without further action by
the City Council of the City of Temecula.
SECTION 2. The provisions of Section I above do not authorize the destruction of:
a. Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon
b. Court records
c. Records required to be kept by statute
d. Records less than two (2) years old
The minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the City Council of the City of
Temecula or of any City boards, committee or commission
3/Resoa 237 -1- ""
SECTION 3. l~otwithstanding the provisions of Section 2, the duplicates of records not
less than five (5) years old which are no longer required are hereby authorized to be destroyed
as set forth in the attached Schedule A.
SECTION 4. The destruction of any record as provided for herein shall be by burning,
shredding or other effective method of destruction and said destruction shall be witnessed by the
City Clerk or her designee.
SECTION $. The term *records* as used herein shall include documents, instruments,
books, microfilm or papers.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the _ of March, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/Reses 237 -2-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMEC~ )
I, IUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that
the foregoing Resolution No. 92-xX was duly adopted a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Temecula on the xx day of March, 1992, by the following roll call vote;
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOF_,S:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/Resos 237 -3-
ITE'M NO. 5
A. PURPOSE
CITY OF TEMECULA
DESTRUCTION OF OBSOLETE RECORDS POLICY
EXHIBIT "1"
To provide the timely destruction of outdated, obsolete and excess documents and records
which are of no use legally or otherwise to the various city departments, in compliance with
Sections 34090 through 34090.7 of the Government Code.
B. POLICY
It shall be the policy of the City of Temecula that the City Clerk or her designee shall
routinely destroy - by burning, shredding, erasure, or other permanent method of obliteration -
outdated, obsolete and excess documents and records in accordance with the following
procedures and subject to the following retention schedules. No record may be destroyed unless
specified in this Policy.
C. PROCEDURES
The City Clerk or' her designee shall submit a written request for permission to destroy
the documents, books, receipts, and other records (hereinafter "records") enumerated in this
Policy when:
1. It is determined that the record is obsolete and of no further use to the department
and the record is not needed for, or the subject of discovery of, pending claims or litigation
involving the City.
2. It is determined that the record is eligible for destruction according to the
following Records Retention Schedules and any other criteria for destruction have been complied
with.
3. The City Clerk's office shall submit a written request for destruction to the
department head listing the records to be destroyed, showing the age and type of record and the
applicable retention schedule.
4. Destruction shall not occur until the department head, approves, in writing, the
request for destruction after checking with the City Attorney, as necessary, to verify the
document is not involved in a pending claim or litigation involving the City. The department
head may deny the destruction of any record or condition the destruction on the prior
micro filming of the record in accordance with Section E of this policy.
~' 3/Resos 237 -4=
5. Once permission to destroy has been given, The City Clerk's office shall oversee
and witness the destruction. When destruction has been completed, the date and manner of
destruction and the attestation that the City Clerk or designee wimessed the destruction shall be
listed on the request form. The request for destruction together with the written approval of the
department head shall be maintained in a separate file kept by the City Clerk.
6. Disposal of any records, once destroyed as pwvided heroin, may be made
pursuant to any recycling program or policy of the City.
D. RETENTION SCH~.I~UI.F-~
In compliance with Government Code Sections 34090 and 34090.5, the following Records
Retention Schedule (Schedule A) has been established to implement and maintain this Policy.
E. VIr~EO AND AUDIO SCI-IF.r~ULF-~:
Duplicates of records, less than two years old may be destroyed, if no longer required,
without micro filming. Video and audio recording mediums are considered duplicate records if
and when the City keeps another record such as written minutes of the event which is recorded.
However, a video medium shall not be destroyed for a period of at least 2 years after the event
recorded thereon.
F. LITIGATION SCHEDULES
These records must be kept for five (5) years or until such time as their relevance to, and
need in pending litigation or claims against the City is resolved through settlement with prejudice
or final court adjudication.
2.
civil lawsuits.
Written claims presented under the Government Tort Claims Liability Act.
Records related to, or involved in, pending criminal investigations and actions or
E. MICROFILMING
Microf~ming, when authorized in this Policy, shall be performed in compliance with all
of the following conditions:
3/Resos 237 -5-
1. The record, paper, or document is photographed, microphotographed, reproduced
by electronically recorded video images on magnetic surfaces, recorded in the electronic data-
processing system, recorded on optical disk, reproduced on film or any other medium which
does not permit additions, deletions or changes to the original document, or reproduced on film,
optical disk, or any other medium in compliance with the minimum standards or guidelines, or
both, as recommended by the American National Standards Institute or the Association for
Information and Image Management for recording of permanent records or nonpermanent
records, whichever applies.
2. The device used to reproduce the record, paper, or document on film, optical
disk, or any other medium is one which accurately and legibly reproduces the original thereof
in all details and which does not permit additions, deletions or changes to the original document
images.
3. The photographs, microphotographs or other reproductions on film, optical disk
or any other medium are made as accessible for public reference as the original records were.
4. A true copy of archival quality of the film, optical disk, or any other medium
reproductions shall be kept in a safe and separate place for security purposes.
No page of any record, paper or document shall be destroyed in any page cannot be
reproduced on film with full legibility. Every non-reproducible page shall be permanently
preserved in a manner that will afford easy reference.
ANNUAL REVIEW BY CITY ATTORNEY
The City Clerk shall be responsible for requesting an annual review of this Policy by the
City Attorney. This request shall be made through the City Manager.
Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 34090, I hereby give my consent to
the destruction of records under the direction of the City Clerk pursuant to this Policy
City Attorney Date:
City of Temecula
3/R~aos 237 -6-
Group
No.
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XI
XII
XIII
Schedule A
CITY OF TEMECULA RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE
TITS,
Records affecting title to red property or liens
thereon
Records required to be kept permanentJy by
statute
Minutes, ordinances and resolutions of the
City Council or Boards end Commissions.
Documents with lasting historical,
administrative, legal, fiscal, or research value.
Records which do not require permanent
copies for storage purposes
Correspondence, operational reports end
information upon which City policy has been
established.
Duplicates of V above, when retention is
necessary for reference
Records requiring retention for more than five
years but no more Than fifteen years by
statute or administration value.
Duplicates needed for administrative purposes
for five - fifteen years.
All other original City records, or instruments,
books or papers That are considered public
documents not included in Groups I through
VIII
Duplicates and other documents not public
records required to be maintained for
administrative purposes.
Duplicate records requiring retention for
administrative purpose such as reference
material for making up budgets, for planning,
and programming.
Reference files. (Copies of documents which
duplicate the record copies filed elsewhere in
the City; documents which require no action
and are non-record; rough drafts, notes,
feeder reports, end similar working papers
accumulated in preparation of a
communication, study or other document,
and cards, listings, indexes end other papers
used for controlling work).
X
2 P If Micro Note: Any item can be
destroyed if two copies
of microfilm done with
2 P If Micro one in safe storage and
accomplished properly.
Destruction years only
2 P If Micro apply if not on film.
X
2 P If Micro
X 4
X
2 10
X 2
X
2 13
4 yrs.
12
2
15
2 13 15
2 1 3
X X 2 3 5
X 3
1
Note: Any item not on
microfilm and subject to
destruction will not be
destroyed without
written permission of
the department head
and the City Attorney.
Note: Regardless of
Offioe Retention period
as listed, eedier transfer
to the RetrievBI Center
is.authorized.
Note: Original council
minutes, ordinances,
resolutions end official
bonds will not be
destroyed even if
micro filmed.
3/Resos 237 -7- ~
Continued..,
XIV Transitory files, including letters of transmitted
(when not a public record) suspense copies when
reply has ben received, routine requests for
. information and publication, tracer letters, feeder
reports, and other duplicates copice no longer
needed
XV
XVI
Original documents disposable upon occurrence of
an event or an action (i.e., audit, job completion,
completion of contract, etc.) or upon obsolescence,
supersession, revocation,
Policy files and reference sets of publications,
11108. mob
XVII
Duplicates or non-record documents required for
administrative needs but destroyable on occurrence
of an event or an action.
X 2 3 5
X
Indef Indef
Indef Indef
Note: Destroy upon supersession or
obsolescence.
~ 3/Resos 237 -8-
Attachment to Schedule "A"
r}KqCRIPTION OF PI~,RMAN~NT RT:-CORDS
Group I
Records - Affecting Property Tide or Ticns
Group I documents shall not be subject to destruction, except if microfilming or reproduction
by other medium which does not permit additions, deletions or changes to the original document is performed
in strict accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 34090.5.
Building and Safety: Utilities: Deeds Parks:
Building Permits Lights Signs Bikeways
Capital Impwvements: Water Curbs Landscaping
Plans Power Gutters Right-of-way
Drawings Cablevision Walks Weed Abatement
Checks &Inspection Television Bikeways Striping
Easements Maps: Drainage: Housing
Street Names &Numbers Streets. Flood Control General Plan:
Liens Light Soil Erosion Amendments
Condemnations Trees Hydrology Zoning
Assessments Signals Parking
Group H
Group HI
Group IV
A.
B
C
Group V
Records Required to be kept by Statute
Minutes, Ordinances and Resolutions of City Council or Boards and Commissie"'~
Announcements, Notices, Affidavits, Agendas, Minutes, Resolutions, Ordinance,~,
Proclamations, Supporting Exhibits
Documents with lasting administrative, legal, fiscal, historical or research value.
Administrative - Personnel cumulative records, Reviews, Action, Promotions, Time Records,
Leave, CETA, Policy and Procedures, OSHA Inspections, Affirmative Action Program, any like
above.
Fiscal - Audit Annual and Semi-annual, Monthly Budget Allocations, Appropriations,
Expenditures, Encumbrances, lournals and Ledgers, Inventory, Payroll, Receipts, Collections,
Cash, Check Register, Capital Property, Business License, Fees, Schedules, Grants, Bonds,
Trust Funds, Revenue Shag, Treasurer's Register.
Historical - City Organization Charts, Service Organizations, Chamber of Commerce,
Homeowners' Associations, City Flower/Tree, Teen Centers, Schools, Universities, Press
Releases, Department Staff Summaries, Report and Statistical Analyses.
Bicycle Licenses, Purchase orders and requisitions, Contracts or Agreements, despite a
shorter term provided therein and Entertainment/Special Event Permits
3/Rem~ 237
APPROV/~x.
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
March 24, 1992
SUBJECT:
City Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Treasurer's Statement of
Investment Policy as proposed by Staff which provides safety, liquidity and yield for
City funds.
DISCUSSION: The California legislature has passed legislation imposing a
State-mandated local program requiring the treasurer or chief fiscal officer to render
an annual statement of investment policy to the legislative body of the local agency
and to render a monthly report containing specified information regarding investments
and deposits to the chief executive officer and the legislative body of the local
agency. The Treasurer's Statement of Investment Policy, as presented herein, is in
conformity with the State requirements and guidelines established by the California
Municipal Treasurer's Association, the California Society of Municipal Treasurer's
Association, and the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. The monthly
investment report is placed on the agenda each month.
The legislated authority of the Fund is included in Sections 53601, 53635, 53638,
53646, 53652, and 53653 of the Government Code. Enclosed are copies of the
statutes which determine the maximum parameters of the Investment Fund.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Proposed Investment Policy, Government Code Sections
53601, 53635, 53638, 53646, 53652 and 53653
CITY OF TEMECULA
INVESTMENT POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The investment policies and practices of the City of Temecula are based upon State law and
prudent money management. The primary goals of these policies are:
1. To protect the principal monies antrusted to this office.
2. To provide sufficient licluidity to meet normal operating and unexpected
expenditures.
To assure compliance with all Federal, State, and Local laws governing the
investment of monies under the control of the City Treasurer.
To generate a maximum amount of investment income within the parameters
of prudent risk management and consistent with the above policies.
The monies antrusted to the City Treasurer (referred to as the "Fund" throughout the
remainder of this document) will be invested, administered, and reported in a timely and
prudent manner. The City Treasurer and staff will observe, review, and react to changing
conditions that effect the fund. The authority to execute investment transactions that will
effect the Fund will be limited to:
City Manager or Assistant City Manager and
Finance Officer acting together
The above officers will meet on a regular basis with the City Manager to discuss the current
market conditions, future trends, and to plan investment strategy to meet the City's fiscal
objectives.
The policy stated below will also address risk management because it is such an integral part '
of the investment policy. To concentrate only on maximizing return would be dangerous;
therefore, policy issues will be directed to:
1. Limiting the Fund's exposure to each issue and issuer of debt; and
Determining a minimum credit requirement that firms must have in order to hold
City money.
CITY OF TEMECULA
INVESTMENT POLICY
SCOPE
In accordance with Ordinance No. 90-2 of the City Council of the City of Tsmecula and
as prescribed by Section 41000 through 41007 of the Government Code of the State,
the City Treasurer is responsible for investing the unexpended cash in the City
Treasury.
OBJECTIVES
A. Safety of Princioal
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the City of Temecula. Each
investment transaction shall seek to ensure that capital lobes are avoided,
whether from securities default, broker-dealer default, or erosion of market
value. The City shall seek to preserve principal by mitigating the two types of
risk: credit risk end market risk.
Credit Risk. Credit risk, defined as the risk of loss due to failure of the
isauer of a security, shall be mitigated by investing only with issuers
whose financial strength and reputation can be verified to be the highest
as rated by nationally known rating agencies (see Section VI for detailed
limitations on credit risk), and by diversifying the investment portfolio so
that the failure of any one issuer would not unduly harm the City's cash
flow.
Market Risk. Market risk, the risk of the market value fluctuations due
to overall changes in the general level of interest rates, shall be
mitigated by (a) structuring the portfolio so that securities mature earlier
than or concurrent with the timing of major cash outflows, thus
eliminating the need to sell securities prior to their maturity; (b)
prohibiting the use of leverage and margin accounts; and (c) prohibiting
the taking of short positions-that is, selling securities which the City
does not own. It is explicitly recognized herein, however, that in a
diversified portfolio, occasional measured loses are inevitable, and must
be considered within the context of the overall investment return.
B. Return on Investment
The City's investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market-average
rate of return through economic cycles. The market-average rate of return is
defined as the average return on three-month U.S. Treasury bills. Whenever
possible, and consistent with risk limitations, as defined herein, and prudent
investment principles, the Treasurer shall seek to augment returns above the
market average rate of return.
2
III
IV
V
VI
CITY OF TEMECULA
INVESTMENT POLICY
SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES
To protect against potential losses by callapse of individual securities dealers, all
securities owned by the City, including collateral on repurchase agreements, shall be
held in safekeeping by a third party bank trust department, acting as agent for the City
under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and by the City. All
securities will be received and delivered using standard delivery versus payment
procedures, i.e., the City's safekeeping agent will only release payment for a security
after the security has been properly delivered.
REPORTING
Under provisions of Section 53646 of the California Government Code (attached), the
City Treasurer shall render a monthly report to the City Manager and City Council
showing the type of investment, issuing institution, selling institution, date of maturity,
amount of deposit, current market value for all securities with · maturity of more that
12 months, return on the City's investment portfolio expressed as an annual
percentage rate, yield to maturity, cash flow information demonstrating that the City
can meet its upcoming financial obligations, and such data as may be required by the
City Council. The report shall also state its relationship to this statement of
investment policy, as directed under the Code. The treasurer shall annually submit an
investment report and a recommended updated Investment Policy to be reviewed and
approved by Council.
QUALIFIED DEALERS
The City shall transact investments only with banks, savings and loans, investment
security dealers and the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund. The
dealers must be primary dealers regularly reporting to the New York Federal Reserve
Bank. Exceptions to this rule will be made only after thorough research and
documented confirmation of financial strength and reputation and after approval by the
City Council. Investment staff shall investigate, dealers who wish to do business with
the City in order to determine if they are adequately capitalized, make markets in
securities appropriate to the City's needs, and are recommended by managers of
portfolios like the City's.
The City shall at least annually send a copy of the cur 'ant investment policy to all
dealers approved to do business with the City. Confirmation of receipt of this policy
shall be considered as evidence that the dealer unders:ands the City's investment
policies, and intends to show the City only appropriate i~vestments.
AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
Generally, investments shall be made in the context of the "prudent investor" rule,
which states that:
"Investments shall be made with jLdgment and care, under
circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion,
3
CITY OF TEMECULA
INVESTMENT POLICY
and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for
speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their
capital as well as the probable income to be derived."
ThE' City is further governed by the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et
seq (attached. Within the context of these limitations, the following investments are
authorized, as further limited her. in:
United States TreaSury Bills. Bonds. and Notes. or those for which the full faith
and credit of the United-States are oledaed for payment qf orincioal and
interest. There is r~o limitation as to the percentage of the portfolio which can
be invested in this category. Maturity is not to exceed the projected dates of
the City's cash needs or five years, whichever is less.
Obligations issued bv the Government National Mortaaae Association (GNMA).
the Federal Farm Credit Bank System (FFCB). the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board (FHLB). and the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA).
Although there is no percentage limitation on the dollar amount that can be
invested in these issues, the "prudent investor" rule shall apply for a single
agency name. Maturity is not to exceed the projected dates of the City's cash
needs or five years, whichever is less.
Bills of exchanoe or time drafts drawn on and acceoted bv a commercial bank.
otherwise known as banker's acceotances. Banker's acceptances purchased
may not exceed 270 days to maturity or 40% of the market value of the
portfolio. No more than 10% of the market value of the portfolio may be
invested in banker's acceptances issued by any one bank.
Commercial oaoer ranked "P1" bv Moodv's Investor Services and "A1 +" bv
Standard and Poor's, and issued bv a domestic corooration having assets in
excess of ~500.000,000 and havino an "A" or better retina on its Iono-term
debentures as orovided bv Moodv's or Standard and Poor's. Purchases of
eligible commercial paper may not exceed 15% of the market value .of the
portfolio. No more than 10% of the market value of the portfolio may be
invested in commercial paper issued by any One corporation. The City may
invest in no more than 10% of a single corporation. The City may invest in no
more than 10% of a single corporation's commercial paper. Maturity is not to
exceed 180 days.
Negotiable certificates of deoosit issued bv nationally or state-chartered bank
or a state or federal savinas and loan association. Negotiable certificates of
deposit (NCDs) differ from other certificates of deposit by their deposit liquidity.
They are issued against funds deposited for specified periods of time and earn
specified or variable rates of interest. NCDs are traded actively in secondary
markets. When feasible, an independent trading service will be used as part of
the evaluation process. If a rating service is used, the financial institution
should maintain a rating equivalent to Keefe Bank Watch Service of "A/B" or
better. To be eligible for purchase by the City, the NCD must be issued by:
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
INVESTMENT POLICY
He
A California bank rated "A/B" or batter by the rating service of Keefe,
Bruyette and Woods, (Keefe) or equivalent);
A major national or regional bank outside of California rated "B" or
batter by Keefe, (or equivalent);
A domestic branch of foreign bank ("Yankee") rated I for country rating,
II or batter for Her-group rating. and II or batter for dollar access by
Keel.; or
A savings and loan association operating in California rated "A/B" or
batter by Keefe. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section II-A-2 of this
policy, the maturity of bank NCDs shell not exceed two years; the
maturity of savings end loan association NCDs shall not exceed two
years.
Transactions in NCDs shell not collectively exceed 30% of the total
portfolio in effect immediately after any s~q:h investment is made.
Reourchase Agreements. The City may invest in repurchase agreements with
banks and dealers with which the City has entered into a master repurchase
agreement which specifies terms and conditions of repurchase agreements.
Transactions shell ba limited to the primary dealers and the top banking
institutions according to the rating agency based on liquidity,
profitability, and financial strength. The maturity of repurchase
agreements shall not exceed 30 days· The market value of securities
used as collateral for repurchase agreements shall ba monitored daily by
the investment staff and will not be allowed to fall below 100% of the
value of the repurchase agreement plus the value of collateral in excess
of the value of the repurchase agreement (haircut). In order to conform
with provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Code which provide for the
liquidation of securities held as collateral for repurchase agreements, the
only securities acceptable as collateral shall be certificates of deposit,
eligible bankers' acceptances, or securities that are direct obligations of,
or that are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United
States or any agency of the United States.
No more than 50% of the portfolio may ba invested in repurchase
agreements, and a "perfected security interest" shall always be
maintained in the securities subject to a repurchase agreement.
Local Agency Investment Fund. The City may invest in the Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) established by the State Treasurer for the benefit of
local agencies up to the maximum permitted by State law.
Time Deoosits. The City may invest in non-negotiable time deposits
collateralized in accordance with the California Government Code (attached),
in those banks and savings and loan associations which meet the requirements
5
CITY OF TEMECULA
INVESTMENT POLICY
VII
VIII
IX
for investment in negotiable certificates of deposit. Since time deposits are not
liquid, no more than 15% of the portfolio may be invested in this category.. The
issuer firm should have been in existence for at least five years. The City may
waive the first 100,000 of collateral security for such deposits if the institution
is insured pursuant to federal law. In order to security the uninsured portions
of such deposits, an institution shall maintain at least 10% in excess of the
total amount deposited. Reel estate mortgages may not be accepted as
collateral. The maximum term for deposits shall be one year. In general, the
issuer must have a minimum 6% net worth to assets ratio or the minimum ratio
established by the Comptroller of the Currency. The issuer's operation must
have been profitable during their last reporting period.
Money Market Funds. Investing solely in U.S. treasuries, obligations of the
U .S. Treasury, and repurchase agreements relating to such treasury obligations.
To be eligible, these companies must have an investment advisor with not less
than five years experience and that is registered with the SEC, has the highest
ranking available as evaluated by a nationally recognized rating service, and
with assets in excess of $500 million.
Inelioible Investments. Investments not described heroin, including, but not
limited to, reverse repurchase agreements, mutual funds, zero coupon bonds,
mortgage backed securities, common stocks and corporate notes and bonds are
prohibited from use in this portfolio.
SWAPPING OF SECURITIES
A swap is the movement from one security to another and may be done for e variety
of reasons, such as to increase yield, lengthen or shorten maturities, to take a profit,
or to increase investment quality. The purchase transaction and the sale transaction
must each be recorded separately add any losses or gains on the sale must be
recorded.
PORTFOLIO ADJUSTMENTS
Should an investment percentage-of-portfolio limitation be exceeded due to an incident
such as fluctuation in portfolio size, the affected securities may be held to maturity to
avoid losses. When no loss is indicated, the Treasurer shall consider reconstructing
the portfolio basing his decision, in part, on the expected length of time the portfolio
will be unbalanced.
POLICY REVIEW
This investment policy shall be reviewed at least annually to insure its consistency with
the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, and return, and its
relevance to current law and financial and economic trends. The City Council shall be
responsible for maintaining guidance over this investment policy to insure that the City
can adapt readily to changing market conditions, and shall approve any modification
to the investment policy prior to implementation.
6
CITY OF TEMECULA
INVESTMENT POLICY
STATE LAW
The legislated authority of ths Fund is covered in Sections 53601, 53635, 53638, 53646,
53652 and 53653 of the Govemment Code. Enclosed are copies of the statutes which
determine the maximum parameters of the Fund. It is the policy of the City Treasurer to
comply with the State laws governing the Fund.
7
GOrEI~\,'VIE.'q'f CODE
§ 53601
A3~CLI 1. ~ OF SURPLUS
Setion
~3601.1. Invesunent in fmancial futures or financial option conrg*.s.
~60LL Invest'none;. quatifisi puretam agent.
cross Refm
· Cmnmumey emileIt lavesmeg of soTins money& sm
J 53600. I, aca~ areat-/, definition
· As used in this ar~icie, 'locsl aZency" memo couz% ~i~, dr/and couacy, including z Oar'tired
c~t? or county, school cListria, Communiw coilere disr,-~c,. public diem,ice, councy board ot e~uczCan.
coun~ super~ntondent of schools, or any puoaic or m.umci~xi coz~orscion,
(Amended by StaLm.1984. c. ILl. § 2; Stem. 1984, t 12~, J 1; Ststo. lSr/', c. 887, { L)
{ 53601. Clrcumsunces authorizing investments: suthorized invesunenu
The legislative body d z local qtnc7 having money in s sinking fund d. or surplus money in,
~euury not required for the immedinto neusiCu of U~e local qucy my invest any per:on at ~e
money which it deems wise or expedient
(z) Roads issued by the tocsl agency, inchzding ~onds psysbh so|e~ out; of the revenue from
r~venoe-produ~ng property owned. controlled. or openr~d by the locsl agency or by z de.ezr~en~.
board. zgenry, or zutharit~ of the !oaf sZenc~.
(b) Uniud S~tes Tressury .qo~es. band. bfils. or cor~4mcaiss of inclebtx~mess. or 'J~ose .;at which
the fzith and credit of the Unimd SLxtos are pledged for the psyrnent of. prmcipaJ and
(c) Regisured suto wsrruts ~x~ treasury notes 'or bonds d this -,tote. inclu:d:.ug ban~s ~)-zbie
solely ou~ of ~e revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, conerafted, or openu,~ by
· s~m or by x depsrtmenr. baszd, agency, or zuz~rit~ of the sum.
.'..~ id) Bends. noes. wxrrxnu. or o~er evidences of bdebr~lness of nny lo:l qency ~%:~ :.~;~
.Suto. inciuding bands ~m.v, bte solely ou~ oi the evenun fi~m x revenue-produci.~g prope..-F.. ovrnetL
coon-oiled. or oger~tod by ~he local agency, or by & deparmment, hoxrd, aimsoy, or ~u~or;:'f of '~.e
Iocl agency. : . "·
· (e) Obli2x~ons issued by bun for coopersgive,' fodormJ lane} bsnks. fede.-sl intormedizu cr~i~
banks. federal home loan banks, the Federxi Home La,n Bank Board. rio Tenuess4t Vzlley
Authoricy, or in obfit~mmns. pa,-m~ationi. or other i~.su'umenu of, or issued by, or tuily
u to princi;~si and innrot by, the Fedesi Nstimssi ~forr4Zge .i --op~P~en: or in tmsrmmuea
d ~mall BosOm Adminisus~on n~ms; or in obfi2stious. ~srdeips~ms. or other imtramenu eL
issued b)', & federst'agtncy m' s United Stzms 2~rmmment-s~4msored enmrprise.
;, (~ Bfils ~ exciunfe o~ eime dm~ dzswn on and annrepent by · commoreinl bsnk, ~.herv~se imams
rss bmsken zcct~uncos. which ere di~]mle for psxretXse by the Fedorsl P. esem S~stem. Purehues
Tf' banken s~cepr~nees moy not exceed ~Y0 dsrm msnzrit~ or 40 pasmnt of the stmscr's surplus
ramsoy which my be invumd purmzs~ t~ this seaion. However. no more ,h- 30 Wrunt of
sWenrJ~s surplus funds my ba invested in the benken ;~_~tanm of any one mmmerc~l bsnk
pureant to this section,
This subdivision does aoc ~de · munidpaJ ulz~ty diserict frmu investing any surplus money
tie erossony in any msmser a~t~orized by the Muicipai Utiey Distrk$ Ant, Division 6 (commencing
m.'th ~ioo 11201) of the Pr, blic U~Lltttes Cede. .
' ~ Commsrclal paper of 'prime' qus]ity of the highest msklnf oed the hitbest ~ardr and
nunenos1 meg u provided for by Moody's Investors Service, Int, or Stsedsrd ud Po~zq
C, orpmmmn, Eligible paper is fur~er limitod to issuing cot~ions that ere orlanized ud
opersxing within the United Sisms and heyinn total useis in exms of five h~ nullion ~ol!~rs
($S00,000,000} and heyroe an "A." or highor rstmg for the iuuer's debt, other than commercial pamer.
if usy, ss provided for by MoMys Investors Service, Inc., or Stssinrd and Poor;s Cerponaon.
P~,chssu of elit~ble consmer~ psiMr my not eaesai llO dsys msturiCy nor represent more
10 percut of the omtomadinf ps;e' d an ~ co~pon~on, P~m~mes of mmmercial paper rJ.y
not zxcumi 15 pex~tnt of the qency*s sttrphas money which my b~ investsi pm'sua~t t~ tttis seeCon,
,&fiedais · · * tadIntuit dete~Jens by Imeeelment
89
§ 53601 GOV'EP, N~F, vr CODE
AJs additional 1S percent. or a mtzL of 30 percent of the sgoncy's supins money, my ix invesad
p~rss:ser. ~ this subdivision, The zdditicmsi 15 percent my be so invested only ~ the dollar'weight-
ed averale roturic7 of the entire smeLLat does not e. zcwd 31 doys. "Dolisr-weifhrdd average
msc~qr" nuns the sum of the moat of each ouuundinf commeni paper invesununt mullSpiled
by the nu:Aber of days to msumcy, dirided by the tor. d amount of oumfindbsf ct, e_ mercisi paper.
Go) Negotiable coreUSage of details issued by · nationally or sm~ bank or · sum or
federal ,-,o,~-r~on (as defined by Section 5X02 of the Finmmisi ~dde) or by · sure-lie·mad brsnch of
· for·if· b~nJc. P,.uessses of neW·ca·hie cerc~csms of deposit my no~ mood 30 percent of the
sfency's surpins money which may be invumd pu:susut to this section. For pm-posu of this
section. nefocizble coronas of deposits do not rome w~hin A:tide 2 (mmmamcinf w~h Sec~on
53630) d ~.spcmr 4 of Pzr'. 1 of Division 2 of TStb 5. except that the smoun~ so any·sad shaft be
subject to the Limit·dons of Section 53638.
(F) InvucntnU in r~lmrchs~ airmantat= or roves· reF4rcb&se afretmonm of s~y secs~fies
suthorind by tAis section. so lo:q as The proned· of the Fevene ~e agreement ors invesr, ed
solely w supplement the income nozms~ received A. om these securicis Invuunoni in · roves·
r~pu.-~M.se agreement shall be made on])' upon prior approval d the legislative body of the local
'aZency. For purposes o~ this section. the farm "rtptrchsse sfrumunc" m,~ z pure. hue of
secv.-ic~es by the local zeenc~ pu:su&nt to un ·Geemerit by which the seller vr01 repurchase the
sec~-~z~es on or boron z specified data ucL ~or s specibd amount &od wgl deliver the underL'rinC
sec~?.;es ~ the MaJ aCe·r), by book flu-)', physical deliver/, or by dfi,-d-parc7 cumctkl agreement.
The c:zus~er e~ ~usdertyine'socurities to the eounfarpsrcy bsnk's customer book4nt~. zccoun~ may be
used for book4nc2T delivery. The tlrm "mmsfarpsrcy" for the puz3Mses o~ this subdivision. nuns
the other party r,o the ~msac~on. X courttorporS. benk's ~mst dol~.-~ment or mfekee~ing
de~r:ent my be ned lot physical delivery of the underlying secv.-~. The zxrm of rep,._rc~se
a2wemenu shall be for one yur or Jess. The rmrm "secu,-ifi~" for p~Mse of repur~tse under
~is su~v~si~r~ means securities o~ the stunt is·nor, descrip~m, issue dxrd, and ms~tncy.
The te~'_ "reverse rtgur~tte aZreeme2~' me~t · salt of secretes by the local agency punuan~
r~ xn 14mvemen~ by which the ~ aKency will repu~-bsse such secu~t~u on or beg·r· · specked
dx~s and .~or x specked &mr. ant
(j) Meiium-rdrm ' ' ' needs of x ~-~qum o:~ five yea· msc~cy issued by corporations
orrln~i Lnd ope.-2~ng w~hin the United S~ards or by douositorv ~nsUm~ions licensed by ~.e Uniud
States or any sum and ooerz~nt w~thin the Unit~j S:Zrds. Noms eXi~s~le for mves~ntnt uncsr ·Us
suom~smn snz~ ix rsma'm · aunt csffforv o~ "A" or nl eQujv~en~ or beadr by a nationally
recoCn~zed rs~ng serve. Pure·sos oi memun~mrm ' ' ' ··ms my uo~ ·caeca 30 percen~ of the
agency· suphz. s money ~nic~ my ~4 invested !: .unuan~ ~o t~s see~n.
(k) Slur· of benefici~j inzdrest issued by diversified mauZemeng complies, tt de:fined in Sec~on
23~0~m of the Ibvonue and Tanfie· Code, inves~ng in the secur~ies and obfiFafions u authorized
by subdivisions (a~ to (f), inclusive, of this so~on and which com~jy with th· invesz~nenr. ' ' *
ru~cUons of this article und AX~cle 2 (commene~g v~h Sec~on S3flO~ To be tiit~ole ~or
any·sun·no punun~ m ttfis subdiv~ion, these mnpsnins ~ eathoe. (X) so·in the hi~hes~ nnking
or the. highes~ leadr ud numerical r2ng ~,~,:ded by not less than two of the three IsrVest
nst~onslly recognized rs~l sorvie~ or ('Z) Issvesn my·anent sdvbor repsrarsd wids the Seamties
ud Each·re r:4mm;--(on w,th not less thms five vQrs' mnet invsotinZ in .the securit~ and
obfirs~uns as ~dsorind by subdivhiom (s) to (m): inca·save. o~ this se Lnd with men under
msnsfenent in ucus of five hundred milbu dolisa (H00.000,000L The pure·so price of shorn of
beeticisi iardrsn pundssmd pursuant w this subdivision shall un~ include shy commission f~sg these
tempo·ins my cissrle ~ shall not ·ned ].S portent of the qucy~s surplus money vhkh my be
invested pursun~ to this sectran.
(f) Nondduumdbsl unythin2 to the ammsrr mntabmd in this seedms..So·in 53635 or uny other
pmmiun of b.w. moneys bdd by, ~u,me or fi,~xi alone smt piedled m dm parmen or secsmLT of
be·ode or other indebrddnest or obfi~ under, lens. installment ssh. or or. her ,Cretmen~. of,
!oaJ sinsoy, or erratic·ms of psrtici;stie in those bonds. indebfedness, or Ins j~efs iime~r. i~Jl~ or
other sITter·ms, my be invmud in ~ce with the smmunT provideas love·rinK the
bmu&nu of throe bonds. indebtedness. or Jesse insufimunt sale, or other ,fretmeat. or to the extant
not inamsissmst thorswab or if there are no sperm sunmr/~.;,,.-'.bns. in seunrdemm with the
ord~c·. ruoim$ion. indonm.um. or qTwment of the b qonc,y prm'~iiml for '..he mu.mme.
(m) Notat. bonds. or ar.41er obfir&~onJ whkh trt st ill d~ts ss~'wld by , v·lid first m, iorin'
secu~w ,st·mat us sectusa el me types iisGea Isv 5·cue· 53fil as eite3ble sect·am for me
psLrJose oi see·rust aoca ,Lena ae.-~m;m hsvmf, ms~tet vsme st trot eoukl t~ mar. re·wee Dv
Lineasinine bsefdcates cftm~et or seditions tzy 8me·amen
GOVEE,~FE~rr CODE
§ 53601.1
snz. ~ o~ ~v aetive~ or ~K en~ mm ~e ~v o~ z ~ ~m~v or ~e ~
shad ~ ~r~ ~ a~m ~m me ~u~meU of me U~o~ ~mme~ ~e or
~nfauons aurairate m me ~s of s~nuu m whi~ me s~ m~t m ~
o~n~ve J~ L I988; S~D~, ~ t~, t X; Su~, ~ X~ J ~ mine J~ L 19M;
S~u.1986, ~ ~. J l; S~X986. ~ ~4, J L ~ Jl i, Xgi 3~1986. ~ ~, J I.
Sep~ XT. ~986; 5~X986, ~ ~. J ~ m~e 3~ I, D~; S~198~ ~ ~ J l.~ S~1986. ~
'SmmimlJmd3JdOih'~immwlwmt,,
mSmtiem.Qf01o(mG .i~~
~. ~ m ~ ~y m ~ve · (I)
U~ m ~ ~ J i ~ S~ 1987. ~ lit the
1917 ~mm ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ m ~
mm ~ ~ m ~ ~lgM. k 741. J h
. S~lgU, ~ ~ J i~ ~l!~ ~ IRK J I;
Ad .... ..d,, ~ ~
~~m lP't~ ~.~3.
~m
§/liOl.1. Investment In ~nueiai future or financial option contracts
The authority of ·
thereto, fdathority to ~vest ha ~nancbJ futazru or ~naAcbd .optan eontrk*m bt any of ~e bivestment
cattfo~u enumerumd ~ ~hat sec~o~
(Added by Stata~983,
· - Cashira
· C.T,c-~t
iotarisks * * · !ndlemtw claimfortS by m,.an~,,ent
91
The pu.--.~ue by; locsl · c7 of uy invesunent ~uchoriud pursra~ m Sedon 53601 or ~360I.L
sum u · brokerS·s jet, u defined in Section ZSQ04 Of the ~-imm ~ocle, or ~rum · member o~ z
federzii7 rel~l~ed seen:ides enotunp, fr~a · nzdouaJ or autmdm.*urud _k~,.~ f:mn · tmier4 or
r~u moci~on (u defmeJ by ~ SI02 o/the Finsncini Code) or iron · b~oke~ie Arm
(Added by SUn. ZeaL c. 920, t t, Amuded by Stsu.2~lt. c, 983, t :t mlucT, off, Sept 2S, ~98~)
J S3602. Investment in lepl tnvm~nts for m~mp beaks: Mcuritim of pubfit distrim
CmumperiodkmelP-sxd
J 53602.1. Heiting oil, nude oil. or pro·line futures= nuthorintion of heMneAt by Southern
Ca/ifornm h~id Trun~ Disirigr~ rug durmioa Of ,egton. ' '
(·) 14otwithsuncttnf any other pruisiou Of this ardch, the Board of Dirt4m of the Soothorn
CaliZoz'Aia PApid TruuiG Dist2ic:, when the diat4.ct has money ia · sinking fund of, or str~..iu money
iz~ iU r,*tutu-/not required for the immed~ra noon·ides Of the disgzicr. my invest r.h~t .~ortion
the money whic~ it de·allies m be Wilt ~ ex~edhnt ~ fumm conragu in hta~ug oil ~"~de oii.
er guoiine on the Now York Metgentle Exchuge.
Cu) The * * ' tnnual fiscal ·udtt Of the district ·hal · ' 'inciude · report * ' * in
section on ·ny investments man punnone ua ~jon (tJ. * *
(c) ..T:-As sec".on shell remain in ef. ftct only unti 31nuary 1, 19H, and eMIl have no t~orn or effect
on or ~ter t,b,~ ~ uAJm · lxCar enaccad scarere, which is ensGed before ,~anuary l, 19R9, delta
or exund~ thxt dam...
(Amended by SearigS6, t e02, J 1; Stsu.19Ff, c.*'102~, J ~.) "". f~'.
...:-
· -- Duration of Section ..
Section .,¢,Y6011 :/m2l h~f 9e rerue m' e. LF~'t, by ~ ewe term·, ra o,g/Ler Yat I. 19f$. "
J 53608. Detail at securities~ reonlpt~ deJegsfion of authorit7
The legislative body of ~ loal agency my de~ait tot' safer with · federal or state
mociadou (u deQnecl bY Sec~on 5102 of the Fmancisi Code), · rust com~ny or
blnk locau~ or. On r~m m or ~rtth ms Feaeru~ P. eser~e hnk of h Fraacis~ or uy bruch
themr/within this state or vith any Fed·el Rest· beak er with any sure or n~Conzi
louud in shy c~cy .dmGnirdd u · ruerye ciCy by the BoLd of ~overnors of the Feder~
Sysrd~ the bends. norm, bib, debenmrus, oblit~cions, urciL'~aus of indebrddness, wu-:ur.s, or
other rridenm el iggtebtmbus8 in which the money of ~he IooJ agenq, is intotad pmua~ u} thLs
art~e or .pursunX, m ofter inphdYe auGhority. The local a{uey ;k.n take
ins~utt~on · rm:aipt for securities so depositmL The auGhori~ of the hfdJative body to deposit for
sahkuming my be ddet~l by the ie2bhcive body to the wnsurur o~ the hmi aftntT; the
trm=or sUfi noc be rmlmubh for ae~ffi~es detive2~d ~a md reuipud for by a finonc~l
(Amended by Stau.19U. c. 983. i 17, urgeneT, elf. bpr. 26.
.4,Tff~ 2. DEPOSIT OF lq31~DS ·
ChnBof · for derBies.
lnustmen~ pub. e** agent
Ino~
Termination of agreement ~ depository.
ItepoR of in~tptedont cortS~ public sccounmc demosim7 ~ tiif~ole uonr~t~es;
Underline im2mtam mafWea or MMPJOna I~y menmerit
92
§ 53632.5 GOv'EK,~ME,~T CODE
§ M63of' Clssses of ~u~tF ~or de~si~ ...
~e ~ ~ ~u o~ s~ ~or de~i~ ....'.
(~) ~u du~ ~ su~n (m) of ~n ~1. .:
~) S~u du~ in sub~n (u) of Se~on ~l. ·-"'
~ ~m en~m~ ~ $~n ~I. ~ for ~m
~ ~ Dtt~ins~on of ~ounu ~ be deNsled ~md dm "
~e ~__ s~l de{e'~e ~uu of money u h ~ u ~vev s~v% ud
(~ by Su~9{. & 1~. J ~)
~ ~= Funb of !~ ~ deNsit or ~v~u$
~ fc u ~m~l~ dl money ~ou~{ m., ~ le ~s~7 oL s'~ s~, bdud~{ money
da~i~ for ~tkwp~{ ~ su or ~ i nm~ "~{'~' -- i~mi u~u or
mone~ or. ulm o~eMe ~ bY ~m le~e ~ ~% m S~on ~601. may be
(s) Bond mud by ~ i~ qu,. ~ut{ ~n~ ~y~ie ~leiy oUL
.venu~du~{ pmW~ ~ ~,Hd or o~ by te 1~ s~Q or by s depz~eu~
~) Ud~ Su~ Tm~ no~. bo~ huh. or ~um of bdtbim. or ~,e for whi~
(c) ~__ ~uu ~u or ,u~ non or ~ of
~leiy ouco{ ~e ,venuu ~m s ~enc,~u~r pmpe~ ~d.
sum or by s d~ec~ ~ agent. ~ ~ o{
(d) lou~. ,~ w~ ~ o~er e~dum o{ hdeb~um of { ~ ~n~ ~ ~s
su. mdudb/bon~ ~i, ~leiy ou~ oi ~e ~emuu f~ s ,vnu,,du~{ ~e~ o~.
~n~li~ or op~ by ~e Io~ .{enQ. or by z de~ ~ ~/. or zu~ho~ of ~he
Io~
(e) ObHG~ou ~ud by ~ for ~u. {d~ ~d
~ l~e~ home ion ~. ~ F~ Rome ~ lu~
Burn A~~n.no~; or b obfi~Uo~ ~~ or o~{ ~uu d. or ~ud
by. fd~ agu~ or s Uni~ Su~ ~v~en~~
sa~s {u i my M bmud b ~e ~m
pm~c ~ ~ s~
~b su~in dam ~ ~de s munid~ u~- i~ from bvm~{ my s~lu money in
im{ i my u~ su~ ~ ~e Mud U~
~ ~{ ~ or ~e~ qd of N ~t ,-~ w of ~ ~ !e~ snd
K {. ~ p~ for ~ M~y's hvmma ~. In~
Un~e~Ino ~tes ~ ~ ad~ons by amen~m~t
g4
GOVE~N~I~N'T CODE
§ 53635
10 percent of the ouuundhZ paper of u issuing corpors~on. P'zrr.,~iuu of commercbJ paper my
not e.~c,d 1-q pernot ot the apricot sm-;iu money which may be invested pungot to this action.
· n mid~onal 1S peru=~ or a meal of 30 perant of the qeney's money or money in in candy, my
be investod pro-set to this stibcljYision. ~he zc~d~onai IS pen:eric my be so invmtod oz~y i~ the
dolla~weirhtod aversEe mc~i~? of the tam amount does 8ot tatted 31 days. "Doilar, weightod
· averz(e r~n~' meLns the sum of the mount of ugh ouuundinE winmeted Ix~or invesunent
muicipiie~ by the nu~er of c~ys to mcur~, divided by Om couf unounc of onuundLnE commmT. zi
p~per.
(lt) .N'e~oci~ble cer~czms d deposit issued by a udoae~y or sl~~ bank or · szrinl3
· -s~-~-don or tKle.-ti iron or ~, sure or ~edml m. ed~ union or by s sUrd-licmfued branch
foreirA bank, Purchase of neronoble ctrt~ates d do.uosit tony not exceed 30 percent of the
afency's surplus money which my be havesad punanne mmis ,c~on. For purposes d
section, negotiable cerc~catu of mit do not come within Art~e i (commencing with Section
536301 of Chapter 4 of Part Z. of Division 2 of Title 5, except that the mount so invuad shaft be
s~bjec: *~ the limiu~ons d h~ion 5363~ For putprates of this section, the !elishrive body of
|noel airfit7 hsv~nT leJtlJ caterda7 of the mow are prQht*bised frmm deposithg er investor
agenay hnds, or ~3A~s in the Cust~i3r of the ~ erAnay, h negotiable ~m of deposit boned
by; st. ate or federl~ r:F. iit ~on ~ a member of the tofishtive body of the iomJ agency, or
employee of the sdmh~istrAtiye officer. manarAr's office. budpc offick auditor~ontreller's office. or
~tisur~r's df~ct d the Ioc~ &lacy sLTa serves oll the bosrcl d directors, or Lny comrm~'tee
opposed by the board d d~eforL or the credit conunictee or nlmrFisor/commi~.ee of the st~ce or
fedeel croatia union bsub~f the norAce&hie esrt~csms of
(F) |nvescAeng in re~m:-,~n&se &fretmen or roves repuae 8freemartin of ay
solely m supplement the income nonreally reamred from these secretes. [rivetmona in s reverie
rearchase agreement shall be made only ;pon prior approval of the lefialative body of the ioc~
apticy. For purposes d this section. the arm *'repureh&H ~fruemen~' mesas · Fu'chue
socu~ties by ~he iomi agent7 Nnua~t to aa afroorient by whie~ the seller will repur~.ue
sec';~t~es on or be.~ore s spec~eci date asd for · slm~.~ed &mount ud will doiive~ the
secl~dts t~ the .local stint7 by book er.T. tT, phTsjcaJ C:lijveTT, or by third-pk-c~ clssto(L~l aGeomen:.
The r.-snsfer of undtrl3'ing se-.u.,~es to the muntm';m'~ !P. nk's customer book enU'F account may be
ned for book entry ddivmry. The term "counurparr~' for the pm~ of the sttbdivbion. meats
t~e other parry r~ the trlnaac~on. A counrdr~ baxtk's arrest ~ent or safekmepmf
de;arunett my be ~med for pj~ysicai deJiverT of the undL~J3~ng socur~T. The tarfit of repurr~r~3e
a~enm shall be for one year or less. ~he torm "se~tjas,' for p~ of repurchase under
th~s subctimion, shaft mean sec~ of the am bourn** descri!~u, inns dean, and mau~ricy.
· The terua 'rever~e repm--.haSo aWretmonc** mea~m a sale of secedes by the local erAnay p~rsuant
to an niTamman: by which the local aWenay ~ repttr~ such snell:ins on or beb~re a specified
~ato and for a specified smGunr,
(j) ~,dim~erm * · * nora d a m-~mm of five ruts' mom~t7 inud by tarportions
orrAnizmi and o~nf Mthin th~ Un~mt Stem or by dmator~ instjtn~om ij~ Iw the Cnited
reeofu=ed righaW serv~*e. P~ues o~ mealram*arm riotoo my no~ eaceeet 30 l~f;n~ of r.~
apncy's nrpJus money wn~e tony be invesad punaunt to this sotdon.
(Id b of bendidd interest baUed by djversifbd manspmmst emy~r,--'-s, udmemed in Ses~ion
23TOXin of the ILeveuue mad T~zaOmu C~Je, tmvesti~ b the secure ami obiip~ions u authorized
by s~ns (d to (kL bLcinf~L of i season &uci which cornpiT vith LTa invesment ' ' '
mukmm of this Ir~ch md ~,le I (e .... -g 'rich SecUre ~ To be diode for
invelaafit ptrsl&lat to rids ~ ~ eerl~!,~,~ sha~ either: (l) &f:f:~n the h~hest rukhf
er dm hitbest letur ud nmerksi mink pro~Ltd by.at lem thn two of the three Iralest
ridorally remitted ruing s!rvka, or (2~ hie sn investment advisor re~scered with the Securities
ud F. zr.J~nlt C~mmalmn eith ao~ lem ~ five ~ * . v ;uu investing in the securities and
oldiCtcimu u &uthorind by ni~ivbimu (8) rd (mL ~vo. of this s,c~on ud with mu undor
mat in e2aass of five hundred mGljon donors (~r~O,O00,O00). The purchase price of m of
b~iaJ intm~st purehasmt pm2uant to this subdi~n shaft not jnctude any c~mm;--~on that thOR
inroad pursuant to r~s secUon.
Altm * ' · InaicRte clele~otu by 8fuet~ment
95
§ 53635
GOV'~I~fF, I~' CODE
(t I No~es. b4nl. or other oblirsfions which ve
s~n~ mu~t m s~u~nes o~ ~t ~u its~ ~v ~n ~1 u ett~me s~=n for ~e
Idled io Iraatom olurm'~ umr ~be pm~iiom d ! 5 or
t.,l~tAl,, "
fdbedel {r ridOZ. "'
tilt ~ :
tjadlr tim pnlviioeJ d J i d Sms~lgfT. L IS/, the
191/· ¢' k o( t,,li mt~oa by ~, 444 rail i, ll? were
lilT. r, If/.failedtekmmme~mmivemdeffJml:~vbmr-s
o(t idt~mAa-
· 'A , f' ~ d' tbi mltme by SLuI, I914, ~- 741, t ~4
SIm&.III, S. e. I1~. J 141:. litIS. e. !.q21. J "'-' St,sa.
IlK f-, TI4. t ,,k Sul.19l&. e., IS3. J 3: SmLLIJl6. k
113. I 3J. -m · umemurr pamsioa rod. by iu own
ddda mmmeu mby SLm.!/l.l,'-Sl?,J 2J. aad
,,--.,~-, ,t ~ mmm ~ t :u ,t smu~sns. *.-' '* r, rd~r ~ by S:m.:n~. ~ iSt t ~ Suu.:ns. ~
Jr '&: Sma. l!ll p- IS3. J ~. SI~.LAIIL e. 143. J
SIm&lfl'7.'c. dd~ J 24 SIm,Llgl'7. c..11'7. J 5J. barnroe
Woe~ ud Plu'mm (Pa.m.
J 53635,1, LnvemUnenm qu~LQed putelude afent
The ~e ~ s ~ ~ ot ~ ~e~nt s~o~ ~uut m ~on ~, ~t
~ d~ ~ ~ ~. sb~ ~ ~S d~ t~ u ~n ~ by ~e sum
u s b~k~. u d~ h S~on ~ d b ~na ~ ~ ~ s membr d s
96
GOYt:KN~,~NT CODE § 53640
J S32T. Sde~ion of depo~Larr, beerut
The ~ney ~ ~ ~ ~ uy ~k, nmp · ~ ~ f~ ~-~ or s~u or
till ~~
J s3rJa. ~fui~mm demosiu
(a) The delm~t shaJl not eZct~ the sharehoMer's MuiW of any dmpos~ bank, For the purposes
of t~s subdivision, sharehoklet;s m~*f s be ~earmmej ~ accordance ~ Sec~on 118 of
Fmanc~l Code. but sjuJi be' aeemeo t~ m~tti~e capital nous ~ uou~ .
~) ~e ~)it ~ not ~ te ~ of ) net ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ion or
f~l ~~ ~pt ~t de~siu Mt wm~l z m~ of ~ hu~u~ dol~
n¢ wo~ of ~t ~i~. ~ su~ d~iu m ~ ~ s~ u ~ b$' hw.
[c) ~e de~2 m ~e shin ~nm of uv a~a~ ~ ~ u~on shall not ~
m~ of =~e umm~ ~mm aria s~tu o~ me ~ ~n. u ae~ ~v ~te o~ me ~mmmmon-
er of ~ouu~ umet ~mt me ae~t m shy ~t umn su s~uc m u ~ount noc
umn m ~u~C m 5~on l~ o~ ~e F~u~ ~e ~ ~ s~ u
'~u~ ~y law.
§ ~3641 GO~~'~"r CODE
J 53641. Keceil~t or other rridenct of deposit
When money. is deposiLed,in s deuositorv, the trusufer or other zuthoz~zed oi~dzl shall eke end
pro·rye · receipt. cer~mto o~ deposn, or other evidence of the deposit u he or she requires.
(Amended by Stztt1996. ~ 248. J 93.)
J 53643, Delxait by t:us4srer "
:
The nmsazer my deposit say pare of.~e mone~ sa sSTNd upon beewee the tnss~rer sad the
deoesitorv.
(Amended by SU~.1983, c. 10S, ! 6; Stsu,1986, e, 248, ! 94.) .
J 53r~4. V~ihdruwuls on demmad~ pen·iris' notice
L~ z~ z~-~eement is no: msde:
' (z) Active cleposiu msd in~L*est ~ereon .m nbject a w~L-zwsi upon the den~d of the
In·surer ~r other '-uthoz-izei offich~ subiec~ z~ any uenslfies which rosy be arucz-ibed by .~ederzi
!~w or .-eruiz~on.
(b) In~c~ve deposits ire subjet to noxice of ~ In·st thir~ dzys before w~hhwzL'
(Amended by 5u~1983, ~ 105, J T.)
J 53643, Interest. compmmzion
Inkrest shzll be c:mputed by the deaositorv on the averent da~ly I:~Ltacu a~. the money on
~e;zoir.. paid quar.~.iy saci comlputed on a 3~'~.uy batix.
(Amenc!ed ~'7 S~s.Z~BS, t 248, § 95.) . ."' :'z' : "' .
§ 53646. Tru.turer's re~M~s msd stAgmenu of invt~rdnenl policy .... . .
(·) ~,e cz~uu~er m' chie~ 12=c2J o~3car ' "' shall aAuu-ny z~nde~ to the !eri3ju~ve"b4=dy'of the
locz~ alerted' a =e-Lemon· of investment poficy.
· - : ..
(~) The ~ensurc or ,.hid r~sczl oLrmer shzJl ruder S monthly re~ to the chid executive o~Tcer
sad loCishave hod? ot the iocsi seehey sbovdnl the type of investneat, ins:imtion, cLstm of
amoun~ of deposit current msrkec nine for ell seenrifle w~th a resume7 ot more than 12 months.
ate of interesz, end such dm~ as my be required by the locsl qsncy. The moadsJy report shill
s~ec~/in deu~l iuvmzmenu msde peasant to subdiv~iou (Q o~ Sdaion 5360],, Section ~360L~, sad
subdivaion (Q of Setzion ~3635.
~ The monthly repor~ shsfi sum its reiss~mship to ~be summer o~ lure·anent policy.
C23 In 'the monLhly. s, epor~ z subsidisry ledWet of investman my be used in uconizf~ vizh
(31 The mon~iv Proore shell sin inch3de shy in~ormafic~ which the Urn·surer or ehie~ fisczi of~cer
dee·frames womd demonsu-a~ msL the tocs~ ·eencv's e~'oenaimre reeun-emen~s czu ~e me~ m
fofiowmc mortLee,
(41 A school ~ is no~ reauired to render · mmschlv meek on any or its funds in t~e custody o~
the county ~:essurer.
(c) This M~l~On m~uJ] runlin in eftset mdy mm~ Jsmmx7 l, lflL sad u of thst dsm is
mess · hrdr enscsed sisram, which is ensured before Jmmm~7 1. 391, ddetss or extends thst dsz
I~ ths~ dste is not d~|et~d or ts~s~d~t. thta, ms smi &ft~r Jsnuse7 1. lStt. ~rs~nt to Section
of the Government Code. Section 53G46 of the Gov,...u. ut Code. tt Iraended by Seaion 8 of Chapter
10S of r. he Sea:urn of 1983. shsfi hsve the same fore and effm u i~ r. bis temporery proWsion had
not been tuned. '
· rot Zf~ o/zfcn'a~ opau'R Yaw,. J..~J~J,,. m f .U~ pozL -
Underlfne tncIMMam mmngeo or ta~ttonn by mmencfmont
98
GOYEILN'MIZNT CODE
§ 53648
de~i~ for ~e p~f ~ · ~ ~u~ ~ ~e le~e ~v of ~e ~ aterift.
(~endg by SUU.I~, c 1~, J &}
t ~7, In~mU pa~eat Into fund
~ M ~ M m~ ~ ?53 v. Jm (A~ 3 ~lfit) ~ ~Ap~. ll&
J 5364T,S, Interest on bail money on depesi&
peivem pmlmm/. F,u,,o Pim]q~ue, t__: 7:3 v. lmu-
lie (Aplk ,S Dtsc. lll~ 122 C&U~m'. IlL IT7
hunmmfudeeeadakeddemi~emdemmtmmud
toeeuef. be~euybereudeadbyeeemyupano(~cs
Setsad rural. Prom ~ !~6km; --: ?IS -.
(A~s. $ l:}il.|gH) ~ CaLA~r. 186, IV'/~_A,3d ,~3.
.:
J 53648. De;osita a~d conu-atta pursuant Lo federal law:or rule .' '. ~ "'
HoL-~.~un4baf this arele, Un tnamme my depeait moneys im and ate into ~onU'Ac*~ with. a
sum or maUonaA bank, n~nn auoeiadon or federal usociamm. or federal or
~he law or rula mz~im v~ t~, arActe in rtfulalbf ~be pay~eac oE baterut on
money, by aav ot ~he foil6er.
LBanks wilj~ m Fedeni bserve Sysum mereben or whm deposiU m insur~ by ~e
Fedar~ Depeait Iamaramm C~. · ' ·
"' ' ' ' -- ' ' * ' fodeml home ~ ~ mr~ben or
(d SUM or federd endit ~nioa
Iu~ce Fund or ~~ by me
~~~s o~. e a~s otf~ ot ~ ~ a~, ~ le~ on at ~ Of
~...
99
GOV~L~r~ COO~- § 53652
(d) The de.oosic~r7 rnsy txer~e, ez~orce, or wsiye a~7 .riiJs~ Wrurdd to it by the promiser/norm,
mortrsp, or deed el truL
(e) For purposes of this stoic/e, the mirkec value of a prombsor/non ;'hich is u elig2~le seccri~y
under suixfivUinn (m) of Sec~a 53UL ~ be deurminsd in ~rdAnct ~ the cet'~ns
adopted by the * ' ' Trash uder lmz-~frzpis (2) of $uJxii,dsioo (us) el Section ~,iSZ, u the
rerdlzr. isns and supra were in elfan on Dmmber'31, 1986. ~owever, i~ sad when nrcjzcioas on
the subjec~ &re uloprad by the sdminislrsrm., rim rasHrot vsiue sis~[ be darntrained in sccoNance
vi-.h these refulacions of the zdminisosmr.
(.4dialed by Sizes. IS86, e. 3`132, J IS. Amended by StUs.19ST, c S6, J 86.)
J 53651.4. Rapere of' independent ctrtifled public accountre,; delxaitmT usinf difible securi*
(s) A depositor/which uses e|j~ie secnricies of the -;--~ desc~xd in sulxfivisinn (m) of Sec~on
2651 lull. wffifin 90 days ztcer the dote of esch ~ y~ or ~i i ionpr ~ u ~e
~~ resT. s~, ~e ~ te ~n~ t ~ of u bde~ndec ~ public
~in~mr ud~ ~ ~de ~ ~ ~ e~k ~ of ~t ~ ~e ~n shzll ~
bu~ u~n ~e au~ ~ ~n~ ~e ~o~u, ud ~ be ~ ~e f~ ~e ~~r may
(b) L~ a depositar/which is · stzce bank flies vii the adminiscscer, not lm tam2 943 dan before
the berinninf o~ the cziendar yur, · notice thsc it de m be artmined by the sdmims*Tnmr iuusd
o~ ~zlhg · upon el an independen~ cergibd pubik ~___-,~unun~ uder subdigital (s) for ~se :iendar
.vezr, ~he depositor/shaft be uezn~c ~.rom s~bdivision (s) for r~zc aiendsr yesr end shzil for thzc
cziendzr yur be subject ~o ex-m;~zfiou by the adminiscrstor rersrdinf compliance with LIfts zr".cie
ud vir.~ ~eCuiz~ns sad orders ur, der this sr~cte vials rupe~ a etik-~ie securities o~ ~he cLus
ducrFoed in suixiiv~ion (m) o~ Section S:'~SL The sdmh~istr~tor shsjl uroride z reoor~ ~ s =euunr
w~th densits in the e:umlned sum bsnk enou reuesc of tan ~reuurer.
(c) A =z~ouj ba~zk my apply ta the sdministnmr ra be o-'~,~;-~l, znd the adminiscrimr, ~ his or
.her cfis~-e~on, my enmine z ucionzl bink for the purposes of ssm~inf the req~remenc:
subdivision (s). The zdmin~zur shsfl m~ride · renor~ u~ s tzessurer ~t de~siU in ~e e~eci
'uz~onnl bank noon rvauesc of ~ne =ezsurer. .*
(d] W~nenever ~e ad,'ninhusmr exz,mines · deuository putsurest t~ ~ubdivision (~) or (c)~ the
deT~imr7 shsil psy, within 30 days a~Mr receipt of' · stitement ~rom the sdmbmtntor. i ~ee o~ ~wo
hunned dollars ($200) per day ~or esr. b exampiper engspd in the
(Added. by S~u..T986, ~. 3.'132, J 3.6..,~ by Sl:1~a. lgS'T, c. S41. J 3..)
? 53sS~.s. Letur of credit; Urm · · '
(z) To be sn efig~ble esarirj, under subdivion (p) o[ Sec~on 51&51. · letur of crnfit sbsil be in
such for~ and shaJl conl~in suctz provisions as the Idminisr.,smr rosy prucrfiM. sad sbsll inci~de
o~ the ~ollovnnl rdrms:.
(1) The ad,,,h,;-gnmr shaft be the beneficiar/of the*intent of crediL
(23 The let?,tr of crylit ~ be dm sad irrevoabie ud shsfi provide ek,~ the sdministrsmr
drsw upon it sq~ m the totsi amount in the event e4r the failure of the delxmimrT' ssv~np usocitiou
or federsi --so,~o~n or if the delxaitory sa,~nfs sandscion or federsi -*~m,~n r~fuses m permit
the v~thdrswsi of hnds by · treuurer.
(Added by Stcs~S86, c. 1132, J 17,1
.:
t S31S2. Yslue required 'to nfure udve or braedye alemile msrk~t vsiue
· To secure sccive or inure de;osiu · deposlms7 shsil st sil tbnes msinU with the sfu~ o~
:~pomr. o~. eJi;ble secszrities in securit~ poeb, pursusnt ~o SeeCons 53&56 saci 5365a. b2 Lhe
amours sMaf'ad in this see~o~ Unentlaaad funds siSaft be u~zded ~mm tha 'amount deposiud in
the depesitor/when det&rmminf the securit7 llqviz~aett,I for the depetiet
:~'~ EliK3bJe securitja, acept eft&Fob Henrim o~ the cissses duct, bed in subdivis~tou (m) snd (p)
el Sec~on 53651, shsil hsve · msrkec rsiue of ac letst 10 porcent in uceu of the toni mount o~
deposits of ~ depositor1, secured by the elifible securities.
:~e~lSks * * · luGcute dedettorm by amendment .... :.'
~03
§ 53652
GO~ CODE
the
j ~31~3. Waiver of security '-
When in his or her discntja local condiShes so witTat, the Inn·re may waive secu:~cy for th~
po~on at uy deposits u is insured pursuant to tedeta law, not~saudinf this x~cit
(Added by S(~ts. IJS4, c 1:I]2, J 2L) '. :- -: -
Fome ~ S3U2. ramada by ~m~l~m. L 19. ! L 1482, ik ~ J S, mmmbd by bu. leS&.-t fdg. J L
r~unqtoLbemmk~a~mamr, mJembdbySmm, '"
Ilfi. t 1131. j ~ · ' " ' .: · '
· . :
{ S3$S4, -Addition ~w ~'Ubstj~ou of mmrifie~ wj~ or rd~m o~ stcurifies.. ..
(a) Th~ de~sitory my add ~ ~ ~e ;ooi w sub~tum s~ue~es of etul value for ~hose in
~%e ~o:i st u7 ~ b :*. ~l-a~, ~ ~urchnfe chnes of security, u d-_~med in Se~ou ~3632.S.
~houc ;~oc ~ ;f ~e ~e&urer .............. '-; . -.... .... --
(b) Wlthc~wsl o~ ncuz~:m from the pool witbc~t repinnment'·t eq~L~ .~aJue my IN' o~erg onlY"
by ~,o d~v au'.~or~ ot~cen or emotone of the delmsimlT who nUsff the requireainu u r~zy
~e sac oy ~e u~e~u'iur. .... · ......... * ......
(e) The aftfit o~ depaiuty'is ~ie'for the ufekee~f ud:disbunenef~ of secur~t~u
placed b: its ca·lady by · depositor. It shag rubMe seemSdes oaJy .man p,.--~,-t~on by the
depository c~ the most rua~iy currut. auramerit o~ the tota~ ~de,~___'~a subject to d~s ar~c~e he~
by *.he d.eos/mry, such summeat m be ,eraSed'and counzanifned by c,o duly ·utho~ed offictrs.
other ~u~ those who ' * *- efder~d the w~hdrswai o~ secu2~ief, A ·oF/o~ a summerit sna~ m
(Amedet by Su~ISS2. t 10~ J l&, S~ lge& c 112~ J 22~
'Admaimdu C~t Refemm ' '
W~tbda,d ota rummy, m2 C~L Adm. C, Mt J(a~l.~
J figS& Authofbado:t for boldlnf d seurity by agent oW delmmitor~ agtnfa of depository~
mem, j~m subjet to order of depmaor~, eft·don
At the dine the Us·surer enms ~,m · man-set w~h dm dse t "'; puntmat ~ Sec~on 53649,
she sh-' ·utborba the ·leas o~ d~F,~of7 de~flssted by ~e d~,jGory, b~t b~h~mg the rust
ITEM 6
APPROV~t~~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
March 24, 1992
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution and Approve Agreement Between County of
Riverside and City of Temecula
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 92-
entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO
THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE AND TO PERMIT
THE ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATES IN LIEU OF QUALIFIED
MORTGAGE BONDS
Authorize the Mayor to execute Cooperative Agreement between the County
of Riverside and the City of Temecula.
DISCUSSION: By adopting the attached resolution City Council will allow
the County to administer the City's portion of private activity bonds to assist
approximately fifty first-time home buyers. Since the City does not have a system in
place to administer this program, execution of the agreement ensures that these funds
will not be allocated to other cities in California.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
Resolution No. 92-
Cooperative Agreement between the County of Riverside and the
City of Temecula
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, AUTHORIZING AN
APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEBT LIMIT
ALLOCATION COIVIMITrEE AND TO PERMIT THE
ISSUANCE OF MORTGAGE CREDIT
CERTIFICATES IN LIEU OF QUALIFIED
MORTGAGE BONDS
WHEREAS, there is a shortage in the County of Riverside (the "County") and in the
City of Temecula (the "City") of decent, safe and sanitary housing, particularly of housing
affordable by persons in the low and moderate end of the purchasing spectrum and a need to
increase the housing supply to first-time homebuyers in the County and in the City for such
persons; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County adopted Resolution No. 87-564 on
December 22, 1987 establishing a Mortgage Credit Certificate Program pursuant to Section
50197 et. seq. of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the "Act") and Section
25 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") to homebuyers by allowing them to take
a tax credit equal to 20 percent of the mortgage interest paid in a given year (the "Program*);
and
WHEREAS, the City has found and determined that it is in the best interest of the City
to participate in the program and to consent to the operation of the Program by the County with
the geographic boundaries of the City pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the County to
permit the operation of the Program in the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 limits the mount of
qualified mortgage bonds that may be issued in any calendar year of entities within a State and
authorizes the Governor or the Legislature of such State to provide the method of allocation
within the State; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 3.5 of Part 1 of Division 31 of the California Health and Safety
Code (Commencing with Section 50171) governs the allocation of the State ceiling among
governmental units in the State having the authority to issue qualified mortgage bonds; and
WHEREAS, Section 50185 et. seq. of the Health and Safety Code and the procedures
adopted pursuant thereto required a local agency to file an application with the California Debt
Limit Allocation Committee prior to the issuance of qualified mortgage bonds; and
3/Reeoe 242 ~
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), made and entered into
as of March 24, 1992 by and between the County of Riverside, a political subdivision
of the State of California (the "County"), and the City of Temecula, a political
subdivision of the State of California (the "City").
WITNFSSFTH:
WHEREAS, the County adopted Resolution No. 87-564 on December 22, 1987
establishing a Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (the "Program") pursuant to
Section 50197 et. seq. of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the
"Act") and Section 25 of the :Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") to issue
mortgage credit certificates to qualified, first-time homebuyers by allowing them to
take a tax credit equal to 20 percent of the mortgage interest paid in a given year.
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Program and determined to cooperate with
the County pursuant to the Act in the exercise of their powers under the Act for
purposes of the Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter
provided, the parties hereto agree as follows:
WHEREAS, The City pursuant to the Act and its Resolution No.
adopted on March 24, 1992, has assigned to the County its allocation for qualified
mortgage bonds to be used for the Program.
SFCTION 1. The terms used in this Agreement shall, for all purposes of this
Agreement, unless otherwise defined herein, have the meanings assigned to such
terms in the Act.
SECTION 9. The County agrees to undertake the Program, including using its
best efforts to issue mortgage credit certificates therefore pursuant to the Act as soon
as is practicable, said mortgage credit certificates being in addition to mortgage credit
certificates which the County has heretofore issued for this purpose.
SECTION 3. The City hereby agrees to cooperate with the County in the
exercise jointly or otherwise of their powers for the purpose of issuing mortgage credit
certificates pursuant to the Act by agreeing that the County shall exercise its powers
to issue mortgage credit certificates under the Program, all as more specifically set
forth in the Act, with respect to property located within the geographic boundaries of
the City.
SECTION 4. The qualified mortgage bond allocation assigned to the County by
the City for the Program will be utilized consistent with Section 50197.5 of the Act.
For the initial six (6) months following the receipt and assignment of the allocations,
County will use said allocation for the creation of mortgage credit certificates within
the boundaries of the City. After the conclusion of said six-month period, the
allocation may be used County-wide for the Program.
Section 5. The City agrees to undertake such further proceeding or actions as
may be necessary in order to carry out the terms and the intent of this Agreement.
The County has entered into cooperative agreements with other cities within the
County, and nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the County from entering into
one or more additional agreements with other cities within the County if deemed
necessary and advisable to do so by the County.
SFCTION 6. This Agreement may be amended by one or more supplemental
agreements executed by the County and the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed and attested to by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized and their
official seals to be hereto affixed, all as of the day and year first above written.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
By By
Chairman, Board of
Supervisors
Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall
ATTEST:
By By
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
COUNTY COUNSEL
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Deputy
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
WHEREAS, the City has determined to assign to the County pursuant to Section 50192
of the Health and Safety Code all of the principal amount, if any, of qualified mortgage bonds
allocated to the City and to use said allocation for the issuance of mortgage credit certificates;
and
WHEREAS, one percent of the mount of the allocation being requested by the City is
being held by the County in an escrow account;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Each of the foregoing recitals is true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized, on behalf of the
City, to submit an application, and such other documents as many be required, to the California
Debt Limit Allocation Committee .for an allocation of $ to qualified mortgage
bonds and one hundred percent (100%) of said allocation is to be utilized for mortgage credit
certificates. It is hereby authorized that, upon receipt, such allocation be transferred to the
County, who will issue mortgage credit certificates pursuant to the terms of the Program to
persons residing within the City and the County. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby
directed to take such steps and execute such documents as is necessary to effect the transfer of
the allocation to the County.
SECTION 3. The officers and employees of the City are hereby authorized and
directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things necessary or advisable in order to
effectuate the purposes of this resolution or the issuance of the mortgage credit certificates by
the County, and all actions previously taken by such officers and employees in connection with
the application for the allocation are hereby ratified and approved.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED, this 24th day of March, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/Resoe 242
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RrVF2{SIDE) SS
C~ OF TF..MECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 92-xx adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula, at a regular meeting thereof, held on'the 24th day of March, 1992, by the
following vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/Resoe 242
ITEM
7
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFIC].,~
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT.'
CITY OF TEMECULA
A GENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Joe Hreha, Senior Management Analyst ' '''?
March 24, 1992
ANIMAL CONTROL AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
A TTA CHMENT..
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with
the County of Riverside to provide Animal Control Services
in the City of Temecula.
On August 14, 1990, the City Council approved the original
agreement with the County of Riverside to provide Animal
Control Services in the City of Temecula. Part of these
services include Shelter Services provided by Lake Elsinore
Animal Friends (LEAF). In December 1991, LEAF
negotiated a revised agreement with the County of
Riverside. One area of the new agreement increased
shelter services fr. om $15.00 to 917.00 per live weaned
animal delivered ~o the shelter. This revision necessitates
a change to our agreement with the County of Riverside.
Since the agreement required revision, Staff used this
opportunity to clarify the billing procedures and Ordinance
references. These minor simplifications do not alter the
policies contained in either the original proposal or
agreement previously approved by the City Council.
The Animal Control Services budget is adequate to absorb
the Shelter Services increase.
Agreement for Services Relative to Regulation and Control
of Dogs, Cats, and Other Domestic Animals
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
HEAl
AGREEMENT FOR'SERVICES
RELATIVE TO REGULATION AND CONTROL OF
DOGS, CATS, AND OTHER DOMESTIC ANIMALS
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, Health Services Agency, through its Department of
Health, herein called "COUNTY", and the CITY OF TEMECULA, herein
called "CITY", pursuant to the provisions of Section 51301 of the
Government Code.
Recitals
WHEREAS CITY is desirous that COUNTY provide certain services
relative to the regulation and control of dogs and other domestic
animals and COUNTY is desirous of providing such services, and
WHEREAS COUNTY and Lake Elsinore Animal Friends, located at
29001 Bastron Avenue, Lake Elsinore, California, hereinafter
referred to as "SHELTER", entered into an agreement.on December 3,
1991 whereby SHELTER is obligated thereunder to perform certain
services for COUNTY relating to dogs and other domestic animals
delivered to SHELTER by COUNTY; and all service provided under said
agreement shall be pursuant to County Ordinance No. 630, as
amended, County Ordinance No. 534, as amended, and County Ordinance
No. 716, or such other County ordinances or resolutions which may
hereafter replace or supersede said ordinances, and any applicab~'
State law relating to such impoundment, care and disposal, and
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as
follows:
1. City Ordinances. CITY has adopted its Ordinance No. 90-04
prescribing procedures and standards for the licensing, impounding,
regulation and control of dogs and other domestic animals
substantiall~ identical to those set forth in County Ordinance No.
630, as amended, and County Ordinance No. 534, as amended, ~nd
s'hall maintain the same in force so long as this Agreement shall
remain in force. Two (2) certified copies of such ordinance, and
of any ordinance amending or repealing the same, shall forthwith
upon adoption be furnished to COUNTY; one of said copies to be
furnished to the Director, Health Services Agency, and the other to
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon
execution and shall terminate June 30, 1992, except that either
party to this Agreement may terminate its obligation hereunder upon
60 days' written notice to the other. Further, this Agreement
shall be automatically renewed on a year-to-year basis on the
annual termination date thereof, subject to cancellation by either
party upon 60 days' written notice to the other.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3. Impound, Care, and DisPosal of Do~s and Oth4r Domestic
Animals by SHELTER. COUNTY shall cause SHELTER to impound, care
for and dispose of all dogs and other domestic animals, owned, kept
or harbored within, straying or running at large in or into the
incorporated area of CITY, which are delivered by COUNTY to SHELTER
at SHELTER'S facilities located at 29001 Bastton Avenue, Lake
Elsinore, California. In that connection, SHELTER:
(a) May humanely destroy any dog or other domestic
animal and dispose of the remains at the
request of the owner upon payment by the owner
of the fees for such destruction and disposal
as set forth in Section 9(b) of County
Ordinance No. 630 as amended, and County
Ordinance No. 534 as amended. SHELTER shall
issue receipts for all such fees and charges
collected and shall keep copies thereof. All
destruction and disposal fees so collected
shall be retained by SHELTER.
(b) Shall collect, from animal owners and others, for
dogs and other domestic animals redeemed, the
impound fees and charges as set forth in Section
9(a) of County Ordinance No. 630, as amended, and
Section 12 of County Ordinance No. 534, as amended.
SHELTER shall issue receipts for all such fees and
charges collected and shall keep copies thereof.
All such fees and charges so collected shall be
retained by SHELTER.
Shall, prior to the release of any unredeemed
impounded dog or cat to any adult individual,
collect spay/neuter deposits in accordance with
Section 10 of County Ordinance No.630, as amended,
and issue receipts therefore. All such fees and
charges so collected shall be retained by SHELTER.
(c)
4. Collection of Impound Fees and Char~es for Release of
Unredeemed }mDounded Do~s and Cats. COUNTY shall relinquish to
SHELTER any unredeemed impounded dog or cat for sale or disposal by
SHELTER in accordance with California Food and Agriculture Code
Sections 30503 and 31751 requiring the collection of a spay/neuter
deposit prior to the release of any dog or cat, and in accordance
with Section 9(g) of County Ordinance No. 630, as amended. SHELTER
shall issue receipts for all such fees and charges collected and
shall keep copies thereof. All such fees and charges so collected
shall be retained by SHELTER.
5. Services by County/Compensation. COUNTY shall perform
services for CITY relating to the control of dogs and other
domestic animals as prescribed by the provisions of County
Ordinance No. 630, as amended, and County Ordinance No. 534, as
amended, on the basis of 40 hours per week during the term of this
Agreement. CITY shall compensate COUNTY for such services at the
2
OI~IGINAW.,
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
I0
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
following hourly rates plus mileage at $.42 per mile:
Regular time - 8:00 a.m. to 5:00p.m. weekdays
with exception of holidays.
Overtime - In excess of 8 hours per day or at
any time on Saturdays, Sundays, or
holidays.
$32.00
$39.00
All services performed on an overtime basis must be authorized by
the City Manager or his designated representative or any peace
officer as that term is defined in Section 830 of the Penal Code.
In addition, CITY shall compensate COUNTY at the following
rates for every live dog or other domestic animal COUNTY delivers
to SHELTER as provided in Paragraph 3 herein:
(a) $17.00 per live weaned animal delivered to SHELTER.
(b) Additional fees for'animals housed in excess of ten
days; i.e., evidentiary animals:
(1) Dogs/cats - $2.00 per day.
(2) Birds/fowl - $1.00 per day.
(3) Farm-type animals - $3.50 per day.
(c) $25.00 per month to offset a portion of the rental
expense paid by SHELTER for euth~nasia freezers.
COUNTY shall submit a billing to CITY, on a monthly basis, f~
costs incurred and revenue received by CITY during the immediatel~
preceding month. Said billing shall include the hours of such
services provided, the nature of such services and the mileage
incurred, shelter services received, and the CITY'S share of fees
collected for dog licenses credited towards the services furnished.
CITY shall pay COUNTY upon such billing and accounting. The
maximum amount payable by CITY to COUNTy under this Agreement shall
not exceed $80,000.00. Should the amount of $80,000.00 not be
sufficient te cover the expenses of Fiscal Year 1991-92, CITY shall
notify COUNTY at least sixty (60) days in advance. Upon such
notification by CITY, COUNTY shall discontinue services unless CITY
provides written assurance that funds are available to defray
further expenses incurred by COUNTY.
6. Licenses for Dogs. Kennels and Catteries. COUNTY shall
issue dog licenses, licenses to operate dog kennels and catteries
within CITY, and collect fees in connection therewith for dogs
within CITY. COUNTY shall provide its own forms and tags for such
licenses. All fees for licenses to operate dog kennels and
catteries shall be.retained by COUNTY. All fees collected for dog
licenses shall be accounted for by COUNTY and credited to CITY on
a monthly basis in conjunction with the billing procedure set forth
immediately above; provided, however, that COUNTY shall retain the
sum of $5.85 for each dog license issued hereunder.
3
O~IOINAL
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
7. County/City Personnel. The services provided by COUNTY
shall be performed by County personnel under the control and
direction of COUNTY. CITY shall have the right to inspect COUNTY'S
records pertaining to the services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement. To the extent that CITY officers or employees may
voluntarily participate in any of the activities herein provided
for, or that peace officers of CITY shall be called upon to render
aid or assistance within the boundaries of CITY or otherwise to
perform law enforcement functions, 'the expenses thereof shall be
borne by CITY.
8. Veterinarian Fees. Notwithstanding any provisions herein
contained, CITY shall be responsible for the payment of
veterinarian fees incurred as a result of the enforcement of
California Penal Code Section 597 et seq.
9. Animal Care Education and Information Pro2ram. COUNTY
will provide lectures and presentations relative to animal care
education and information to schools and community groups upon
reasonable prior notice from CITY, and scheduling availability of
COUNTY Animal Control personnel.
Pamphlets and/or flyers relative to animal care and animal
education will be provided by COUNTy at no additional cost to CITY.
10. Spay/Neuter and Rabies Vaccination Program. COUNTY will
maintain a mandated low-cost spay/neuter program through 'the
services of various licensed veterinarians or in a COUNTY-operated
low-cost spay and neuter clinic.
Door-to-door canvassing to verify rabies vaccination and
applicable licensing will be performed in conjunction with other
field services provided by COUNTY Animal Control personnel.
Annual low-cost rabies vaccination clinics will be held in
CITY by COUNTY. CITY of Temecula dog licenses will be sold at
these clinics.
11. Hold Harmless. CITY shall indemnify and hold COUNTY, its
officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and
harmless from any claim or liability whatsoever, based or asserted
upon any act or omission of CITY, its officers, agents, employees,
subcontractors and independent contractors, for property damage,
bodily injury or death or any other element of damage of any'kind
or nature, occurring in the performance of this Agreement between
the parties hereto to the extent that such liability is imposed on
the COUNTY by the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government
Code of the State of California, and CITY shall defend at its
expense, including attorney fees, COUNTY, its officers, agents,
employees and independent contractors in any legal action or claim
of any kind based upon such alleged acts or omissions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
8rotSINAi,'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
COUNT~ shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents,
employees and independent contractors free and harmless from a~
claim or liability whatsoever, based or asserted upon any act
omission of COUNTY, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors
and independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury or
death or any other element of damage of any kind or nature,
occurring in the performance of this Agreement between the parties
hereto to the extent that such liability is imposed on the CITY by
the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State
of California, and COUNTY shall defend at its expense, including
attorney fees, CITY, its officers, agents, employees and
independent contractors in any legal action or claim of any kind
based upon such alleged acts or omissions.
12. Venue. Any action at law or in equity brought by either
of the parties hereto for the purpose of enforcing a right or
rights provided for by the Agreement shall be tried in a court of
competent jurisdiction in thp COUNTY of Riverside, State of
California, and the parties hereby waive all provisions of law
providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other
county.
13. Attorneys' Fee. In the event of any litigation or
arbitration between CONTRACTOR and COUNTY to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement or any right of either party hereto,
the unsuccessful party to such litigation or arbitration agrees to
pay reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred therein by the successfuI
party; all of which shall be included in and as a part of tl~
judgment rendered in such'litigation or arbitration.
14. Paragraph Headings. The paragraph headings herein are for
the convenience of the parties only, and shall not be deemed to
govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or
intent of the provisions or language of this Agreement.
15. County's Representative. COUNTY hereby appoints the
Director of Health Services Agency for the County of Riverside as
its authorized representative to administer this Agreement.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is intended by the
parties hereto as a final expression of their understanding. with
respect to the subject matter hereof and as a complete and
exclusive statement of the provisions thereof and supersedes any
and all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings,
oral or written, in connection therewith. This Agreement may be
changed or modified only upon the written consent of the parties
hereto.
17. NOTICES. All correspondence and notices required or
contemplated by this Agreement shall be delivered to the respective
parties at the addresses set forth below and are deemed submitted
one day after their deposit in the United States mail, postage
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
prepaid:
COUNTY:
Board of Supervisors
County of Riverside
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, California 92501-3651
INFORMATIONAL COPY TO:
County of Riverside
Department of Health
P. O. Box 7600
Riverside, California 92513-7600
Attn:
Director, Health
Services Agency
CONTRACTOR:
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their duly
authorized representatives to execute this Agreement.
ATTEST:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
GERALD A. MALONEY
Clerk of the Board
By
(SEAL)
Deputy
By Chairman,
Board of Supervisors
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTEST:
City Clerk
By
Title Mayor
(SEAL)
/////
////
///
//
/
COUNTY COUNSEL
FEB 0 3 1992
Det~uty
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
8
ORIGINAL
ITEM 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY AT!'ORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
!
,CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
March 24, 1992
Award of a Professional Services Contract to Urban Design Studio to Prepare
the Specific Plan for Old Town Temecula.
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
It is requested that the City Council award a Professional
Services Contract to Urban Design Studio in the amount
of ~154,400 to prepare the Old Town Specific Plan and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said contract.
Appropriate ~30,000.00 in the CDBG fund for consulting
services.
The City of Temecula issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
to areawide consulting firms to prepare a Specific Plan for Old
Town Temecula. In response to the City's RFQ, seventeen
consulting firms submitted Statements of Qualifications (SOQ's).
City Staff reviewed all 17 SOQ's and ranked the teams based
upon their expertise and ability to address Old Towns' issues and
prepare the final plan. The 6 firms with the highest composite
scores were asked to submit detailed work proposals.
To evaluate the top 6 firms, a selection committee composed of
Mayor Pro-Tem Karel Lindemans, Councilman Ron Parks,
Planning Commissioner Dennis Chiniaeff, Old Town Architect
Bob Morris, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, and Senior Planner
John Meyer was organized. The Old Town Consultant Selection
Committee reviewed the proposals and interviewed the top 6
firms.
OLDTOWN%UDSCON,AR
FISCAL IMPACT:
After the interviews, the firms were ranked, end the top three
firms |Urban Design Studio, Randolph Hlubik & Associates, and
Planning and Design Solutions) were asked to submit detailed
cost information and to provide additional explanation on certain
aspects of their proposals. As a result of this process, the
Committee selected Urban Design Studio to prepare the Plan.
City Staff has refined Urban Design Studio's Scope of Work, and
has incorporated modifications into the City's standard
professional services agreement. A copy of the proposed
contract, scope of work, budget, end work schedule are attached
to this Report.
The total cost of the study will be funded as follows:
FY' 92 CDBG $ 30,000.00
FY' 93 CDBG 30,000.00
RDA Tax Increment 94.400.00
$154,400.00
It is necessary to appropriate $30,000.00 in the CDBG fund for
the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1992. The balance of the cost
of the study will be included for approval in the Fiscal Year 1993
RDA and CDBG budgets.
PROFESSIONAL SERVIC~-~I
This Agreement was made and entered into this day of__ 19_., by and
between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Urban Design Studio, a
California Corporation hereinafter !called ("Consultant").
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A.
2. Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the
best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
3. Payment. The City agrees to compensate the Consultant for its services based
upon the costs set forth in Exhibit B. The total cost of this contract shall not exceed
$154,400, which represents the total compensation to be paid to Consultant by City for all
work to be done by the ConsultanL The total cost for this contract shall include the costs of
duplication for all reports and documents described in Exhibit A. The City Manager may
approve additional payments, not to exceed $10,000.00 for additional or supplemental work.
Such costs for work under this contract shall be reimbursed only if the work is approved by
the City as to its nature, type, amount, and staff performing the services. The City shall
withhold the final fifteen percent (15%) of the cost of this contract until all work on this
project, as specified in Exhibit A, has been completed to the satisfaction of the City.
Consultant shall submit invoices upon the completion of the work activities contained
in Exhibit A, except that such invoices shall never be submitted more than once in any thirty
(30) day period. Such invoices shall specify the completed work task(s)included on the
invoice, the total amount invoiced to date, and the total amount outstanding. Within thirty
(30) days of submittal of any invoice, the City shall either approve said invoice or return it
to Consultant specifying any objections. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
the approval of the invoice.
4. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is
in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs,
drawings and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant
to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or
otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. The Consultant
may, at its option and expense, elect to have the work products for this project copyrighted
SXOLDTOWN~CONTRACT .TWO
joinfly with the City of Temecula. ~.
6. City ReSponsibility. The City shall make all reasonable efforts to cooperate
with Consultant in the completion of this project, including but not limited to:
a. Designating a single reprcsuting authority with whom Consultant can
fulfill Consultant needs.
b. Pwmpfly notifying Consultant of any dissatisfaction with Consultants
performance or any deviation from the tasks specified in Bxhibit A.
c. Pwviding City documents and reports to Consultant at no cost.
7. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least ten (10) days prior to the
termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services
performed.
8. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Temecuh, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and
all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or Hability of any kind or nature which the City,
its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them
for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Consultants acts or
omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting; only liability arising out of the sole
negligence of the City.
9. Consultant Staff. Only the Consultant Project Staff identified in Exhibit C
shall be responsible for and perform Urban Design Studio's pwfessional services required to
complete the activities identified in Exhibit A. Modifications to Consultant's staffing,
including subconsultants for this pwject, shall be made only with the prior written approval
of the City.
10. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in
the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City for
any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be
liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of
performing services hereunder.
11. Term. This Agreement shah commence on March 30, 1992, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks d~'~bed herein are completed, but in no event later than
April 30, 1993.
12. ~ubcontrm~.~. The Consultant shah not enter into any subcontracts for services
to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of this Agreement without
the consent of the City. Consultant shah provide City with fourteen (14) days' notice prior
to the departure of Mark Brodeur from Consultant's employ. Upon such notice, the City
shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon termination of this
Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be for the value of service rendered to the
City.
13. r}efault. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of
this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shah include not
performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Manager of
the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder,
if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and without fault or negligence of the
Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between the
City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall be resolved by
arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired
judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration hearing shall
be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et see_. City
and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
14. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service
on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of
the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. City:
Attention: City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Consultant:
Mark Brodeur, Principal
Urban Design Studio
446 N. Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
The ~ot~es ~ ~ deemed to have been given as of the date of personal s~n~ce, or
three (3) days nfizr the thte of deposit of the same in the custody of the United States Postal
Service.
15. ~:ratire Agreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integm~ all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental
hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement
shall prevail.
16. I jnhility. Except as:provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries,
wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hexeunder for City.
City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or
sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City my suffer resulting
from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant.
Consultant shall secure workman's compensation. insurance. Upon request of
Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workman's compensation policy and
the Consultant to the City's workman's compensation policy and the Consultant shall
reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written.
URBAN DESIGN STUDIO
CITY OF TEM~CULA
By: By:
Mark Brodeur, Principal Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
TASK 1.0 -/NVBNTGSY
ANAL OF OLD TOWN
The foundaUon for the ~'~occ.~ Plan phaming
andan~pha~ ltwl!lprovldethedmtm
and analysis necre~-vy to ,,ru':. '-,,.1 the
ways in which ~f--t. aoct~
provide a ~ of chotem for the atud~ area.
Specific tmalm will include:
Tub 1. a - v~.sn, l~-t nb, k,44vmm'
'-:oncerum. and Re_nuirementl
At the outset or the program. Ux~oan
Studio's project manager and a representatWe
of our mubcormu]tant firms wtli meet with
staff to establish a mutual undea~-m4slg o/
the key issues to be sddx~v~, snd to rdln~
the scope of work and project tlsxxfng. as well
as discuss final specific plan boundsties. ob-
tatn additional plans. reportS. ordinsncu, stud
studies applicable to the project. The purpose
of this meeUng will be to clear~ define ~
pectatlons for the planning program. and to
define basic objectives regardtrig study area de-
velopmenL
PRODUCT: Dlscutalon notes
BUDGET: $700
Exhibit "A"
~ 1 ,*). l~alglp. h nf t~.tlZXIIj'
OPPmt"ne"w and mnstralnts ma site develop-
the l~f-s mud eoncl,,*t~_w of the documents
m--- ,,'m to eap~a!Lze m opport,,n-tes and
PRODUCT:. l~d~/- rates
~ $S00
~ ! ,.q. lelmld Rs~nnnl.tlllRr~
Afleld~oftheproJeetsxeawfil
be conducted. It is reco, nmended that Urban
Design Studio schedule with Dsvld Hogan. pro-
Ject m-n-tpr. a m-t~,ony agreed upon time to
' rentlywmaTssk 1.1. Vahsablemputcanbe
amlned from pt-nnerm originally mvolmi with
~Town SpeolfM Pmn
.//
sa neeess-ry and required by the C~r. and un-
will provide such Information on a zenbms-
able basis. The erect boundaries of the
PRODUCT:. ~ ~ and reduced bame maps
(mylar~~~~
photoor$i~P~Planarea
TIMEFRAME:2weeks
BUDGEt.' 03.700
~U]L ! .K - 1~1~1~' wsf~BUT'~-t--mo-
lrm~-~t~q. -nd mmrvl~ ,A. slwmi.
A. Infsmhs-~--,e k,v to_;
~'PAC's Znglneezmg stall win perform an u-
ssmessment of these mfmamaetm~
will result In the identification of eormtralntm to
dcvdopment or the need to upgrade or develop
Bx:hibit "A"
rk--~_mf eo~ftaeratlm~m ~ Impact the aze, a
are pedroIra the mtmt .qlFsm~snt Imues affeet-
Inl thls area. 113et'e has been a
-. rml d',"z -:s~ ~ relatwe to the de-
allntt,~t' _ 1 a(MuzmtaCneku~t
ts ,ss
eounts_p'-0~sywhenwaterwaabackedup
emml~ea '.~lDIstr~!mperformed
notdetetmlnetheaetualdemgnofMmnem
Creek. rother It will nameam how ,d--mite tie-
The followtoa specific tasks will be performed:
2
Thefoeusoftheh)ebxlseysnababwfilbe
upon the prtltrntn*~y design of a mulU-pur-
poseehannelwktharlverwnnr. ozother
pedestrlsn -mens,ee. The potential for the
features snd methods to e~'*l;"'-b psrk snd/et
rectts~us~mtheeb*n
PRODUCT: ~-s eN,~ lnfmSnseture Analysis
BUDGWI~. $10.600
~m, = 1.6 - Baseline Traffic_and
demand.
1- 1-~ ~ l~ovrlpa st:
· Ranc/ioaz~armaRoad
· Rou~7g
I- 1Fi SR Rnrr~.~ nt.
· Rcs, L,' 79
Exhibit "A"
banes snd medi-n ~ slong road-
way link which Inteftsaneet these
· . 2WsmeVeSumes
c. hUtSen Csp~tr SmlS~
D. asksnix,,.,_
sppmsmmtely bow many on-sU~t parkm~
spaces sre available for eomm~ uses,
PRODUC~. An mustrated status x~ort will be
prcpami which depicts ~lel~ traffic
outthcstudysrea
TIMEFRAME:3wceks
OM Tmsm "~ sl:i!l~ Pin
Clty~fTs:li.: .~
Exhibit "A"
bets
dotrig b,,~hle el and tr.wsneee lk)elme dais. A
wide vartet~ of dam sources wla be utlbed te
assure cmnpletenus and cross checb~ to m-
and private demographic reports such as CACI
and National ~n ~/stun8.
~ the data m ad~.ed and verified. aes-
tematic srml)~s wll] be camed out to hldlclte
what part~ular areas of the matketplaee afe
bcb~ well-served bw/Old Town. It can be ex-
pected that there will be some 8zlas of re. tag
sales ]eakaee and economic we,,b,xeH and
those areas will be described in terms ekmtF
understsnthible to the general public. In mddi-
Uon. and tothe extent poeslble at thts stnge tl
ltneated.
TIME FRAME: 4-6 weeks
BUDGET: $7.500
Theeemxanlcandmaxtetbafofmmtlongath-
eredmmdmndyaedlnthefirmtplumeawffi
l,-~b'?8 the bills ~ ,e-*..br-bh-~whlCb tmml-
n~mmemmaotbe,.qx~eatodowr, llmOM
Town due toisetof.s-.m~[ t market ~
er ~- ;;, ,~lam location. M,.cb-~,'- m, for
strk.,~:.,J vimble~,Y ~aees wi!l be pro-
p0eed. At the ssme time new ha.sincere can
belde,,-nedthatwouldfilla~tmmet
nesaes wig also be ~_ s __ Oxd and the report
will detsdl a varSet~ of ap!x:--hee to bum
reCfatll ~ -
The Fetw~:,~ work v/gl provkk a deaT u_,,.der-
Ma~ of uader-,,tnbe~ ~ and
bulk~ ma~ b,,-',,,-m su without a
da~Ja~OMtownbeeedupon
oppon, m,,ks for parking. rearmtram. and
other public f~e_n~e~.
Old Town SpecUk= Plan
ClyoITi
4
:~ e :Tr 1.9 * Ltad tlm MaU/lsltydleal'
Exhibit "A"
IzR{XXJC~. Map. photo album. slide inventory
TIMEPRAME:Sweeks
B~. $2.70O
, mar l. l I . ameir_m**onnd Re _norX
The eachground Report for the Old Town Spe-
elik Plan wil be much more than the usual
also eleady Identify the eholc, es avafiable re-
· t~~tks~ isUd to these strstegim, u well as their likely
· ,...~ exist~~ pub- deeFee of 'q~'ss.
· HtserksU'ucUae
· CreekenhmcementoR~rt~nUSs
BUDGET: $800
.XMk I. ] n. Mfah~tlm,
Urban Design Studio will prepare a nap Which
depicts the locations of historic structures
Based an ~ preceding work tasks, Issues, op-
port-. ~¥s. and eoustt~ for future study
area develolnnent wfil be Identified. The Ngnlfi-
ttcotk. and ev~h,o-on will aremat not only of
those factors Identmed tn the cst~s Request
f6r l'st,~.~-ot~. but also factors Identified by the
prqJeet team or proper~ owners In curtier
tasks. These fsetors will tr~ude. but not be
limited to:
wtthln the SPeclOc Phn area. ThSstask ln-
dudes the Identification of the remaining * ~dese~: Iottg-texm lnnd use ond zonir~ p~-
historic structures which have been rexnoved. · ~S~f~ and/arid uses u/~h can set
Urban ~ Studio will provide an up2mded
htstorle strueture ~ !St. ~ructtms de- ·
llrmated In the Raneho Temeeula Area .w . ,
Wornen's Club HIstoric Rl~so~ Inventory
the area.
Okl Town
City of T:S:LL~tf
6
eonstnmts will be evaluated and the 1~
,.ion snd evaluatltm wtll c,o~-'40r all of the
factors identified by the project ,__,~m or
through OTAC merebern m our eomm, p, qy
but not be rantted to:
Town ~ecillc Plan
CIty of Twneeulm
Exhibit "A"
~ 2.0 - IsUBLXC PART~CIPA-
Urbsnl:~Stadtoknowssmdhssworkcd
In small munltles whea*e individual prop-
myrMhssre~'Immmmmtsmpsm~. we
tnJetheC~Ttoseleetafu!!ssv~urbande-
sdvlsmy e~ ..... des_eeL
' 'CO .... U] fi~flt Ctall) ns~_hOde that we ~
mtherseope. TheC~yrequmeda'fir~
pation
Eady in the specific plan prooess. the project
tesznwfilmeetwlththeSpeefilePlanAdvlsory
Coom to provide orlenl-tton to the proe-
mssndtoreedvem3nxtregardingissuessnd
aDs]s for the sr~ that wfil be used to develop
Deal2n audio w21 fr-.n#nte group feed~-
6
prs~ess
BUDGET:. $7,000
~ dr "~.2 - sstssrdsv St.,
As a method o/soilctUml fuzZbeT eommum~y In-
put. Urban Oeml~ ~udlo pmpomem to b0M a
one day "drop-re" workshop h, a locNson
Old Town (perhaps the vacant museunO. This
will prc~de an opportunity for commun~
menbets to participate m the specific plan
process In an Informal way. and 'on their own
to discuss the specJ~c plan lh-ocCSS and
should be available. This meetlz~ method hss
PRODUCT: Full day meeUng. Input notes.
map graphks (colored)
· ~ FRAME: 1 ds3r
BUDGet: llo Cest
Exhibit "A"
~, mlr 2.J - Jldat larkalma with Cl_t.[
_ :arerag mad Plmnnln_~ ~.o~,mlmmlei-
'--~ ~orwillbetoLdent~broadmsuesrela.
Uve to the Plan and receive dtrecUon on plan
development. Thecomultantteamwfilbeprc.
pared at this time to discuss end,~fp and
action pro~sms and will solicit feedback from
thoseprtr~ ~
PRODUCI~. 1/2 day mW,qg. meeting notes
TIMSm~s.M~5hours
BUDGL~. $2,500
B~. 81,3~0
Cly of
7
Exhibit "A"
PRODUCT:. N/A
T~ME~2O
BUDGET: $3,700
UrbaaDeoignStudfoteammpmb~mwfilmaln-
tam continuous corn with O~ 8taff and
participate in ~-gular meetrap to
$rcas. receAvc input. and feerlh~p~r. These
meetings will also be used ss pr~ect mtr'q~e-
merit tools to keep sts~ and the oon~ultmnt
team trfformed. We
mum of nine meetme~ In Temecula with
staff. Ittsenvislonedthattheaemeet~lmwl
be held on Worlmhop days to the cg2nt poml-
b]e.
PRODUC~.. N/A
FRAME: ~ durs~ contact
BUDGE~: 83.250 plus $500
(rem~bursables for sll
Tasks in Task 2}
gnteres2d groups could be ~ ,m~ in coq/unc~
tSm u~h the Pr~Team's msfts Io them
TAfII[ 8,0 - CIRCUIa4LTION AND
PARKINGPLAN~
llsKS- - 'm'm. mfm, r4W , m ad
rdmmmmlubmm
Evalua2 future tral!le ru_-m-nd lev~. based
tpmbcm~ntSmsthwestSsts~,-,,znny
Phn..sSsssesssUng~f~~~-
~Jc -fr .sswellsslsckd~ and
Sks~y ~plswt,,mr-s fro' cSK'ulatSm and off-
Determix2 ,_ V s,~ sad future roadway capac-
I~,'-~1~'- ciemuwe!!upotentlsllmxkb~
OJll:a~-ammmll/'Sell ' t
Robext Kahn. John/{nh~ and Amociates will as-
sees the; '-qqg conditions. evaluate the
constraints and opportunlUcs in both the near-
term and lor~-term for circulation. on-street
rec~,v~-~nfions on the local circulation nct-
wots, msdwSy design features, and parlm~
Itra2Jel to achieve a re--orqb~e }~-w~e be-
tween 1) the future roadway capacity needs
vsata!~.'
Old Town ~mclfic Plmn
CayofTemeculm
8
ROBERt KAHN. ~K)HN KAIN & ASSOCRTEa.
vantages of couplet systems. The advantqe,
and dSadv~es of a couplet system in Old
Town Temeeula wEl be caz~ul~ evaluated by
INC. in conjunction with Urban Death StudSo
At thm time, It appears lhmt the only loglcll
crmamgtoPuJol Street, ezeeptfortheWv+~ _
l~Paas~,~ouldbeloeatedatane~zn.
Non of F~rst Street. The abort-term need for a
study prepared by ROBERt KAHN. JOHN
First Street and the Western Bypaa8 Corrm_,or
wmbeezammed.
The pot~ for supplemental on-ramp or off-
ramp ~rm to SanUago l~nn__..d from the
Hs~xvm be evaluated both m tzzma of
tic Performance. WIthin the Old Town area,
exJ-sUng and future parim~g features ~ be ex-
amlned In aletaft. Parking issues such an
and rise iocoflon o~eff-atreet parking arets~Ol
be studied. These demfgn reatures will be
portant element o~ the Old Town Tanecula'
Exhibit "A"
PRODUC~. An filuaUated status report wfil be
prepared which presents future
stu~ area potep--t improvements.
TIME FRAME: 2 weeks. which could overlap
withTask 1.6
panan lqpntl
Des~Jop altetnmtl~ clrc,,s-Rm plan features
and padnng v-'teip-s for input to the prcpara-
Uon ors ,(cc ..... e,,ded Rpeeme Plan. bahante
traeac impacts end padm~ demand for up to
Attend up to three meetings with the client.
project team. or Cl~ staff to
~. Aaammttv~ Plans/· _- ~ PtO~Mfiona
~'S+lm°te future dally link traffic volumes for
up to Slamms sltsnmfiv~ Isnd use/ctrculaUon
. stUnsfirm, bssed upon the ~}uthwest Dts-
trlet/(~l}, of Temeeula C-,eneral Plsm l'rafik
C,
Cakulate volume-to-capselty ratios for Gen-
eral Plan buffdour condlUona on roadway
!lnim. with up to three alternative land
use/uctwfak scenarios.
CNy of T. sAie_-'~-
O
Estimate future off-mtrcct paz~ acqutrr
menis for p~opns~f land uses. M~h up tO tbzec
alternative land umc/networ~ scenarlo~
r-:o , .- .... l, tmmCmmz~ u '/
Prepat~ recommemled cJznshUon
roadwSy ~ features, and padang stxa~-
ges to Ischleve a~- able1 -'-~e!~t., ~
future roadway capsorry needs and pmztin(
dern-w~sk 2) enl'mZk'~z~nt of the Old '["kSmn's
PRODUCT~ An illustrat~d llns] report will be
prepsred which l~se_:'e the
for 01d Town and sll su~lsstln~
~matena~
TIM~~:3weeks
BUDGET: $8.000
Exhibit "A"
T. 4.0 o
yaSMa,wOsss.
'h-d, 4.1 - rad~le mwd rsIIJQGJJMII
ThepswpsaUmaofamdssmdo~tsthe
keytoWuc:~rs ofthespecmcplsnpxmFam.
While the k:iPntm,,-Uon of cxis. u~ eomgq~on,~
magi ev,,k,--'- of issues snd opps'tunUscs
does much to sssdst in undcretm,,4s~tl:~e
atudyareaandlsm~tsfutux~m~htbeman-
mJed, Llae s, : Ync plan land use map IdenOb~
v~!m~ '-_ T a~,ktm-M~ and I-sdew"l Idcnlily.
the s!~e~:lf'c plan. iM'ov/de directton, ,,.p,~m~ t
~ thc ~ ptm for the study arca's
fatttrc.
Ps~m~mn7 8tatn~nt of Goals and CroJecm~
etmaprmmsc 1--' ..... ,,s to resolve ' '- t'mftsd con-
T!!d~FRAM~:2wccks
1MJDC. AT: IX .500
10
To define l:rroJect ~nt_ itexnat2es. a
the previously prepaxed mapldng Bmtgrmmd
Report. exl~bRs, and othcr mfonnaUoo and
documents. With the experts in one room at
one time. Ithasbeen ourexpexmacethataiter-
validity than expatcn~d otherwise. Mozc Im-
five development of Old Towr~ The charette
will also serve as ~ basis for formulating an
ovenall commumt~ design. presexvati~ and
developmcnt strategy. The following
tiorm will be featured:
Exhibit "A"
Urban DesSgn Studio wOl p~cp*,~ a final mas-
tcr phn fonowing staff, OTAC. pubnc, and
deeted ollc~mput. We Plan to filusmate and
cokrawxgmeexlnbXt48-x485 dm~
uctssconceptualmteplansfor-keyaStes-.
PRODUCT: Cex, Nefem~ Master Plan/Land
Use Plan mustraUve
TIMEFRaMX:aweeks
3:MIL,t-4 - l~RlllllGt.vm l'rn V,,~,,'
minetin Mem,,~,-nd,nm
· to ux~
Based on the results of thc deMen chax~ttc. up
t~ thnme development mate plan ~..- los
will be prepared for consideration in the selec-
tion of a land use plan. Kach scenario w~!
tucludc a dcacription of land use, clrculaUon.
parking. crcck enhancements. rehab opportu-
configuration of any proposed new dcvclop-
menL
PRODUCT~ Three ccdored
alternaUve~
BUDGET: 25.500
1. Storage requirements
2. Pump Marion locations and sizes
Waste Water:.
1. GravXLy pilel,no mzem and mutes
2. L2 stauon locaum~ and razes
Force main mixes and routes
Water:.
OM Town ~oclfic Plmn
~ Of TI:~,Ii
m Prov~ecostesSnaZeofeachmysaun.
BUDGWI': $10,ri/0
InkccpingwfthourlfsinStrestAl~=
this task will be very Jrnpoxtant to Okl Town*s
cot~sn-ed eeonornb- vitality. Any --~cc11/ul
corsumer know about the new scUviUes and
the outsetbylettmgtheco~snuzsttyknowof
the Ctty's comm;;-:ent to Old Town's vt~_-~y.
R continues to tnertase awanstess ~
the public psrdapstlon prec~ Once under-
way. a vsr~ty of tools sismid be ~,s to
bring the buylr~ public to Old Town and
fn,m them of sll the ~eods and
norated !tst of appropriate tools with
one, and qestSmsfortsrgetmarkat
Wl~tic it is not possible at this time to sp~,gy
specific px~gnms that would b~ appropriat~.
they generally fall sn~ one or rest d the
ltle'!lfll~'
Town ~:sclfio PI~n
Exhibit "A"
· s4reKdmsz-s4ps
m holk~ a: ~b-aLk, s
'Z'IMr.,r!~ME:21wrJrs
$1.828
12
Exhibit "A"
ban desert heart of the speet~ plan: lmad use
put togetl~r to establish the · dms.~s~,mtive
Draft/SpecUlc ~
tlons will be formulated for each subam d
the Spcc~Pi~Area. The rcgulaUons wdl be
formulated m coqj unction wlZh stuff input and
vsmon for tl~ Old Town area. The deveJOp-
meat re~:l-t~>-s aeciJon wl]] conre:irate laalg
A. e'- =-t :!~ovleloM
· -":" r :'-- 01xnt. side. sb'~gakle. rear)
Old Town Slmmclflc Plmn
Cmy of Tmmecuk
13
Exhibit "A"
g.,mrm~_mtne~ ~ bc as l'ollow~
l:~llX)t.lC~. Dl"kft DelaXI. G'!de'avs~-
BUtX:g'P. I,?.000
F~rm=mptaftheCSl,y's"redmk'vemxmon
d'thedrslt, Urbsn~Btudlowlilmmdeap-
proptlste~c~-'r: m sssd pmpa~a final dm~
doctmxentformchasmn~_othe .~q~-cseRan
Old Town ~c=lfle Ran
CIty of Ta.ne eu.ma
14
5.4 -_Btreet:aem_ae
The px~ focus of m, _- task w~l bc the
view of me Ctty's e-~st-~ streetscspe sad
public Impa~.v~.u,,.dt plans with tbc intent of
Rdevmnt tnput frmn Cit~ stsff, the Old Tram
Advlsoay Co~.--.~ttee. and theJoUR wnrkshop
wlth the Council and ptan~.-,g
A, aUliat-of-WsIS~s.
dude roedarnS. mate c~vve'F, majmpl paxion&
alley usage. and street cui de t/closures.
Urban ~ Stud~ w~i prepare streetscape
plans which mapleanent the_ Joals and otlJec-
tires of Old Tow~ The streetscam will be
sCyasscaay suSted to the 'western" theme.
Components ms~r mclucit
Exhibit "A"
c x'eeempM,,a, me,,m
UrbanDcNgnStudlowfi/ln-qNireapublicslg-
nsJep*ogamst~qisUcaHyp,n__,~j tothe
"western" theme and the streetme, ape elements
selected. 8~n csmsl~m~Asls will include:
Right-of-way alternatives.
mLr~c~l~ cs, mp,ments. public
me Ca;, and p~ab~cts~ developers (mdudm~
tin:de ---t rep~'~ to direct design
wlthintheOMTownhatmlcmr~.
PROD~ Hstorle PZesezvaLIon Ord,n-nce
TlblEFRAME:3weeks
BUDOWr: $1.280
Town Specmc Plmn
CIty of Temeculm
Exhibit "A"
A. DowntmmrasW. SUetefr
ilell.t. tlSt~t'f 1~ Itssalivas
made.. fillsme-
mcnt Consultants will develop a pre~m~S~,y
~ l.,,.c~e' ,auon/rehabll~mm mesm~
programs an4 funding sources for review by
durcs for nonconf~rmmJ
alteraUmm/addaUons, allowas for van*
ations in parki~ and open space
requirements. and other aimliar Imuet A rata-
sources wtll be idenUftml. With input fnan
staff. a realistic nnplementataon strateff wtli
be developed for tncluston in the specific plan
document.
The first step In the preparation of the Imple-
mentaLton program will be to identify the full
range of publ.~ mframxucture and factitUes re-
qutred to Implement the plan. Including Image
crthan~ment features, RANPAt w111 prepmAc
thin nectlon of the ~peclflc FInn. See Task 4. 4.
~t: qldyahlldll~mmf',~"nl" W fereaehofthc
ItcmSV~n,P-d abovew~lbeJde..t. fl'k'd- Mecha-
nilme d Indlde vattin m.--~'.,f.
sudaattazlncrmamam, tam~bonds,
trfctt. mdstix~ a!ld poteeq:~1 fees. dlxtct
mlM:t~.'t" ": laeJa efthe qd' t.ttb.d
~ WiB t.131ell ~ tYro'halted i term8 of
,co "' ~ywlthFPaisandx~JectSes-
I '~tdaa,opm~ofv'v~ 'dm-
trkStd. dee]oj..~.~fcc~encuon~anddlrect
~ oontrf..-.e"-- -. AmeeOng wfil be held
w..htheCttFtotevJewce ~
Old Town ,qlMr, lflc Plmn
City Of Tss.,an'q-
le
Exhibit "A"
· #m. cwd6,,4e use ~ds2a,,,.,~ llcerU~l~
' ~ u.$emaaxs~ensnt
First Year Ipedflo Plan
Implementation Review
Within one year after adopt Jan of the Old
Temecula Specific Plan. a one-dm0r
monwfilbeplannedwtthCltymtafftorevtew
ImplemcnIatlon pt~c~, and to ascertain
gin'drag potcnUal Plan Rmcnd.~,. or other
methods aimed at z~sotving identified pmb-
Icms/mue~. TI~ mentee
PRODUCT: 5 year lmsJe ~ratel~,, fundre{
bt'p~"~ to be defived mo u to enmurc that the
tailed Illfesmat2m eathe eemomlc h-n-mo to
tbe 01d Town and the _ _,~,~,,q-vwy for each of
the Im~i - --,~R. ----,-es mee~t)eed in the
8PecleRan. TblmdcmlkdlnformaUonlam.
tended to ssslst loesl~"--',-~- m.kcr. ln
-n~---sql mcmzcc z~sounzs in the moat ciTec-
Ure sssl -ntc~tnt ~.-
PROD~ Cost/Bene,qt Anslysas ttepon
(10 copied
'rIMEFRAk~:2~
BUDGET:. $2,450 plus $1.800 for r~lmbursable
forsllTss]mmTask5
taSK 6.0 - FINAL
~ el. 1 . jkdmlstllJXltJXJ.pwsd Pnhl!~
metban/sans. preservation · Nssw4msw DimIV,
lncenUves/fundtnfp XneenUve Progranm. - -
25 copies or the/-qmtnsm,Yattve
Draft 5pectfic Plan
TlME FRAME: 5 wccks
BUDGET: $12.000
15.7 - CostlBenefit,.Anal~aJl
A prclunirmzy budget for the tmplcmentaUon
of each recommended action will be estab-
lished in enough detail to tallow a realmac
assessrp~nt of each componcnt*s feasfbUl~y. All
avafiable resources. whcd2r hmnan, phTsical,
not ex~ to acccmpt,;h the goals and obJec-
fives. mechanisms for sugrnenq the ex/stlng
resources shall be propomed, The_ cemponenl
Once component task products and graphscs
have been tntepataL the p--nn,mng text. m-
dudht the Introductton. goals. and
Implemmf.'tbn wfi] be prepared (.a-drntnsetra-
IlvC Dralt) and -, ,hmeted to stafffor their
Following a review and tncorixxatlon d staff
snd OTAC comments on the AdmlnLstra~vc
Dratl. m~r (50) cop2s or the PubUc Heanng
buuon to appropriate fndivlduak.
mastcr of Public Hearing Draft
TIMEFRAME:3wceks
BUIX~E~. $7.345
C~J? d TI.,~,I:'d'
17
Znsk 8.2 - lqnal 89eetfie '~ sn
of the l~.tb~ Nesnng Ds'sa: SpeSDc Plan will
p~.n~vfn, City Council adoptson or the
one hundred (100) copes ~each tithe Dual
SpecUle lqan documents will be uanmXUcd to
theCity. Thefina!P~Tmwi!lbebasedonT3r-
ban Design ~tudio's s,.~'es-..mal evah~t~
input received of the Public Hearing DrsIL
PRODUCT~
One hundred copies and one
reproducible umater of the ~
SpecmcPlan(a!ltexttobcb.
1 month. dcpevw~sr~ on Public
$4,000 plus 84.~d:X) for
retffxbursablce
foralltamkslnTask6
Exhibit "A"
Old Town ~eclflc Plan
City of Temeculm
18
Exhibit 'C'
City of TI,,,I[
ITEM 9
APPROVALE_,FRF.
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
City Attorney
March 24, 1992
CFD 88-12- Ynez Corridor Reimbursement Regulations
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING
CITY EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT 88-12 (YNEZ CORRIDOR) AS
REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY REGULATIONS (SECTION 1.103-18)
BACKGROUND: Cities typically make expenditures in anticipation of issuance
of tax exempt bonds, with the intent that the City will be reimbursed from bond
proceeds. Recent United States Department of the Treasury regulations now require
that cities adopt a Resolution of Intention stating their intent to reimburse their
expenditures from the issuance of tax-exempt bond proceeds.
Enclosed is such a resolution in connection with Ynez Corridor CFD 88-12. Although
the Treasury regulations do not apply to Ynez Corridor expenditures made prior to
March 2, 1992, this resolution will ensure that expenditures made after that date will
be recovered.
FISCAL IMPACT: This will insure the recovery from the proceeds of the Ynez
Corridor bonds of expenditures that the City has made for the project.
SFF:jsg
RESOL~ON NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN FINDINGS
REGARDING CITY EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION
WITH COMMUNITY FACH-rrlES DISTRICT 88-12 (YNEZ
CORRIDOR) AS REQUIRI~D BY UN1T~i3 STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY REGULATIONS
(SECTION 1,103.-18)
WHEREAS, on January 27, 1992, the United States Department of the Treasury (the
"Treasury") issued final regulations (Section 1.103-18) relating to the use of bond proceeds for
the reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance of bonds (the
"Reimbursement Regulations"); and
WHEREAS, under the Reimbursement Regulations, in general, if specified requirements
are satisfied, the proceeds used for reimbursement are deemed to be spent on the date of
reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, if such requirements are not satisfied, then proceeds used for
reimbursement will remain subject to the rebate, arbitrage and other rules relating to tax-
exemption until ultimately spent; and
WHEREAS, the Reimbursement Regulations apply to tax-exempt obligations issued after
March 2, 1992, except that the Reimbursement Regulations do not apply to expenditures before
such date if such expenditures were made after September 8, 1989, and if there was objective
evidence at the time of the expenditures that the issuer reasonably expected to reimburse the
expenditure with bond proceeds; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 1991, by its minute action authorizing execution of three
Joint Financing Agreements for CFD 88-12, the City of Temecula ("City") declared its intention
to reimburse certain expenditures it~ would make for Community Facilities District 88-12 (Ynez
Corridor), the ("Project") with the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations, the County of Riverside
intends to issue after March 2, 1992 the ("Obligations"). City has to date made expenditures
approximating $1,300,000.00 and intends to make further expenditures relating to the Project
in anticipation of issuance of the Obligations collectively referred to as the ("Expenditure"); and
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the Reimbursement Regulations, the public interest
and convenience require that City officially declare its intent that City reasonably expects to
reimburse the Expenditure with proceeds of the Obligations;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEII~RY RESOLV!~n, DETERMINII} AND
DECLAIiRr} by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows:
Section 1.
The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. City reasonably expects to reimburse the Expenditure with proceeds
from the Obligations. Th~ reimburse~nent of the Expenditure is consistent with the City's
established budgetary and financial circumstances. There are no funds or sources of money of
the City, or any related person or commonly controlled entity, that have been, or reasonable
expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside to pay costs of
the Project to be paid or reimbursed out of proceeds of the Certificates.
Section 3. This Resolution is a declaration of City's official intent under the
Reimbursement Regulations.
Section 4. The maximum principal mount of the Obligations for which the
Expenditure is made is reasonably expected to be $60,000,000.00
Section 5. The proceeds from the Obligations are to be used for the Project,
including, but not limited to, widening Ynez Road, constructing Overland Overpass and
constructing Winchester and Rancho California Freeway loop ramps.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall make this Resolution reasonably available for
public inspection within thirty (30) days of the date this Resolution is adopted.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and
thenceforth and thereafter same shall be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 24th day of March, 1992.
ArrEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HERPRY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution No. 92,- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 24th day of March 1992 by the following roll call vote.
AYES:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
CO~CILM~-~ERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM 10
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
March 24, 1992
Award of Contract for the Construction of Concrete Sidewalks at
Rancho Elementary School, Vail Elementary School and Temecula
Elementary School along with the Construction of Ultimate Street
Improvements on Margarita and Moraga Roads adjacent to Temecula
Elementary School
PREPARED BY:
Douglas M. Stewarti Deputy City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve award of contract for construction of concrete sidewalks at Rancho
Elementary School, Vail Elementary School, and Temecula Elementary School, along
with the construction of ultimate street improvements on Margarita and Moraga Roads
adjacent to Temecula Elementary School (Project No. PW 92-01 - Street and Sidewalk
Improvements at Various Schools) to Inland Asphalt and Coating for $175,890.86
Appropriate $193,479.95 (bid amount plus 10% to allow for possible change orders)
from Gas Tax fund balance to Capital Projects Acct. No. 021-199-607-44-5804. After
completion of the project, $21,388.00 will be reimbursed to the City from SB-821
funds from the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
BACKGROUND:
On January 14, 1992, City Council authorized the Public Works Department to advertise a
Notice Inviting Bids for the construction of concrete sidewalks at Rancho Elementary School,
Vail Elementary School, and Temecula Elementary School, along with the construction of
ultimate street improvements on Margarita and Moraga Roads adjacent to Temecula
Elementary School. The notice requested two (2) bids: the base bid, and the base bid plus
-1-
PwO2\agdrpt\92\O324\pw92-01 031992
additive bid. The additive bid will not be awarded because the property owner would not
grant additional right-of-way to complete the improvements.
The base bid consists of:
I. Rancho Elementary School
A. 11,500 square feet of sidewalk.
II. Vail Elementary School
A. 8,900 square feet of sidewalk.
III. Temecula Elementary School
A. Street widening, including sidewalks on Margarita and Moraga Roads.
B. Storm drains under Margarita Road.
The additive bid consists of:
I. Temecula Elementary School
A. Off-site channel grading adjacent to school.
B. Sidewalk improvements from apartments on Margarita Road to south end of
Moraga Road school frontage.
Additional right-of-way on Margarita Road will be required from the Temecula Valley Unified
School District. The right-of-way and documents have been prepared, and the right-of-way
will be conveyed prior to the start of construction.
On March 12, 1992 the bids were publicly opened and read.
follows:
BIDDER
Inland Asphalt and Coating
Nottson Construction
Matich Corporation
E.A. Mendoza Construction
Environmental Control Systems
I.P.S. Services. Incorporated
Excel Paving
Inland Constructors
R.A. Ruiz Construction
The bids received were as
$ AMOUNT
$175,890.86
$186,684.34
$187,173.05
$192,301.95
$193,355.00
$200,397.82
$218,745.44
$221,074.65
$235,799.23
-2- pw02~agdrpt%92%O324\pw92-O 1 031992
The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $208,381.64. However, with the current
economy, the City is benefitring from a very aggressive and competitive bid process, as
indicated by the apparent low bidder, Inland Asphalt and Coating ($32,490.78 under the
Engineer's Estimate).
The difference between low bidder and high bidder (total of ten bids) was ~59,909.00.
However, it should be noted that the difference between the (3) three lowest bidders was
only $11,282.19, therefore confirming competition in the public bids.
Inland Asphalt and Coating was able to achieve the lowest bid by reducing their prices for
concrete work (the items with the largest unit quantity).
DISCUSSION:
Staff recommendation is to award the contract to Inland Asphalt and Coating for the total of
$175,890.86, with a completion time of 55 working days. Liquidated damages for this
contract are One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per calendar day beyond the completion date
of the Contract.
Additional right-of-way on Margarita Road will be required from the Temecula Valley Unified
School District. The right-of-way documents have been prepared, and the right-of-way will
be conveyed prior to the start of construction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Appropriate $193,479.95 (bid amount plus 10% to allow for possible change orders) from
Gas Tax fund balance to Capital Projects Acct. No. 021-199-607-44-5804. After completion,
the City will receive $21,388.00 in SB-821 funds from the Riverside County Transportation
Commission, with the balance of the construction being funded through Gas Tax funds.
-3-
pw02~agdrpt~92\O324\pw92-01 031992
ITEM
11
APPROVAT.
CITY ~
ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFIC
CITY
MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council/City Manager
r~,ent of Public Works
March 24, 1992
SUBJECT:
Acceptance of Public Improvements in Parcel Map No. 23561-2
PREPARED BY: -~Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council ACCEPT the public improvements in Parcel Map No. 23561-2,
AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds and the release of subdivision
monumentation bond, ACCEPT the subdivision warranty bond in the reduced amount, and
DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County
and the City Clerk of the City of Murrieta.
BACKGROUND:
On December 4, 1990 the City Council entered into subdivision agreements with:
Bedford Development Company
28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 202
Temecula, CA 92590
for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds, issued by
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as follows:
2.
3.
4.
Bond No. 743 462 00 in the amount of $842,000.00 to cover street improvements.
Bond No. 743 462 00 in the amount of $142,000.00 to cover water improvements.
Bond No. 743 462 00 in the amount of $173,000.00 to cover sewer improvements.
· Bond No. 743 463 000 in the amount of $578,500.00 to cover material and labor.
Page I
PwO2%agdrpt\92%O324\PM23561 -.2
5. Bond No. 743 458 O0 in the amount of ~10,500.00 to cover subdivision
monumentation.
The following items have been completed by the developer, or his engineer, in accordance
with the approved plans:
Required street, sewer, and water improvements.
Required subdivision monumentation.
The affected streets are McCabe Court, and a portion of Jefferson Avenue, Madison Avenue
and Buecking Drive.
The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by
City Staff, and the Department of Public Works recommends the reduction of the subdivision
improvement bonds and the release of the monumentation bond. Therefore, it is appropriate
to reduce these improvement bonds as follows:
Streets: $757,800.00
Water: $127,800.00
Sewer: $155,700.00
The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for
one (1) year guarantee period as follows:
Streets: 984,200.00
Water: $14,200.00
Sewer: $17,300.00
TOTAL $115,700.00
The developer has submitted subdividing warranty Bond No. 3S 744 731 O0 in the amount
of $115,700.00. The material and labor bonds will remain in effect pending City Council
exoneration.
Parcels 19 and 20 of the subject map fell within the unincorporated County area and,
following City Council action on the City portion, were approved by the Board of Supervisors
on January 8, 1991. The County requested that the County area improvements be included
in the City Improvement Bonds and be inspected by the City.
Subsequent to the several approval dates, the two parcels were incorporated into the newly
formed City of Murrieta. City of Temecula staff provided all inspections and pertinent
approvals and has notified the City of Murrieta of those facts.
AC:clh
Attachments:
Vicinity Maps
Subdivision Warranty Bond
Pege 2 pwO2%egdrpt%92%O324%PM23561-.2
/
/
/ ~
WSINIT)"
***te~/BND10630
BOND NO:
PREMIUM:
3S 744 73] oo
$2,8~4.00
CITY OF TEMBCULA
~UBDM SZON WARRANTY BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, State of California
(heretnafter designated as "City*),
and Bedford DeveloDment Co. (heretnafter designated as
ePrincipalm) have entered into an agreement whereby
Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated
public improvements, which said agreement,
dated 19 , and identified as
Project Parcel MaD No. 23561-2 , is hereby referred to
and made a part hereof~ and '-'-l,'-'
WHEREAS, PTinctpal is required to warranty the work
done under the terms of the agreement for a period of one
(1) year following acceptance thereof by City against any
defective work or labor done or defective materials
furnished, in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the
estimated cost of the improvements~
NOW, THEREFORE, we the Principal an~~ H~UAL CA~ALTY ce4PAm-
as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of
Temecula, California, in the penal sum of $ 115,700.00,
lawful money of the United States, for the payment of such
sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs,
successors, executors and administrators, jotntly and
severally.
-1-
J eu/BNDZ0630
The condition of this obligation is such that the
obligation shall become null and void if the above-bounded
Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators,
successors, or assigns, shall in all things stand to, abide
by, well and truly keep, and perform the covenants,
conditions, and provisions in the agreement and any
alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their
part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner
therein specified, and in all respects according to his or
their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save
harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, agents, and
employees, as therein stipulated~ :otherwise, this obligation
shall be and remain in full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in
addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall
be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees,
including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in
successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as
costs and included in any Judgment rendered.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no
change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the
terms of the agreement or to the work to be performed
thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall
in anyway affect its obligations on this bond, and it does
hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time,
- -2-
S~ATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) SS.
6XXAVEY .Las Angeles )
day of DECEMBER
personally Appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of sa~-factory evidence) to be
the person whose. name is subscribed to tb!~ instrument as the Attorney-in-Fact of
LUMBERMENS MUT~]AL CASUALTY COMPANY · and ac~ledcjE~ to lJe that he (she) hl/bscribed
the na~ of said om~any thereto as S~ty,
and h~- (her) own name as Attorney-in-Fact
State of California
County of Riverside
On December 9, 1991 before me, Renee D. Gentry ,
personally appeared Mohan Vachan~ ,
personally known to me (or~proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the. person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that byhis/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
j ee./BNDZ0630 -
alteration or addition to the terms of the agreement or to
the w~rk or to the specifications.
IN WIT~SS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly
executed by the Principal and Surety above named,
on DECEMBER 5 , 19 Q 1 .
(Seal)
(Seal)
SURETY
,, ~' ~ . ~o~, :
]iMBERM~{S Mb'IUN~ CASUALTY (II~ANY
( NIle )
ATTORNEY - I N-FACT
(Title)
PRINCIPAL
Mohan Vachani
Bedford Development Co.
(Name)
Vice President
(Title)
By:
(NAN)
(Title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SCOTT F. FIELD
City Attorney
LUMI~.E1LMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
Office: Lofts 6rove, ZL 6Oedi9 nanmE
mance
That the L~' term:runs Hutual CamJalty Company, a corporation organLzed and existLeg under the laws of the State o1
~t~ls, end hevinl its trLneil~L oftZoo in Lq Grove, Zlllnois, does hereSy 8~point
Vill~as T.. Cote of Los' An2eles, California AAAAAAAAAAA
its t~ end lawful agent(e) and etto~y(e)-ln-faot, to ssko, execute, seal, and deliver during the period
beginning with the date of lea of this mr and ending Dec. bar el, lt93, unless s~r revoked for and on its
behalf as surety, and as ire 8or and died:
Any and all bonds and unds~takinls rovfiled the asount
of no one bond or undertak exceec~s FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.0~) .SAS.AAASAAAAAAAA^A~AA
EXCEFTIQIIs NO AUTHORITY iS Branted to sake, execute, seal Bed deliver my band or undertaking Which ~Jar~ntees the
pa3nsent or collection 01 my prealesory ~te, check, draft or letter of credit.
This authority okras ~t permit the m obligetim to be split into tm or anre bonds in order to bring each s~h
bond within the dellor liBit 0t ~uthorlty ee Bet forth heroin.
This mintBent ey be revoked at any tian by the Lumber.~n8 Hut~l ClaJalty Company.
The exa-ution of snjch bonds and undertokinge in ~m 01 these presents shall be ms binding u~on the said
Lumber.~ns Hutual Cavity Coupmy as fully and ely to all intents and mJrposes, as if the sm had been duly
executed and 8ekelodged by Its regularly GlanCed officers 8t its pri~ipel office Ln Long Grove, Tillnots.
THTS APPOTNTHENT SHALL CEASE AND TERHZNATE WITHOUT NOTZCE AS OF DECEHIER S1~ 1995.
This Power of Atto~y Is executed by eutharity of · resolution adopted by the Executive Co...Lttee of the Board of
Directors of said L~s Hulu81 Casualty Cosashy on FeSruary 25, 1988 at Long Grove, T11/~LS, a tr~je and
accurate oa~y ef .hia~ 1s hereOffor set forth and 1s hereSy oort/fied to by the tradersigned Secretary s$ being in
full forge and
and filed with the leorotary/or the Secretcry shell have the ~r and authority to II~oJ~t Igef~tl Irld
$zt~y$-in-f~ct, and to 8uthorLze thee to execute on behalf of the Cmaany, and attach the seal of the Cospony
thereto, bonds ~nd undertakings, recogniz~$, contracts 01 i~ity end other writings, chligatory in the
thereof, ~ my such o~ficer$ of the CosDeny amy a~oint a~t$ for ecospt~e of process.'
This ForGer of Attor~ey is signed, axed and eartilted by fec$1aLle under and by authority of the following
resolution eted by the Executive Committee of the Bcerd ~t Directors of the Company 8t 8 eting duly o$lled end
held on the 2Srd day 01 February, Z~88s
"VOTED, That the siFtBrute of the Chairram of the brd, the President# my Vioe President, or their 81~ointse$
designated in writing and filed with the ~ret~y, and the $igr4~ure of the Secretary, the seal of the Company, and
certifiesflues by the Secretary, ey he affixed by facsimile on any pc..er ot eftorgy or !.~nd executed pursuant to
resolution adopted by the Executive Co...ittee of the Board of Directors m FeSr~jary 2~, 1988 and any such ~r so
exited, scaled and certified with respect to my b~.~d or undertaking to which it is eftached, shall continue to be
valid and binding upofi the Ccmpany.'
In Teeti~y Wha-eof, the L~/oarhens Hut~l Casualty Cospony has caused this instrtment to be signed and its
co~te seal to be affixed by its wt~rL.ed offLoafs, this I. day of Septeaber ,19 9Z.
Attested end Certifieda
F.C.l'k,Culloueh, Seerotary by
LUIllERtlENS HUTUAL CASUALTY COI~ANV
(ovr )
STATE OF ZLLZMQZS
COUNTY OF LAKE
to me to be the ~eee petsors ,bees neees ere ree;eotively u Senior Vie President end
Nutual Cssualty Coemy, · Corlmtioa of th8 Sta~e of liltnets, subwibsd to tPm foPseelne instPusm~t, 8~pss~sd
before me this may in person end eever811y acknowledged that ~hey be~n~ thereunto duly authorized signed, sealed with
the merperete ml end delivered the said instrument 8e the free 8nd voluntary act of eald ourpotation 8nd as their
own free 8rid veluntary met for the uses 8rid FurFoams therein at forth.
Ny msissi~ 8x~ires:
6rm E. Cenden, hotory Public
CF/TI~ICATION
X, N. J. ZarsdB, Secretsty o1 the L,. k: .-ns NutuBZ CBeu81ty ~y, de hereby ~ertify thBt the artembed' Power ef
Attorney dated Isletember 4, 1991 ee~ bebelf of ~ Wean(s) ms listed m the reverse side is m true Bed
oorrNt oopy 8rid that the m hoe'been in full foroe end elfmet sine the date thereof end is in full for~e mad
effect on the date of this aortAfists; end Z de further merrily thBt the seid J. S. Keeeer, Ill eed ~C~BteH~o~
who axemuted the Power of Attorney 88 Senior Vise President end Semretory reeleeotively mere m
exeoutien of the attached Power of Attorney the duly elmsted Senior Vie President end Seerarefy o1 the L, Larmeas
Hutual Casualty Ceepey.
TN TESTZHONY MHEIEOF, Z have hareunto subeerlbed my nee 8nd affixed the ~.e1~rete ml of the Lueberes Hutual
Casualty Company o~ this 5TH day of DECEMBER , 19 q |
This Power of Attorney limits the Bets of them named therein to the bonds and undertBklngs speeiflemlly reed
therein, end they have ne authority to bind the Coelmny exempt In the eerier 8rid to the extent heroin stmted.
FA 3&2-8 i-92
Par of Attorney - Term
PRINTED IN U.a.A.
ITEM
12
APPROVAT.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
-1¢> Dep rt ent of Public Works
March 24, 1992
Release Faithful Warranty Security in Parcel Map No. 24239
2~Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of street and water system Faithful Performance
Warranty Certificate of Deposit in Parcel Map No. 24239, and DIRECT the City Clerk to
process the release of funds.
BACKGROUND:
On March 12, 1991 the City Council entered into a subdivision agreement with:
David Asmus and Bill Sullivan
41877 Enterprise Circle North, #100
Temecula, CA 92590
for the one-year warranty period for street and water systems improvements. Accompanying
the subdivision agreement was a Certificate of Deposit, issued by Bank of America as follows:
1. Multiple Maturity Certificate of Deposit No. 07233-01920 in the amount of
$1,700.00.
The required public street, sewer, and water improvements were satisfactorily completed prior
to City Council approval of the Parcel Map. A Certificate of Deposit for the guarantee or
warranty for the completed work was posted and accepted by the City Council on March 12,
1991.
Page 1 pwO2~agdrpt~g2%O324~PM24239
The one-year warranty period has passed with no maintenance required. Therefore, it is
appropriate to release the subdivision warranty Certificate of Deposit in the amount of
$1,700.00. The affected streets are a portion of Avenida de San Pasqual and Sierra Bonita.
AC:clh
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Pege 2 pwO2%agdrpt~,92%0324~PM24239
VICINITY
NAP
ITEM 13
APPRO~
CI.TY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
March 24, 1992
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373, and;
ADOPT a Resolution entitled: A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Temecula approving the First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23373
to subdivide 29.3 acres into 7 lots with 348 condominium
units and 1 commercial lot located northerly of Rancho
California Road on the west side of Meadows Parkway
and known as assessor's parcel No. 923-210-014, and;
APPROVE the First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373, based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting on February 25, 1992 the City Council continued the consideration of
the First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373. The
items were continued to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The Council requested that Staff,
the applicant, and representatives of the Villages Home Owners Association (VHOA) meet to
discuss the situation relative to erosion. In response to that request the City Attorney,
Director of Public Works, and representatives of Bedford Properties, the Buie Corporation and
the VHOA met on March 3, 1992.
"" S%STAFFRF~23373VTM,MEM '
As a result of that me~ting, a tentative resolution was agreed upon. Bedford Properties and
the Buie Corporation have agreed to jointly pay the VHOA ~15,000.00 for past siltation and
erosion problems, plus an additional $5,000.00 if VHOA installs a concrete ribbon in the
wash. In addition, the Buie Corporation will clean the Long Valley Wash in May, assume the '
obligation of future maintenance of the Wash, until such time as the City releases erosion.
control bonds for the subject tracts. The agreement will then be contingent on the bankruptcy
court approval of the document.
The Staff recommendation above is contingent upon all of the documents being properly
signed prior to the City Council meeting on March 24, 1992. If the documents are not
properly signed Staff's recommendation would be for a continuance.
vgw
Attachments:
Resolution - page 3
City Council Minutes, February 25, 1992 - page 9
City Council Report, February 25, 1992 - page 10
S~T~3373VTM.MB4 2 '
AI'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
~' S%,STAFFF~aa73VTM. MEM 3
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 CONDOMINIUM 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 March 24, 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 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
S~TAFFRFT~23373VTM. MEM 4 ~
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now
within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
A. The city is proceeding in e 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 local 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.
S%STA~3373VTM.MEM
5
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 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 No. 23373, 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 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%STAFFRFT~3373VTM.MEM 6 ~
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.
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 No. 23373 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.
~ S%,STAFFRPT~3373VTM. MEM 7
SECTION 3. Cond'rtionb.
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 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 subject to the following
conditions:
Ae
Riverside County Conditions of Approval dated November 8, 1988
City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated November 4, 1991
City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated February 25, 1992
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 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 24th day of March, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S%STAFFRPT~3373VTM. MEM 8 ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 25, 1992
$%STAFt:RPT~3373VTM.MEM
9
CiW Courtall Minute
DRAFT
FebNew 25. 1992
9, there is a problem with the language regarding park improvements
td to the City for maintenance. He recommended approving the
to a revised Section 7, accepting dedication pursua~
procedure the Community Services District.
;ular
It was moved
approve the attac
subject to staff
Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by
um of Understanding (MOU)
g a revised Section 7, as outlir
The motion was carried b' following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCIL
NOES: 1 COUNCILMI
ABSENT: 0 COUNCI
Moore to
Paloma del Sol,
the City Attorney.
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
Mufioz
None
Councilmember M voted in opposition
should be asse: the original 65 acres instead
Memorandu Understanding.
use he feels the Quimby Fees
amount listed in the
RECESS
Birdsall called a recess at 8:00 PM. The meeting was reconvened
ty Services District Meeting at 8:16 PM.
ring the
PUBLIC HEARINGS
17. Vestina Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie Maraarita Village
18. Vestina Tentative Tract 23373 - Buie Marqarita Villaae
City Attorney Field stated the applicant does not agree with the Conditions of Approval
contained in the staff report and is agreeable to a four week continuance to the
meeting of March 24, 1992.
Mayor Birdsall asked if those who submitted a request to speak slip would be willing
to speak on the issue at a later point.
David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of the Villages Homeowners
Association, asked that the concerned parties meet and work out a solution prior to
the night of the Council Meeting.
Minutee%2~25%92
-7- 03113/92
"°"" ""' DRAFT ,.,..~ ,, "'
Councilmember Muf~oz removed himself from discussion due to a conflict of interest.
Loree Santamoro, addressed the Buie Margarita Village maintenance yard, stating that
maintenance of this property has been neglected and other requirements have not been
met. She stated permits have expired and this poses a health and safety issue. Mayor
Birdsall stated this item is not on the agenda but asked staff to look into this problem
and come back with a report.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked that when an item is continued, public comment not
be taken because it is unfair to the applicant who does not have the opportunity to
respond.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue Items 17 and 18 to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The motion was carried
by the following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks. Birdsall
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz
20.
Mitiaated Neqative Declaretion and Condemnation of Prooertv (AP No. 921-30~
as moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmem this item to the meeting of May 12, 1992.
The moti, :arried by the following vote:
AYES: 4 BERS: Lind
NOES: 0 COUNi iERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMB None ·
ABSTAIN: 1 COUNC LERS: ~z
Councilmember Mull, he abstained to avoid
interest.
Ordinance
Ton
uire Fire Resistive Roof Coverings
Chief Building Official, presented the staff report.
,or Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:35 PM.
Moore. Parks, Birdsall
tO
~rance of a conflict of
IVlinute,~2%25%92 -8- 03113/92
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY COUNCIL REPORT, FEBRUARY 25, 1992
S~,STAFF:RPl'~3373VTM.MEM 10 ~
APPROV
CITY ATTORNEY :~~,_
RNANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER ·
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planhihg Department
February 25, 1992
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23373, First Extension of Time
PREPARED BY:
Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
RI=AFRRM 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:
The map referenced above was continued from the January 28, 1992 City Council meeting.
City Council requested Staff to review erosion control for the subject site.
The on-site erosion control has been deemed adequate by the Department of Public Works.
Relative to existing or past erosion, the Public Works Department has included a Condition of
Approval that requires sediment removal from drainage areas.
The new Condition of Approval has been attached and labeled "Additional Condition of
Approval'.
S~TAFFRPT~2337~l.CC
At present, s joint sppllcatioe is being pursued by Buie Corporation and the City to obtain
relief from the benkmptcy my to permit monies to be paid over to the Village Homeowners
Association to clean out the wash.
On a related matter, the City Attorney has made demand upon Bedford to clean the silt out
of the underground culvert under Pllomar Village in between Buie'a property and the Village.
As of .this wdting, no reapone has been received from Bedford.
%%
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map NO. 23373
Date Approved
Public Works Department
Prior to March 25, 1992, the Buie Corporation shall make arrangements to remove all
the sedimer~ from the open channel and box culvert north of Rancho California Road
between Margarita Road and Hum bar Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5%STAFFRPT~23373-1. CC 3
LAW OIPIPlCl:~
Wx'r-x-v,~g & SORBa'BBX
~00 Ime~L ~mea
7ebL"uaz'y 3.0, 3.992
Mr. Grog Brickson
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 200
Teme,~,zla, CA 92590-0736
Re:
Dear Grog:
'Phe ROy ~3Vmy"t: ,q~mr Palmmar V411aae
At the last Council meetingandduring the hearing on the
Temeku tract map extension, it was brought out that the box
'culvert underneath Palomar Village in the Lucky Shopping Center
is heavily clogged with silt. The tract map conditions for this
project required that a business association guarantee
maintenance of the culvert, as documented in the letter from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water District to Robert Bein,
William Frost & Associates, da~edMay 11, 1989. In addition, the
City Nuisance Ordinance, contained at Section 6.14.002(b) of the
City Code, designates as a nuisance "land, the topography or
configuration of which, in any man-made state, whether as a
result of grading operations, excavation, fill or other
alteration, interferes with the established drainage pattern over
the property or from adjoining or other properties which does or
may result in erosion, subsidence or surface water drainage
programs of such magnitude as to be injurious to public health,
safety and welfare or to neighboring properties.w
It is hereby.requested that you make arrangements as soon as
possible to have the box culvert cleaned and gated from public
access. I am also presently working on an arrangement with Buie
to arrange for their contribution to the cleanup of the Long
Valley Wash. I would like to see all these problems cleaned up
as soon as possible.
Mr."Greg~ric~son
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
February 10, 1992
Page 2
Please call me aS soon as possible as to when ve might
expect the culvert viii be cleared of silt.
Sincerely,
City~ttorney
ClTY OFTENECULX
CC ~
Gary Thornhill, planning Director
Tim Setlet, City'Engineer
Dennis Klimmek, Esq.
.... ~"~! motion wee carded by the following vms:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0 .COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 None
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall ca~ed 8 receSs a'_ ,;:25 PM.
previously scheduled CSD Me-. ,~g 8t 9:00 PM,
PUBLIC HI=ARINn
Councilmember Par'_ stated that although be was absent at the
review tapes an~_ _, prepared to vote on The pUNic hearings.
Councilme,_.~er Mufioz stated he would be absent from voting on Items 10
conflict . 'interest.
M-_ -j~ Birdsall announced that Items 10 and 11 would be heard concurrently.
Moore, Mufioz, Parks,
was reconvened following the
meeting, he did
11 due to a
Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. ~337~ - Buie CorDoration - Maraarita Village SPecific
11.
Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. ~}3373 - Buie Corporation - Maraarita Village Specific
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill stated that applicant has requested a continuance
for two weeks and requested direction from the Council whether a staff report should
be presented at this time.
Councilmember Parks expressed preference to hear public comment, but asked that
staff and citizens not report on issues already addressed.
Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks asked whether the issue on whether this project would be
restricted to Seniors. Mr. Thornhill stated that the language in the Specific Plan is
unclear and therefore staff suggest this condition be added to the COnditions of
Approval.
02/1&/~,
r-itv no~ecil Mir,:tes Jan,,,:rv ~8. 1992
Director of Public Works Tbn Serlet, gave an update on drainage issues, stating he has
received reports from two conf4dtents regarding the blockage of the Long Valley Wash.
He explained the Two reports reflect different viewpoints, one being the box culvert
was plugged due to adequate maintenance, end the other the blockage occurred due
to erosion from neighboring properties. He reported, however, that the two maps in
question have not been graded.
Myra Valves, 41566 Zinfandel Avenue, expressed concern that this development
remain a s'e't~ior project and not an apartment complex. She requested that a feasibility
study be conducted for the commercial site and stated the Vineyard tract has no
harrier to This commercial area. She also asked that a traffic study be completed, with
the impact on The VineyBrd tract considered.
Mayor Birdsall called 8 brief recess at 9:30 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:31 PM.
Mayor Parks asked that the Council hear from a representative of the applicant to
address this issue.
Jim Resney, Buie Corporation, representing the applicant, stated he did not have any
comments at this time.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemane asked Mr. Resney if he is willing to meet with concerned
citizens to put together conditions of approval to the full satisfaction of surrounding
citizens. He stated he would be willing to meet and put together conditions and
determine a fair share of costs involved.
Barbara Bentley, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, stated she is against approval of the
extensions end is very dissatisfied with this project.
Ralph Browneli, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, stated the density on this project is still
confusing. He stated the County of Riverside requires developer's to protect
downstream properties, yet Buie has failed to abide by this rule. He asked that the
City Council take a close look at the responsibility of this developer.
Diane Taylor, 41942 Humbar Drive, Villages Community, stated the Villages
Homeowners Association has had to pay almost $100,000 in damages from silt. She
stated that no one will take responsibility for this problem, and as a result residents
have been hurt.
Joseph R. Shekoski, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, suggested denying the extension of time
requiring the developer to resubmit with the City, who would then have control over
this project.
Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, stated the Villages Homeowners Association
has had to pay approximately $80,000 to remove foreign material from The Long
'Ninutes\1~8%92 -8- 02/14/92
,~lDMIrv ~8. 199:~
Valley Wash. He expllined that little of=this material originated from the Villages, an
most came from Bedfed end Bub Projects.
Jane Vernon, 30268 Metsay Court, stated the developers causing this damage need
to take rasp~~ for their actions end dean up the wash.
Mike FKlucia, showed a video tape to the City Council of a rein storm before the
Palomar Vglege Shopping Center was coaldated and before there was any erosion
control at't~e eule Corporation Project.
David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of Villages Homeowners Association,
approved by the Board to speak, asked the City Council to for help in working with the
developer to olean out the Long Valley Wash. He Mid if the extensions are approved,
the City will have no ebirrty to gain cooperation from the developer on these issues,
and asked that the Council deny the first extensions of time on Vesting Tentative Tract
Map Numbers 32272 ~nd 23373.
Jim Danow, Counsel to Villages Homeowners Association, stated the laws regarding
management and control of property require the upstream landowner to be responsible
for damage downstream. He asked that this problem be solved in the City Council
forum and not in 8 court of law.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam LindemanS, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
extend the meeting umil 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried, with
Councilmember Mufioz absent. ~
James Marpie, 19210 St. Gellen Way, requested that this project be conditioned with
standards required to catch the run-off so it would not damage downstream property.
He stated the Environmental Determination of this site was obviously not done
correctly because it has adversely affected health and welfare, and surrounding
property. He suggested the EIR for this project needs to be updated to reflect current
technology for water management.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 10:25 PM to change the tape. The meeting
reconvened at 10:26 PM.
Counciimember Parks asked staff to research any legal recourse the City may have to
force developer to clean up dirt and silt problem and what legal restrictions exist since
these maps were not involved in the erosion problems.
Councilmember Moore asked that concerned parties get together to resolve this
problem and asked that a condition be placed on these maps that it remain for senior
residents only.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans ask staff to research the health and safety issue regarding
the Long Valley Wash. He also requested that if first extensions are granted, the issue
of proper maintenance be addressed as well as a feasibility study for the commercial
Ilinutes~l'~l%gZ
City Co~q~cil Min~tes January 98.199~
phase. In accordance with the request from citizens of the Vineyard Tract, he asked
that 8 traffic study be completed.
Director of Planning Gary Thomhill recommend continuing Items 10 and 11 to the
.meeting of February 25, 1992.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continua .V..e~ng Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 and 23373 to the meeting of
February 25, 1992 with staff being further directed to investigate the City's recourse
in directing the developer to pay for cleaning up the damage to Long Valley Wash.
Staff was further directed to pursue the source of the silt problem and require a
condition that the development is Senior Housing only. Staff was also instructed to
place an evaluation of the specific plan on the 8genda.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mufioz
RECESS
,or Birdsall called a recess at 10:36 PM. The meeting was reconvened
present.
PM with
12. Chanae of
~631. TentativeTract MaD NI
- Bedford Properties
It was moved by
continue the public hearing
:onded by Councilmember Mufioz to
February 11, 1992.
The motion was carried by th, 6ilowing
AYES: 5 LI'~CILMEMBERS:
NOES: ~." 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
MBERS
: _'
Birdsall
None
None
Moore, MuAoz, Parks,
14inutes%l%28\92 -10-
02/1~192
%%
NEW RESOLUTION
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 CONDOMINIUM UNITS
AND I COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS
PAR((WAY 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 Msp 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 February 25, 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. Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met: '
Ae
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
S~STAFFIIwT%23373VTM.CC
e
The planning agency find., in epproving projects and eking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1) Them is e reasonable probability that the lend use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
rodled or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
%%
(3)
There b Btlie or no probability of eubstantiel detriment to or interference
with the future adopted gensnd plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately incortsbtent with the plan.
The propose 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, (hereinaftsr "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 Ran.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Covemeant 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 local ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
Ae
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 end
unavoklably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Ti'~lt'the design of tl'e 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, prom within the proposed land division. A land division may be
approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be
provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shell 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 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 conditionad 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
I~ITA'ERIP1~3373VTM'CC 9
adverse impam of the project.
The prop,el will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because'
it does not represent s 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 ea dcsigv~l end condltioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration for the project.
due'~o the fact that impact mffigstion is realized by conformeric. 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 currenUy
proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to
be adequate by the.City Engineer.
Be
38
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 cleady represented in the site plan end the project analysis.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with this application end her,in 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
Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the
community.
First Extension of Time for Vesting
health, safety and welfare of the
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 ~o
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.
mm'Amwn~u~rm. cc 10
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 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 25th day of February, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S~STAFFI~Im23373VTM. CC 11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
RNANCE OFRCER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gar~:rhomhill, Director of Planning
January 28, 1991
Vesting Tentative Trect Map No. 23372, First Extension of Tim
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, First Extension of Time
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
R;aFRRM Erwironmental Assessment No. 32547 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, and;
APPROVI: 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~ANN"~a72.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 ere 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~q..ANNING%23372.CC 2
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Subject:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manage
Planning Department
January 14, 1992
First Ext~n~io~ of Tene Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPUCATION INFORMATION
APPUCANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Mark Rhoades
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission:
BEBIEBBM EnvironmenTal Assessment No. 32548 for
Vesting TentaTive Tract Map No. 23373, and:
AIqz~nVe: the Rret btcnsien of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tram Map No. 23373, be~ed on the analysis
and findings contained the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approvel,
Buie Corporation
Mergerite Village Development Company
First Extension of Time for a residential/commercial
subdivision on 29.3 acres with 348 dwelling units
proposed.
Northwest corner of Rencho California Road and Kaiser
Parkway,
Specific Plan 199 {Margarita Village)
S~TAFFRPT~3373V'rM.CC
SURFIOUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
North:
South:
West:
Specific Plan 199 (Margem Village)
Specific Ran 198 (Margarita Village)
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Specific Plan 199 (Margem Village)
Not requested
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Single Family Residential
West: Vacant
Cix,~:,.lrcj81 ACreage: 7.5
Total Acreage: 29.3
No. of Lots: 8
IllV-dLni81 Acreage: 21.8
Prolmsed Units: 348
DImity:. 14.8 D.U./AC
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373 b 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 Tamecute Planning Colnmission recommended approval of the First Extension of Time
on November 4, 1991 by I vote of 5-0. --.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is an application to subdivide 29.3 acres of lend into
7 condominium lots with 348 units and a 7.5 acre commercial lot. The project is located at
the northwest corner of P, ancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. The project includes
Planning Areas 38 and 39 of the Mergerira Village Specific Plan No. 199.. The project is
'"" -- ','- ,,,, ..,-.',, ,,,,,. ,o ,,.. ,,, ,, ,..
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Issues which were raised by the Planning Commission relative to the project included perklend
and woNon control. T-re park issue is mitigated as a result of the appropriate condition of
approval for fee payment. 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 mad 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. 32548 was previously adopted for the
proposed project. It is recommended that the City Council rHffirm the previous
environmental assessment.
RNDING~
e
e
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be corm·tent 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
developrfi~nt standards in that it proposes articulate design features end site
amenities commensurate with existing end ·nticipatad residential development
standards.
There is not · likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future end adopted genera1 plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan, due to the fact that the pr{~ject is in conformence 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, end density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for 811 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 end 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 d.oes
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
us·able 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.
I~iTAFFRPT%23373Vl'M. CC
3
10.
The design of the subdivision, the type of im, lxovc.,~.na and the resulting street layout
are such thBt they am 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 relxesente~..~
in the site pin and the project analysis.
hid findings am supported by minutes, maim, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this appiication and heroin incorporatsd by referark;e, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the ached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
vow
Attachments:
%%
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning Ames 38 end 31 Standards, Slxeffic Plan No. 199 - page 5
Resolution - page 8
Conditions of Aplxov81 - page 12'
Planning Commission ~StBff Report - page 16
Exhila - page 17
Development Fee Check list- page 18
s~sr~nvn.,cc 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING AREAS 38 AND 39 STANDAFIDS, 8PEOIRC PLAN NO. 199
5
Please refe~
Plan Zone Ordinance feb )
& landscaped !ruff at- i= planned
38 end 39 to help e~.-.m---.4
the adjoining commercial uses_'.-
Village e · to serve
residents of the retiresent community, A variety
facilities are pZannedf the canta~ niX 4teal~4-
ms, :kw,~,s hazes, - svtms~Ln~, and
A Major Retirement
planned at the entrance to Planning Area 38 on Rancho
California Road, (See Figures ZZZ-ZZ & ZZZ-23,) A
Minor Retirement Entry lendscape treatment is plannea
along Kaiser Parkway, (See Figures ZZl-24 & ZZI-2S.)
Building height shall nu~ -v~- t-3 .Tusriel,- vBj:h ..a
m-x4-um height of 40 fee=,
Sub~ e~ to approval b~ the F~Te Chief ' end the
Department of Building end Safety, Ghimneys end/or
fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach into sideyards
· maximum of two ( 2 ) feet. No other S~TUC~UrLI
encroachRents shall be .permitted in ~he front, side or
rear yard except as provided for in Section 18.19 of
Ordinance No. 3 4 8,2 9 2 2.
-140-
-I&l -
1~3.ease z'~ez' t:o Oz'~Lzmacm Io.
Zone oz'dLz~nae ~ }
348.2122. (Bee
A.C~oBB J.a'l:o l~3.amd. ng Area 39 Ray be pz*ovldod
Rancho CL1.f.~ocnl&. Ifmd..~..,..,,d.:la.teer---lt/zkwuT.-- '(Bale-
r:Lgun
dr
38 and 39 to help lelw.l:l.t&,,.thn..1-,.-4.4--d'4'fe'e ;.ml,.Rf'pm.,-
the ad:JoJ.ning ooame3~rfL~UmeL.-.
Please refrer to Pro:Ject4idm:bsig~- and ~remal' 'Devel~-'
oimeAt Standards in lootton-rf.!.2,, ~or l~rther land
us standards t~at apply s:!.te-v:!.de.
:Plane r~Zez to Dile4.1/n,elFLde~"2:n b'ec~:E6n Ill,
--142- ~,,! )
ATTA(~IMENT NO. 2
IIEBOLUTION NO. ~2~,.
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 CONDOMINIUM UNITS
AND I COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF RANO40 CAUFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS
PA..RKWAY 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 Lend Usa, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHBIEAS, said First Extension of TIme for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State end local law;
WHEREA~, the Planning Canmission 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 Mid 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 parsons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council haaring: 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. Rndings.
That the Temocule City Council hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
Ae
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
e
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and Taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
.(1)
Them. is a reamMe 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)
Them 'is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with Ihe future adopted generll plea if the proposed usa or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3)' The IXoposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law end local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, {hereineftar '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 Pl·n.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map i· consistent with the SWAP and meet· the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
A. The city i· proceeding in a timely fashion with · preparation of the general plan.
The City Council finds, in spproving projects and Taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
e
(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 · 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:
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.
SiTAFFRPT%?J373VTM.CC 6
That the site of the proposal land division is physicsfly ejitable for the type of
davelo~,,ent.
That the site of the propoed lind division is physically suitable for ,
proposed denity of the development.
That the deign of the proposed lend divilon or proposed improvements are not
gkely to calms mdmtentbl :sn~ira,,.s.qtV damage or substantially and
unavoidably Injure fish or wiklfe or their habitat.
TTwt the design of the proposed land cliviion or the type of improvements am
not likely to cam serious public health problems.
That the deign of the proposed land division or the Type of improvements will
not cordliot With easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through,
or use of, property within the proposed lind division. A land division may be
approved if it is found that alternate ml~t,,.sntl for access or for use will be
provided end that they will be subman~eey equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subaction shell apply only to easements of record
or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Council in approving the proposed Feat 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'a future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and ip
accordance with State law, due to the faot that the project is consistent wi,~.
existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated desil,.-
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 conformsace
with existing end 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 conforrnance 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 pot, ntis'
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify the sdoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, AI~ROVED AND ADOFTB) this 14th dsy of ,January, 1992.
PATRICiA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
I HER~Y CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution we duly adopted by the City Council of the
CiW of Ternecull at · regule meeting U~lra:of, held on the 14th day of January, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council: ·
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCiLMEMBERS
COUNCU4EMBERS
COUN~LMCMDL'RS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
adverse impacts of the project.
The proposal will not have an adverfa effect on suffounding property beGeL
it does not represent · eign~icent change to the ixa eent or planned land use
The eel, due to the fICT tiTIt the propolld project is consistent with the
current zoning of the svl=jsct sits.
The project 8s deigned and condltioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural enviro~a,vsnt ss determined in the Negative Declaration for the project,
due to the fact that impact mitigation is realize by conformsrice with the
pfO~eot'S Conditions of Approval.
The problct has acceptable access to · dedicBtnd right-of-wBy which is open
to, end vssvbls by, vehi(NIm traffic, due to the fact thot the problot currently
prom access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to
be sde~O~sto by ths ~ Engineer.
The deign of 'the subdiviion, the type of improvements and the resulting
street layout am such thBt they am not in conflict with seem for access
through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact
-that this is clesdy represented in the its plan end the Project analysis.
hid findings are supported by minutes, rasps, exhibits snd environmentsl
dccumems ssscciatnd with this application and herin incorporated by
reference, due to the fact that they am referenced in the attached Staff Report,
Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval.
6. As conditioned. pursuant to SECTION 3, the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety 8nd welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indiGetas that although the proposed project could
have s significant impact on the environment, there will not be s significBnt 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 reBffirmed.
SECTION 3. Condition~.
That the City of Temecuis 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 I commercial lot located at the northwest comer of Rsncho California Road end Meadows
Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel no. 923-210-014 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hareto.
10
% %
ATTAC,IIt_"'IMT NO. 3
CONDfflON8 OF APPROVAL
12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TINECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tatin Tract Map No. 23373
first Extension of T. ne
Commission Approval Date: November 4, 1991
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Unless previously paid, prior to the ismaance of 8 grading parrnit, 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 Ran prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663. the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan ms
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
No building permits shaft be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the
project boundary until the developer'a 8uccessor's-in-intereat provides evidence of
compliance with punic facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars
($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the C. jty 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
shell 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 I)epartment
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, traveled ways, end drainage courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubrnitted for further review.
The Developer shell 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, iny subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
13
Delete condition no. 15 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September 22,
1988 end replace it with the following:
Prior to recordstion 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 mr into 8 written agreement with the City deferring said
.payment to the time of issuance of e building permit,
An erosion control and doe protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Pubic Works for review end approval. The installation shall be certified by a registered
Civil C~h,iri~cr for Ioaation and elevation, end site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to 'runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post s performance bond for erosion control end slope protection in an amount
approved by the Depertrnent of Public Works.
A flood mitigation chergt shell 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 parrnits. 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 Iqood 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 CA'IV Standards at time of stre.et
improvements.
Prior to any work being performed in public right;of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment parrnit 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~T&FFNI~23373VTM. CC
14
of payment of fee. ff an interim or final mabic facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building parmite
for the project or any phase thereof, the develolxr shall execute the Agreement fo%.
payment of Public Faciity fee, s copy of .which has been provided to develolx
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post security to secure
payment of the Public F. tcility fee, Thl mount of the security shall be ,2.00 par
square foot, not to excled $10,000, Dlvllopor undem that said Agreement may
'require the payment of fee in exceu of thoe now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the mount of much feel), By ;1~ i =',1ion of thil Agreement, developer will
waive any right to protest the proviaiorm from thb Condition, of this Agreement, the
formstioq ~f any traffic impact fee dimrict or the procaM, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for thin project nfnv:4ed that developer is not
waiving ill right to protest thl realonlbl;iAIII of Ire/trefrm impact fee, end the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
10.
Cortstruot full street improvestents including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway Usa and street lights on all interior
public streets.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed to the
adsfaction of the Deplrtment of PubFro Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12.
Traffic striping, marking and meet n.ma signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works.
13.
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 SEllVIM DISTRICT:
14.
Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shell 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 recordation of Mid map.
15.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicate to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
mST,Um'T~,73WM. CC 15
Pr.~J~NTNG COIaMvB2XON MvNOTR2 November 4, 1991
8. VESTING T~NTkTIV~ T~JkCT NO, 23372
Proposal for ex~cension of tj~ne for a 66 .Lot Condominium
and apartment subdivision. 469 dwelling units on 46.9
acres. Located noz~.hofRancho California Road, westside
of Kaiser Parkway.
g. TB2TING T~FIrATIVE TIUkCT NO, 23373
9.9 Proposal for exwcension of time for 348 condominium units
on 23.5 acres with an additional 7.5 acres of commercial.
MARX RHO~DES presented the staff report and clarified
that the recommendation was for the first extension of
time.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned approving the extension
without erosion control in place.
MARK ItHOADES advised that the expiration date of the map
was November 8, 1991.
ROBERT RI~HETTI advised that the applicant is in a
financial situation with their lender which they are
currently working on; however, the first extension of
time needs to be acted upon simply to keep the map alive,
and staff wants to get it to City Council. He added that
staff has a number of issues that will be addressed with
the second extension of time, and this applicant will be
required to make improvements to Margarita, as well as
other issues, prior to recordation; however, at this
point staff wants the erosion control issues resolved,
but staff does not Want to forward it to City Council
until the condition is satisfied.
COMMISSlONER FAHEYquestioned if there was adequate park
land.
GARY KING advised that all the City could request at this
time was Quimby Fees; however, staff did offer the owners
the opportunity to offer land in lieu of the fees and the
applicant expressed their lack of interest, as well as,
staff received notification prior to the meeting, the
applicants opposition to paying the Quimby Fees.
COMMISSIONER FAREY expressed a concern for approving this
extension without addressing staff's concerns that the
tract will have an impact on public health and safety,
which staff will bring forth with the request for a
second extension of time.
TPCMIN11/4/91 -8- 11/6/91
PLANNING COMX]:BB:]:ON
November 4, ~99~
MaRK KNOXDES advised that due to the time constraints
involved with the expiration, staff is trying to keep the
map alive to address these issues.
C~&IRMaSHOAOLaNDopened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M.
C'Ws~T.~9 GILL, 600 B Street, Suite 1100, San Diego,
representing the Margarita Village Development Company.
In regards to the fees, Mr. Gill advised that the project
i~ bert of a development agreement which stipulates
specific contractual obligations. The applicant is just
advising the Commission that they will continue to work
with the City on these fees.
In regards to the grading and implementation, Mr. Gill
stated that the applicant has indicated that the erosion
control and grading measures are starting to be
implemented; however, they are not sure if it will be
completed by November 8, 1991, but the Margarita Village
Development Company has received authorization from their
lender to spend the necessary funds to complete the work.
The following individuals requested that the Commission
deny First Exwcension of Time for VTT23372 and VTT 23373
based on the changes to what was originally presented as
a retirement community, the proposed densities and the
impact those densities will have on traffic and schools
and the developer's inability to provide adequate erosion
control to date:
CARL ABBOTT, 31987 Vineyard, Temecula.
AITA BLANCO, 31748 Corte Tortosa, Temecula.
THOMAS BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
R/&PLH BROWNELL, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
J.R. BHEKOSKI, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula.
WILLIAM BACCUS, 41571 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. Mr.
Baccus presented the Commission with a letter requesting
that the Commission deny the request and presented the
Commission with a petition.
MARY PHILLIPS, 41532 Chenin Blanc, Temecula.
MYRA GONSALVES, 41556 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
OTEVEN CURMOW, 41636 Chablis Court, Temecula.
CRAIG EVAMS, 41390 Rue Jadot, Temecula.
TIM KILFOYLE, 41529 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
MARTHA KARATT, 41752 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
KEN CHRISTENSEN, 31903 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula.
The applicant's representative declined their opportunity
to rebut.
TPCMINll/4/91
-9- 11/e/91
PTJLNNING COM][T. BBION MiI~u~-.-.8 November 4, 1991
COMMIBBXON~I FaHEY asked what the Co--ission's. options
were in taking action on taxis item.
JC~N cavAl~ua advised ~hat the Commission could deny the
extension of time, approve the request for extension of
time or the Commission could conditionally approve the
extension. In relation to the perk fees, the Development
Agreement is not clear on what is addressed with respec~
to p.ark fees; however, at this point, the City is taking
the:position that those fees ere appropriate, and the
City Council can listen to the applicant's argument
further end make their decision.
COMMISSIONER FAIIEI questioned what findings the
Commission would have to make to deny based on a health
and safety issue.
JOHN CAVAN~U~ advised that the denial would have to be
suppor~ced by specific findings or make the finding that
the proposed projec~c is not likely to be consistent with
the future general plan based on these findings.
ROBERT RI~H~TTI advised that if an extension of time is
applied for, the applicant has sixty days from the time
that the map would have expired to record the map under
the original Conditions of Approval. If they do not
record the map within sixty days, they must have that
extension of time in order to keep the map alive for
another year. He advised that this map does not have an
approved extension of time yet, and if it had been
approved it would be running out on November 8, 1991.
With the conditions this applicant has in front of them,
they will not be able to record the map in the sixty day
period. The applicant will have to get that second
extension of time and therefore the map will come before
the Commission again very quickly.
COHMISSlONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing
at 8:45 P.M. and AdoD% Resolution 91-[next) recommending
that the City Council Approve the Firs= 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, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FA~EY.
C~AIRMANHOAGLANDquestioned Item No. 4-C-6 on Page 8 of
the Resolution which states that the Planning Commission
makes the following finding, that Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 23372 is compatible with surrounding land uses, and
TPCMIN11/4/91
-10- 11/6/91
PLANNING C0~p~TSSTON ~TNUTv. S November 4, 1991
stated that he had a problem .accepting this.
COMMISSIONER C~~ requested that his motion include
that Item No. 4-C-6 be deleted from the Resolution, with
concurrence by COMMISSIONER FAKEY.
AYES:
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSlON~RC~I~-moved to close the public hearing
at 8:45 P-M. and A~oDt Resolution 91-[next) recommending
that the City Council ApD~ovethe Firs= Ex~cension 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, and deleting Item
4-C-6 of the Resolution, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
COMMISSIONERS: None
.............. '1' j l .111111 ' __ _' '
TPCMIN11/4/91
-11-
n/e/gl
%, %
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FIEPORT
S%IT~3373VTM. CC
16
CrTY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1991
CaN No.: Rmt [,¢t.n.~n .f Time Vetoing Tentmive Tract MBp No. 23373
RECOMIL"."~Z~ATION:
The Iqsnning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning
Commission:
AnnPT Resolution 91--- Recommending that the City Council
APPRnVI= the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Trsct
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 spprovsl, based on the
Analysis end Findings contained in the staff report, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Buie Corlsxation
REPRESENTATIVE:
Margsrita Village Development Company
PROPOSAL:
First Extension of Time for s residential/commercial
subdivision on 30 acres with 348 dwelling units~
proposed,
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Rencho California Road and Kaiser
Psrkwsy..
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan 199 (Mergerits Village)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan 199 (Margsrita Village)
Specific Plan 199 (Mergerite Village)
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)+
Specific Plan 199 (Mergerits Village)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
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 ee originlily 8pproved by the Riverside County Board of
Super~i.'sors on November 8, 1988, The First Extension of Time wee filed in October of 1990.
PROJECT DEaCRIIrrlON
Vesting Tentath~Trect No. 23373 is s portion of Specific Plan No. 199, IVlargarita Village.
The Tentative Map includes Planning Areas 38 end 39.
Planning Ares 38 is · 7 lot subdivision on 23.S acres. Three hundred forty eight condominium
units are proposed. The denjity 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 GENBtAL 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 .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 wee previously adopted by Riverside County for
Specific Plan No. 199. Staff has determined that said Elf still applies to this subdivision.
fiNDINGS
There is s reeeonsble probability that this project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plsn, which will be completed in s reasonable time and in sccordance
with State Isw, 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' snd anticipated residential development
standsrds.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future end adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformsrice 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.
mST~3373.VTM 2
10.
11.
The site is suitable tO accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size end
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for aH proposed reidontial structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the projeot'l punic and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as deign provisions are
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed end condidoned will not adversely affect the punic health or
wedfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval ere based on
midgesson seemares necessary to reduce or eftminute potential adverse impacts of the
project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony~ scab, INIk, height, dsrmity and coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, 'due to the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding lend uses; end adequate are and design features
provide for siting of proposed develo~,,.i.~t in terms of lendleaping and intemal traffic
circulation.
The proposal wR not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a igrd~cant change to the present or planred land use of the area, due
to the fact that the propend project i8 consistent with the cuffant zoning of the
subject site.
The project as deigned and condidoned wig not adversely effect the built or natural
environment as determined in the BR for the project, due to the fact that impact
midgetion is ree~zad by conformsrice with the project's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, encL-.
unable by. vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes acces
points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
The deign 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 projeca, due to the fact that this is clea.rly represented
in the site plan and the project analysis,
Said findings ere staplertad by minutes. maps. exhibit. and environmental documents
associated with is application end her,in incorporated by reference. due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report. Exhibit.. and Conditions of
Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Delartment Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission:
AnnPT Resolution g 1-__ Recommending mat the City
Council APPROV;: the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23373, contingent upon the
implementation of corrective grading and erosion control
measure 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.
Resolution - page 5
Conditions of Approvsl- psge 10
Staff Report-County of Riverside - page 14
Exhibits - page 15
8%ITAFFWm2~73.VTM 4
ATrACHNIENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 9 1 -._
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OFTHE RRST EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23373-A 8 LOT RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL SUBDMSION ON 31 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF
ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 923-210-014.
WHBtEA8, 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, Mid T. ne Extension application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHBtEAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on
November 4, 1991, at which tim interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREA~, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recomrnlnded 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 ~ 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 (dopcnd tm or actloft complied with all other applic·ble
mcluirementa of state law and local ordinBnce·.
The Riverside County General Plan, as ·mended by the Southwest Are· Community
Plan, (hereineftar "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwelt portion of Riverside County, including the area nc
within the Ixxax~,;tl of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as h~
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed Tim Extendon i· ca'distant with the SWAP end meet·the requiream
set forth in Section 65360 of the Gova.r,,mTt Code, to wit:
'111i City is p~cce.Ming in · timely fashion with · preparation of the general
Man.
The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building IXirmits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(1)
Them is reasonable probability that the Time Extendon proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being conddemd or studied or
which will be studied within a ressonlbie 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
ultirrmely 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:
Ae
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law end City ordinances.
The proposed sulxlivision does not affect the general health, safety, and
welfare of the public.
The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time
Extane~on, mikes 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 end 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 8menities commensurate
with existing and anticipated residential development standards.
(2)
(3)
Them 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 me fact
that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use
and deign 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.
(4)
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of
the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation pettoms, access.
and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structure; adequate landscaping is provided along
the project's punic 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 end conditioned will not adversely affect the
public he .al.th 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 I significant change to the present or
planned land use of the 8rel, 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 aIR 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, end 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~IT~3373.V'rM 8
That ~he City of Ternscull PIBnning billion hereby determines that the previous
environmenial .d;tc,,,,i,~ti0n Adoption of DR No. 202 still applies to Mid Tract' Map
(Extension of Time).
That The City of Temecub IqBnning Commislon hereby recommends that the City Council
approve The Rrst Extension of Time for Vesting Ternalive Tract Map No. 23373 for an 8 Lot
~ and cr.,.,~erckl 'mabelMelon on 30 mares and known as a portion of Aueuor's
Parcel No. 923-210014 subject to The .f~owing conditions:
1. Exhibit A ;* ~ hereto.
SeC; :~fl N.
· BASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991.
, .-,~;: ,,~,
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
- CHAIRMAN
· : .....J Hi~IEBY t.,r. R iIPf that the foregoing Resolution was duly ado;ted by the
Renning Commission of the City of Temecula st · 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
%%
ATT~ NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OFTBVIECULA
CONDITION8 OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
Firat Extension of lime
Commission Approval Date:
Unlearn previouely paid, Wior to the iamaarme of · grading permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisiorm of Ordinance No, 663 by paying the appropriate fee set
forth in that ordinance, Should Ordinance No, 663 be suereed by the provisions
of s Habitat Co·me·ration Ran prior to the payment of the fee re;uired by Ordinance
No. 663, the 8pplicor~. shall pay the fee mquirsd by the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinencl or rel41ution.
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the
project boundary until the developer'e I,x:celeor'e-in-intorsst provides evidence of
compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars
($100) per IoUunit shall be deposited with the City ·s mitigation for punic library
development.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of PuNic Works Conditions of Approve1 for this project, end
shall be completed 8t no cost to any Government Agency. All cluestions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff parson of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map 811 existing
easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubmittad for further review.
The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or ·mended
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 requirement· of said section.
Delete condition no, 15 of Riveraide County Road Commissioner letter dated September 22,
1988 end replace it with the following:
I=rior to recordedon 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 ear into a written agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of 8 building permit.
4I
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, end site conditions shell be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion, Developer shell
post 8 P~'~omance bond for erosion control and dope protection in an amount
epproved by the Department of PubHe 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 Dietriot prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge ha already credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
As deemed nccsenry by the department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water Die;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riveraide County Flood Control District:
City of Tomecula Rre 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 CAW Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit shall be insrafted to CATV Standards at'time of street
improvements.
Prior to any work being performed in public dght-of-way, fees shall be paid anc~ 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.
nTkmm~SaTa. V~M 12
cam, with executing this Agreemere, developer shall post security to secure
paymere of the Public Facility fee. The mount of tt~ 8F:udty shah be 02.00 per
square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that Mid Agreement may
require the payment of fee~ in excees of thoe now eetimatsd (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees), By execution of this Agreement, developer will
wive any right to protest the provisions from this Condition, of this Agreement,
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, JeW, or collection of
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project coyideal that developer is not
wiving its right to promst the ressonabjeneu of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof,
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIRCATE6 OF OCCUPANCY:
Construct Tull street imlxo~l;,~l.lts inoluding but not limited to, curb end gutter, A.C.
pavement, idewellr, drive approedma, parkway trees end street lights on all interior
.public streets.
11. AJI meet improvements striping, nwkjng end dgning daft be irmalied to the
satisfaction of the Del)e,~,,ent of Public Works,
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PEIVIITS:
12.
Traffic striping, marking end street name signing plane shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works,
13.
A construction area traffic control pjen M be designed by · registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Enginee for any street clomare and detour or other disruption
to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. ~'*,
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICY:
14.
Prior to recorderion of the final map ti~e applicant or his auignee shell pay the fair
market value of 4.07 acres of required arkland 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 aid map.
15.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD stsndarde and completion of'the
application procan.
mS~qqeq~7~.WM 13
ATI'AC)IIB~ NO. 3
STAff REPORT - COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DATE:
November 23, Z988
RE::
T[~IT, ATZ'/[ TT, ACT HAP :;0, 2337; )d .
E. A. NIJqBER: 3254W
REGZOIMI. TEN NO, ~pec,',,c ~ia,b ,'
Dear App11cant: ,.
x- APPROVED tentative mp subject to the attached cmdtttons,
· . DENIED tentative mp based m attached flndtngs..
The. tract, map has been feu~l to bi ca~sJstlnt vlth . all pertfnent elements ol
:RIverside County General- Plan.-and. fw- tn cmplfance'~dth the California Envtrom
I1uallty tot of Lg70, t w111' not have a significant effect cn the envtr~
anti a Neg~ttve Declare m has opttd.. ' -
~nmdS Is o o ·
A 'cmdttfmally appr · · ~,'ri~t rap'shell exptre enths after the' ap rm
the Board of $upervtso .. ,f whtch ts SITme ,~,~, unleSS ~tCtn
parted of ttee i finn . ~' el;roved th the County Rec~
'Prto~. to the expiratfen d 'l,, ' p for. an-.e.xtens4{
me ~ear and upon further' ap ~_,._.~..,?.,_,....,__,__,..k!..~_~._.,.._.
~~ ~Very truly'~mrs
.- .
PJ:VER$ZDE COUNTY 'PLANNZNG DEPARTH ENT
Roger-S. $treeter, Planning. Dtrector
Ron Goldman, Principal Planner
FZLE- k'HZTE
APPLXCANT- CANARY
ENGINEER- P;NK
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREF""~ JO
INDIO, CAL:F(.,dNIA
(619) 34'-
FROM: Planntng Depar~ent SUBMffTALDATE: November 8, ~988 ~,~
CT TAT ~r ~
SUBjE: VESTZN; T~ I'E and TE?(TATZVE TRACTS located in the "~
MergErIra Vtl age $pectftc Plan ($P 199 Amendment No. 1) - First
and trd Supervtsortal DIstricts - itancho California Zontng Area
RECOMMENDED~(~IOI~
Recetve ~1 FIll the Planntng ,Comtsston actton of 9-28-88 an~t'
10-5-88 for .
0
e_. ..
:,...
APPROVAL of Vesttn Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 ..
/irondin Ito. 1, 233P/3 Atomdad Nd. 1, 23470 and 23471 and T
*facts
2291S, 22916, 23~00 Atomdad llo; 1, 2310:r, 23102, and 23103 Amended
·
~ -.' ~* %v *
..
. :~.,. ~/. ,...~ ,.-. · ..:
· ~ ,.~.....? .,,.~L_,.,~?,-., ,.::~.~**:.** ****...~ *..~..
/ .o? .,.. . ...~; ..**'2~ .. . ,' ·
.
...
·
S:~ '~ :-~?.:,' * ~: *~ . :A ~. ~ '~ .'~.-' ***'.~,?~· · ~~ * ~ ... * - ~.,,. .~
RS : RD~ ~rec "
: ..**.*** ' :~ 5treeter, Planntng tot
~**~'~*.~,*.~- ~- 4'**~*. ......
~ *~ **'****.'.:-.,**~ *** ,; .* .~.....,
· **·..*o· .
~. ,...-. *** ** **_.,-.
Prey. Agn.
Depts. Comment: Dist. AGE
RZVERSZDE: COUNTY PLANNZNG CGNHZSSZON HZNUTES
OCTOBER S, 1988
(AGENDA ZTEHS 5'2, S-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SZDE I - TAPE 6, SZDE 1)
VESTZN6 TRACT HAP 23373 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 32548 - Hargartta Village
Development COmpany - itancho California Aria - First/Third Supervisortel
DIstricts - south of ilancho California Rd, vest of raiser Parkway - 348
untts -'31~ acres - $P 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTINg TRACT HAP 23371 AI4D~)ED llO. I - EA 32546 - Hargarita Vtllage
Developant Coupsay - Itancho California Area - First/Third Su ervtsortal
DIstricts - north of Pancho California Rd, fist of Margartta ~1 - 1283 untts -
398, acres.- SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT 23372 AHENDED NO. I -'EA 32547 - Margartta Village Development
Company - Itincho California Area - FIrst/Third Supervisortel DIstricts - north
of Rancho California Rd, west of ratser Parkway - 469 untts on 66 lots - 44~
acres - SP 19g Zone. khedule A
The heartrigs were opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m.
STAFF RECOIg4ENDATZON: Adoption of the nagarty· declarations for EA 32548, EA
32546, and EA 32H7, approval of Vesting Tract Maps 23373 Amended No. 1, 23371
Amended No, I end 23372 Amended No, 1, all sub3ect to the proposed conditions,
Ms, Stfford also recomended approval of e waiver of the length to v4dth ratio
for Vest1· Tract 23371 Amended No. Z. The subject tract mps were located
within VtlYmge A of the Hargartta Village $pectftc Plan, and would create 1763
residential lo13 and a olf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract
maps to be consistent with the adopted specific plan. Ha. Gtfford recoeunend-a
several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purrlance askf.
about aftscal impact report, and was informed this report had been furnt ,
recently for Amendment No. I to the specific plan.
JIm Resney, representing the applicant, brtefly revteved the develo;nent,
advtstng they were proposing a sUb-of-the-art adult retirement comaunity
whtch tncludeda championship golf course wtth a 37,000 square foot clubhouse
facility tn the center of the project. He then referrod to Condition 33(f)
for 811 three tract nips, whtch .roqutred front yards to be provtded vtth
landscaping and automttc Irrigation, and requested that this requirement
deleted for larger lots, as tt was hts opt·ton that these homeowners would
prefer to do thetr own landscaping. The CC&Pa would require the to comply
wtth specific standards. Nr. Resney requested that thts condition be amended
by addtrig to the end "or shall be Installed with1· 75 days after close of
escrow as provtded tn the CC&Rs tn the 45x100 square foot lot areas".
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Hap 23371 and Condition 14 for the
other two tract naps requtreda debrts retention wall where block walls were
requtred at the top of slopes. fir. Resney requested that thts condition be
amended by addtng: "if applicant can dmonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Road Coentssioner that · Master Homeowners Association or other entity wtll
satisfactorily mtntatn the slopes, the Road ConnJsstoner may, at hts optton,
waive thts requirement of ·debrts retention wall.' He thought that if they
could convtnce the Road Commissioner that there would be no stlttng problems
and that the slopes would be maintained, the debrts retention wall would not
53
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COffiqISSION HINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988
be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt tt would be better not to have the
smal 1 wal I.
Road Deparment Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and Condition 15 for the other
two tract maps related to the ,tintmum 30 foot garage setback from face of
curb. Hr. Resney feltsthis oondttton conflicted vlth the specific plan
deve]o nt standards ~tch allowd 16 foot drheeys with re11 up doors,
setbacCm:tther frai th back of c~rb or the back of stdwalk. He would prefer
to have the spectftc plan standards applted, but requested that the hearings
not be contthded.
Lee Johnson advlsed the slump Wall delineated in had Department Condition 21
~as a wall they had been requiring for the pest three or four years when the
Planntng Depart·mat required a block Wall at the top of a slope. Depending on
the stze of the slope, the bad Department Destgn Engineer could requtrea two
block htgh Wall at the property 1the to keep the debris washing down the slope
from crosstng the stdmelk. The~ would be wt111n9 to consider any other
alternative the developer might suggest, as long as tt accomplished the
purpose of thts condition. He requested that thts condition be retained.
Comtsstoner Don·hoe asked vhether addtrig to the end "or as approved by the
Road Depart·an1;' would give the developer the opportunity to provide an
alternative pTan, and Hr. Johnson agreed that It would.
Nr. Johnson advised the ·rage setback required by Road Department Condition
22 for Tract 23371 (Condition ZS for Tracts 23372 and 23373) was the minimum
setback requtred b Ordinance 460. He had reed the language requested by the
applicant, but wo:~d prefer to retain the condition as originally proposed in
the Road Department letter. fir. Resney explained they had been discussing the
posSIbility of providing a 4 foot stdevalk, and would 11ke to have a 24 foot
setback rather than the 26 foot setback required bJt this condition. However,
tf the Road Department preferred the extsttng language, they ~ould accept tt.
fir. Johnson advised the condition would not alter the width of the stdewa]k tn
way.
Co, afssloner Deadltng referred 1~ FIr. Itesney's _request that front ),ard land-
scaptn and irrigation not-be required for the laer lots, and stated she
felt trey should be requtred for all lots. Hr. ~or~dmah requested that the
condition be retained as ortgtnall~ vrttton.: '
There was m further testimony, and the heartng was closed at 7:11 p.m.
FXNDIN6$ AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesting Tentative Tract Naps 23371 Amended No. 1,
23372 Mended No. 1 and 23373 Amended No. I are located within Vtllage A of
the MargaMin Village Specific Plan (No. 19g); the three tract maps will
provide 1763 dwelling units and a golf course on 254.acres; Tract 23372
Amended No. Z has been condtttoned with the specific plan's condition of
approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts
have been condttioned to compl), with Specific Plan 199, Change of Zone Case
5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a wetvet of the lot length to width
~atio will be needed for Vesttrig Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. Z. All
environmental concerns have been addressed in EZRa Z07, 202, and the tntttal
54
RIVERSIDE COUNTY Pt. MNING COIg!ISSIOli MINUTES OCTOBER S, 1988
studies for these tract raps, and no significant Impacts have been found; the
tZ~O~: are consistent ,rith the ConFrehenstve General Plan (as amended
Change of Zone Case SZ07, and Specfftc Plan lgg Amendment No.
and confore to the reWiremen, of Ord~.nances 460 and 348. The proposed
proWloct v111 not hove · significant of:oct on the environment.
HOTZON: Upon motion ~ Coeadssfoner DOnshoe, seconded b~ Cam?ss~oner Oresson
and unantaously carried, the .Comdsston ·doptnd t.~e ne the declarations for
EA 32S46, EA 32S47 and EA 32S48, and proved Vesting ~tathe Tract Naps
233TL Amended No. Z kith · ~8]ver of ~h~ lot length to kidth ratio, 23372
Amended go,:1, and 23373 Amended No. I, all subSect to the proposed conditions
amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the
recoamendat~ons of Staff.
Tract No. 2337~
9 - Amend to reflect the September 30, Zg88 Road Deportment letter.
23(~) and 23(3) - bed to requhl the developer to comply kith the parkNay
· . landscaping requirements as shoe to Spectftc Plan No..199
Amended IIo. 1 unless mtntenance ts prowtried by ·
hammers association or other pobl tc~ eattry.
26 - Oeleto the last sentonce ("The final mp for Vesttog Tract 23371 shall
show ~he park as a 'numbered lot").
33(c) - Roof4ountod mchanlcal equip·at shall not be permitted wtthtn the
the c ubh~use vhtch my have screened
sulxItvtston, except for I
equtlaent Is epproved by the Planntng Department; however, solar~
equipment or an~y other Be saytog devtces shell be permttte~ '!th
Planntng DOpefront epprovar~..
Condition 34(a) for Tract3 23371. ~337~. End 33(a) for Tract 23373
Add 'and my be phased vtth the pro3ect. (to clarify that walls my be
phased v~th the development of'~he tract. ·
dutldlng secretion ~~ all ~11dlngs fi~places shall not
1us ~n ~ fat unless app~ved ~ ~e hparang'of kJld~ng and
and' ~e FJre De~nt per Specific Plan 299 Mnded No. Z.
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 b~ the Road Department"
SS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHHISSION HINUTES SEPTD4BF. R 28, 198.q
(AGENDA :[TEN' 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SZDE 1 - TAPE I SrZDE h~) v
TRACT HAP 23100 AHENDED NO. I - EA 32318 - Mar}bo oug De , Corp, - Rancho
California/Skinner Li:ke Area - First and Third Supervtsorlal Dtstrfcts - wes*.
of Butterfield Stage iM, north of Rancho California lad-- Zgl lots - 122.5~
acres - R-Z/SP Zones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 23101 - EA 32533- Hlrlborough Day. Corp. - Rancho
Ca:ltfornta/$ktnner LIb Area -Ftrst and Thtrd $upervtsortal Districts - east
of Kaiser Pby, vest of Butterfield Stage lid - 263 lots - 87~ acres -
SP/It-2-6OOO Tones. $chedule A
TRACT HAP 23102 - EA 32534 - Marlborough DaY. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lab Are -Ftrst and Thtrd SupervisorIll DIstricts - north
of La $erena Ihy, west of Butterfield Stage IM - 37 lo13 - 16.4~ acres -
SP/R-1 Zones. Schedule A
The hearlngs were opened at 9:49 I.e. and ciosed at 10:08 a.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATXON: Adoptton of the negattve declarettons for EA 32318,
32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended
No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. Z with a waiver of thl lot length
to width ratto, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps
were located withtn VIllage B of the Margartta Village Spectftc Plan, and
~ould dhtde the 254 acres lnto 605 residential lota. Staff had found the
tract maps to be consistent wtth the Comprehensive General Plant Spectftc Plan
199 Amendment No. 1, and the zontng whtch had been applted to the spectftc
plan through Change of Zone Case 5107. Hs. 61fford recommended several
changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relatlng to requirements for
maintenance of the open space areas, park requiremints, useable yard areas,
and fenctng requirements. It-. IClotz suggested modifying the last condition
for each tract map by beginning with the phrase "Development of the".
Comtssloner Bresson recNested that changes be made throughout to refer to
either 'publlc use trails" or 'recreational tratls" lnstead of *equestrian
tralls"; he felt these terms would ere accurately descrtbe thrtr use.
BatTy Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as
amended. :[t was hts Understanding that tn the event any portton of the
development agreement was held to be tnvaltd (for any reason), the conditions
requiring compliance wtth that agreement would be null and votd; thts was
contimed by County Counsel.
There was no further testimony, and the heartngs were closed at 10:08 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Haps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101,
23102, and 23103 Amended No. I are located wit, in Village B of the Margarita
RIYERSIDE COUNTY PL. ANNIN~ C()IHISSION MINUTES SEPT~BER 28, 1988
Vtllqe Spectfic Plan; the four tract raps nould dtv4de the 254 acres 1fit· ~'~
resident1·1 lots; the tracZ raps have been. condlt4oned tn accordance wtth t.
spectftc plan's conditions of approval to ,dOtget· tapacts on the Stephens
hag·m· list; the tract we ha· been condiet·ned to comply vlth Spectfic
Plan 199 Amen·nO No. X, E·nge of Zone Case 5207, and hvelolment reineat
No. S; · antvet for the lot length to vidth rgfo vtll be needed forA~ract
23103 Mended No. 1. All envtromental concerns ave been addressed tn EXIt
207, EXIt 202. and the 1fiteta1 studtea for then tract raps, and no significant
trap·cOs have-been found; the tract raps era consist·fit vtth the Comprehensive
General Plan (u am·dad by 6ener·l Plan Amendmat No. 150), Spectfic Plan ~9
Me·ant No. I end Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract raps conform to the
requtrments of Ordinances 348 and 460. The proposed projects wtll not have a
significant effect on the envtrnment.
HOTION:. Upon melon Carolsat·nor bus·n, seconded by Comtsstoner
Beadllng and unantmouSb~y carried, the Corals·ton edopted the neg·ttve .
declarations for EA 31318 EA 32.533, EA 32534 and EA 32535, and ·pproved'
Tentative Tract IMps 231315 bonded No. 1, 5310Z, 23102, and 23103 Mended
No. Z vtth · wtver of the lot length to yidth rat1·, sub3ect.to the proposed
co dtt4ons, ended as loll·as, based on the above ftndtngs and conclusions
n
and the recomendattons of staff.
Tract Nap 2:)100 banded
Amend to confom to Candle1·· 24 (to provtdo for mtnten·nce of the
cmanon opon space are· by etaher a County Servtce Are or a Homeowner
Ass·cleat·n).
PrTor to the tssuance of occupancy parEtOe for 160 untO· on Tract
23100, the park ares shall be developed par Spectftc Plan No. Amended
No·Z·
Replace with the standard ·1ternalive condition providing for
maine··ace of the co·mort _pen space ·re· by etaher · County Servtce
Area or H· me·whetS Ass·claYton. '
37(b) kin11 and/or fence louttons shall substantially conform to attached
FIgure ZZZ-28of Spectftc Plan go.'lg9 Amendment No. 1.
38. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Mended No. I shall
comply vtth 811 prnvtstons of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. X and
Develolaent Agreement No. 5
Tract Flap 23101
17(h) Rear~rsrds and use·Me stde yards shall have an average flat area of
2000 square feet.
22, Mend to conform to Condition 24 (to provtde for maintenance of the
croon o~en space area by etther a County Servtce Area or a HomeownerS
Association).
R/VERSZDE COUNTY PLANNXNG COHHXSSXON HXNUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
3e
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 untts on Tract
23101, the park area shall be developed per $pectftc Plan No. Amended
No. 1.
24. Replace vith the standard alternative condition providing for
mintchance of'the conmen open space area by etaher e County Servtce
Area or Homeowners Association.
37(b) Illlt and/or fence locations shall substantially confore to attached
Ft~e ZTZ-28 Of Speclftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. Z.
8e
The develolaent of Tentative TraCt No. 23102 shall compl vrlth al 1
rovtstons of 5pectftc Plan Ro. 199 Amendment No. Z and ~evelopment
~lrlesnent No. S
Tract Hap 23202
21. bend to conform vrlth Condition 33 (to provtde for maintenance of the
common open space area by etaher a County hrvtce Area or a Homeowners
Association.
3e
Replace vlth the standard alternative candillon prev?dtng for
maintenance of the common open space area by etther a County Servtce
Area or Homovmers Association.
3S(b) Wall and/or fence locations sh&11 substantially contom to attached
Ftgure ZZZ-29 of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. Z.
36. The develoment of Tentatlve Tract No. 23102 shall comply wtth all
rovtstons of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development
~:greement No. 5 .-
Tract HaD 23103 Amended No. I
bend to conform to CondttJon 22 (to provtde for maintenance of the
common o~n. space area by etaher a County hrvtce Area or a Homeowners
Association.
Replace wtth the standard alternative condition prevtdtn9 for
mtntenanceof the cc.~on open space area by etther a County Servtce
Area or Homeowners Association.
34(a) IAll and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Ftgure ZXZ-28 of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
35. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 &mended Ho. I shall
comply ~th ali provisions of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and
Development Agreement No. 5
4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CCI~IISSION HINUTE$ SEPTE~SER 28, 1998
(AGENDA ITEH$1-3 AND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE 1 - TAPE 1, SInE 1)
TRACT HAP 22916 - EA 32505 - Itencho Callfornt· Dev. Co. - Rancho Caltfornt·
Ares - FIrst SupervisOrIs1 DIstrict - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfie"
Stage Rd - 259 lots - 103.3s acres - R-IVSP Zones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 22915 - EA 32S04 - Rancho California Day. Ca. - Kancho Caltfornt·
Area - FIrst Supervisoris1 District - south of Rancho VIsta Rd, west of
Butterfield Stags lid - 287 lots - 91.6, acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT NAP 23471 - EA 32.518 - Kaiser Ikvelolaent Co. - Rancho
1
Ca tfornta &re - FIrst Supervtlortll DIstrict - south of Rancho California
Rd, west of Kaiser Pbrjr - ZSS lot3 - 44, acres - R-I/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT HAP 23470 - EA 32S17 - KItsir Development Co. - Rancho
California Area - FIrst Su rvtsorisl Nstrtct- north of Rancho Vista Rd,
vest of Kaiser Pkwy - 32S ~ots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Sc edule A h
The hearings were open.ed at 10:10 a.m. and closed at 11:10 a.m.
STAFF RECCH4ENDATIOII: Adoption of the attve declarelions for EA 32517, EA
32518, EA 32S04, and EA 32SOS led Ipprova~ of Tentative Tract Naps 2291S end
22916, end Vesting Tentative Tract Naps 23470 and 23471 sub~Ject to the
_lroposed conditions, and I rotvet of the lot length to ~dth ratio for all
our tract maps. TheSe four tract maps were locited tn VIllage C of Specific
1an 199 Amendment No. 1, IpJa would divide the 34S acres Into 1020 residenttel
lots, provide · 10 acre school site, I S acre park site and 3 tot lots. Staff
lot size lot length to kridth ratio requtrementSs park requirenears,
landscaping/Irrigation reqlJtrementse and I requirement for development of the
tract maps in accordance vrith the adopted specific plan and Ipproved
development agreement. .
Conntssloner hadling questioned Ha. Gtfford's recmmendatton for deletton of
the conditions for Trtct Naps 23470, 2291S and 22916 requiring landscaping and
Irrigation. Re. Gtfford explained these three tentative maps roposed minimum
7200 square foot lots and the County did not norma113f reWIre V:ndscaptng and
Jrrtg·tton for lo13 of this size. fir. Sireater felt this condition could be
retained, as tt ms County poltc~ to re;Ire landscaping and trrtgatJon for
7200 square foot lots tn the Rancho Cal.ifornta area.
Robert Klable, representing the applicant, advised they would prefer not to
provide the front '3mrd landscaping and Irrigation, and requested that the
-condition be deleted. Conurisstoner Beadling asked whether Hr. KJmble had seen
the letter submitted b:y fir. and Hrs. Pipher ob:iectJng to the density proposed
in the Ires Id~Jlcent to thetr estate type homes. At her request, Mr. letruble
located fir. Ptpher's subdivision which ms next to Rancho Vtsta Road. They
for t s
were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the spectftc plan
area. Ha. Gtfford advtsed the tract n~p was a refiltng of a previously
5
RIVE.~IDE COUNTY PLANNING COHNIS$ION MINUTES SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
approved map, and there was no change tn the denstry; the proposed tract map
was wtthtn the denstry range allomd by the spectftc plan. Commissioner
geadltng quoted free the letter, whtch requested that the denstry be reduced
to the denstry originally proposed by the spectftc plan. She wanted to know
what this denstt), was, and was tnformed there had been no change tn the
denstry.
Fir. gtmble requested that Condition 4 of the Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter
for Tract Z3471 be deleted, Thts condition requtred mtntenance ramps tn the
Long Canyon l;harmel s these ramps ware not needed because the had dest ned
thts channeT' *for thetr underl),tng vtth 4:1 slopes, fir, ~otz agre~ to the
deletion of thts condition. fir. Ktma~le then requested that Road Department
Condition Z6 for Tract 22915 aM CoMttton Z8 for Tract 22916 be amended by
adding to the end 'or as approved by the Road Commissioner"; fir. 3ohnson
agreed to thts change for both tract maps.
Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be full improved and
developed prtor to the tssuance of INtldtng permits for ~0 units, and ·
Ktmble requested that thts condition be amended to requtre the ark prior
the 1saulrice of occupenc~ for the 2Sgth lot. Providing the ful~ tmpro~;dto
park prtor to 150 untts would be a burden to the developer. Hs. Gtfford
advtsed fir. Ktable's request would delay completion of the park until after
the entire tract had been completed; staff felt 150 untts nould afford the
applicant an opportun4ty to butld some units, apj at that point the Improve-
ments could be tted tnto road tmproveaents. The la_rk nould also be useful for
the tract to the north, whtch was being developed by the sam developer.
Hr. Ktmble requested clarification of the new condition staff had su9 ested
for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r.
Goldman explained thts condition referred beck to the specific plan condi-
tions, whtch requtred etther a Hemorandum of Understanding wtth the Department
of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply wtth the Count3Ntde program
being established bJr Riveraide County~
Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advtsed he was acttvely
tnvolved wtth the task force appointed by the Board of $uporvtsors regarding
the Stephens ICangaroo Rot program. There was no set pro ram at the present
time, and he wanted to know whether they would be charg~ the $750 per lot
fee, or whether they would be held up unttl *a specific program ms estal~
11shed. He dtd not want to be dela d, as th_ey would be read to pull IN 1 -
tng permtts wtthtn the next few we~s. fir. Klotz explained ~e Board hadt:
general1), endorsed the concept of havtq a developer make a deposit of $75
per lot, accmapanted by an agreement to pa3r the fee as ulttmate13f adopted;
this would allen the project to go forward. He felt thts option would be
available to the developer. He explained thts was not necessart13r the
ulttmate fee, but was on1 a security to be deposited a~atnst the ulttmate
mitigation fee. Thts explanation satisfied Hr. Oudonay s concerns.
Hr. Ktmb]e advised tt was their understanding that tn the event Development
Agreement No. S should be held tnva14d at some time in the future, the
approval of the four trace =~;s w:u~ s~tll s+-end, but the condition for
RIVERSIDE CQUN~ PLANNING COle4ISSION MINUTES SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
compliance vtth the develoFment a reamant would be null and votd. Mr. IClot~
advised thts was explicitly pro J~ed wSthtn the develoizant agreement.
V
&
OPPONENTS: ·
Bob Ptpber, 42825 Greentree had, Tme~ula, advtsed the development tn ,hJch
one-third of this property. They had sulxwltted the
letter requesting that the porttons of the subject tract raps adjacent to
their area k requtred to create lots stMlar. tn stze. Hr. Ptpher had amp
6
of the Martsrite Vtllage Spectftc Plan dated March 30, lg8 , vhtch showed the
denstry tn thts area to be upproxtmtoly half of the danstay currently
proposed. fir. Ptpher edvtsed this ws an equestrian area, and people rostdtng
in the area needed ridtrig tratls. He requested a connecting Ira11 from Pauba
to Rancho Vtsta along the boundary betwe thetr subdivision and the subject
d
develoFeent or along Katser PartNay; thts ~ould provtde an a dtttoM1
landscaped buffer area.
Hr. Ptpher advtsed they had no problm vlth the proposed school stte, but felt
the circulation systm proposed to serve the scbool yes triadequate. In
opinton, Street "Bm should be extended to htser PurlNay; thts ~ould then
ptrovtde access to beth the school stto and the park from Katser Parkway. At
he present time there was a steady for of traffic, and providing an access
to the park stte end school frm Katser Perkey would help everTone tn the
area, tn addttton to raking the park more accessible. Because of the traffic
on Katser Parkway, fir, Ptpher thou ht tt would be difficult for people 11vJn-
on the other stde to reach the pa~T. He therefore suggested that one or Iv"
parks be raqutred on the other stda of Kaiser Parkway, to benefit residents .n
that area.
fir. Ptpher requested · solld wall along the bounda between thetr development
and the subject project. The people restdtng In ~hr~s are ware requesting a
buffer, and would appreciate anythtng the CommissiOn·re could do to help -
the. In answer to a questton by Cmmdsstoner Brasson, fir. Pt her advtsed
there was no street between the area he was representing and ~e subject stte;
the lots frm the subject tract mp ware backtrig up agatnst the lots tn hts
subdivision.
When Fr. Pipher agaln raquested equestrian tratls, He. Gtfford brte~y
revtewed the proposed tratl system, whtch tncludeda trat1 along Rancho
California Road, gotrig up the Katser Parkway and 1/4D easement; no tratls ware
proposed tn the southern area as requested by Hr. Ptpher. Comlsstoner
8resson requested that these tratls be designated as publlc access or
recreational trails tnstoad of equestrian tratls. fir. Burnell advised that an
equestrian Ira11 had been established all along Pauha Road, gotng east and
west, and there was a north south trat1 tn the Hetropolltan Water District
easement going ~,y the schoo{ administration stte, along Rancho California Road
to Kaiser Parkway. The residents of the .Green Tree area could use the trail
Department.
RIVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING COffi~ISSZON HINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
Con~tsstoner aresson requested Information on the type of buffer to be
provided. Mr. Bu~ne11 advtsed there would be masonry yells tn the area north
and south of Rancho Vtsta Road; be thought thts wuld sattsfy Mr. Ptpher's
t
conems. Hr. Burnell advised he Pargarttl Vtllag, $pectftc Plan had
originally been approved vlth a s11ghtly htgher denstry tn thts area. They
had-added land ~lth the ended spacfftc plan but had not changed densities
the area of the subject tract maps. The exhtbtt presented by Hr. Pipher
conceptual exhtbtt prepared by the engtneer for internal use only and had
never been presented to the County.
Mr. Ktmble responded to Hr. Pipher's request for an additional park on the
other side of Katser Parkway, by advtst_ng Costatn Homes wu providing a lark
planned for Tract 22715 to the north; they ware planntng to upgrade both larks
over and above the requirements of the spectftc plan.
ComlsstonerDonahoe asked ~hether stiff was recammndtng that a condition he
added to require the wall as a buffer between the subject tract maps and the
area represented by Hr. Pipher, and was tnformed this was a condition of the
speclflc plan.
Lee Johnson referred to Mr. Ptpher's aug eatton that 'B' Street be extended to
Kaiser Parkway, and advised both he ind ~:hn Johnson (Transportation Planntng
Sectton of the Road Deparment) felt thts was an excellent recommendation.
CIrculation tn this are might be improved by making this connection rather
than having the school served by a cul-de-sac t
street. Ths vmuld also gtve
beth the school and the park stte access finn · 66 foot wide street. Men
Conetsstoner Bresson asked ~hether thts could he accomplished ~thout
redestgntn9 the map, fir. Johnson replled he felt the map would have to be
amended. Hr. Streeter felt thts provide a mch better access.
Commissioner Beadltn9 felt that a lqng cul-de-sac street gotrig tnto a school
was poor planning, as tt requtred the cars and school busses brtngtng in
chtldren to ~rap around and come back out the same way. Extending the street
would alloy the vehtcles to drop off the chtldren and go out a different
Commissioner aresson was concerned about creattng a 4-wa~ Intersection, and
Hr. Johnson agreed that a 3-way t~tersectton created less problems. However,
1
he still felt that prov dtng access to Katser Parkway ~ould result tn better
circulation servtce to the school stte.
Mr. Burnell did not feel tt was necessary to extend "l' Street to Kaiser Park-
way tn order to provide adequate drculatton for the school. He was concerned
that the change tn the roadway might cause problems ~th regard to the sever
lines. Mar. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-way intersection at Kaiser
Park, ay; be felt retaining the extsttng 3-way Intersection would provide an
· overall better circulation system for residents of the area. Co.ntssioner
wou d not encourage through
aresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because tt 1
traffic along the school site. Hr. Johnson pointed out that there would be
less opportunity to eventually obtatn stgnallzat~on for a 3-way ~ntersection
than for a 4-way intersection.
i L NrliN
DATE: ~uns ], Xg88
Assessor
hfidtng Bed Safe~y
ServeFor - Dave I}uda
... Rod Department
Health'- lalpk Lea
FIrs Protection
FleaHi Control DIstrIct
FIll a Gin
LAFCO, S Pats1
PostaT Se~v~rce - bib E. Davidson
slsrlfrs tapirmeat
· SOSmass asks
J~t13 be8
RIVERSIDE CC:rJNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
VESTING TRACT 23373 - {Up P1) - E..
Airports Departant
3~48- RI tits Villa u OevsloFa
[astern Xuniclpal Voter Nat.
Rancho"Callfornta VatJr Nat.
tlsirmre Unton Schonl
Tmcula Union Sob.n1 Nit.
SIerra Clubs San Gorgonlo Chapter
CAI. TRNG #8
· Itsecho California A.m - First
Su ervJsorlal District - it. of Ran,
Ca{if, rata Road, W. of Iratsar Park,
bit Zone - 21 Acres 348 Condmlnl~
- (RELATED CASE Tit 23371 S 23372)
- A,P, 923-210-023
Please reded the case described above, along dth the attache case rap. A Land
DIvision Coat tees muting ks been tentatively scheduled for Oval 20, 1988, If 41
tt vtll then 9o to public heartag. -~
Tour c~ents and recommendations are requested prtor to has S, 1988 in order that
Include them in the staff report for this porttcular case.
Should 3~u have any questions regarding this tton, please do not hesitate to contJc
Kathy Giftoral at 787-63H
Plannur
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STkEFT.
iXDlO, CALIF~,
(
RZVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNZNG CO~ZSSZON HTNUTE$ SEPTEHBER 28° 1988
Mr. Ktmble advtsed they had met with the school district and showed them r. he
tentative nap; they were pleased with the conft uretton of the school stte as
well as the proposed Street system. tit. Burnel~I advtsed their ortgtnal design
showed the school/park site.adJacent Katser Parkway, end the school distrtct
had objected to thts plan because their dtd not want the chtldren adjacent to a
major street. Cereals,toner Bresson supported the tract map as currently*
designed, as 1t was satisfactory to the school d~strlct.
There was no further testimony, and the heartmJ
FXNDXNGS AN!j' ~ONCLUSXONS: Tentative Tract Naps 22915, and 22916, and Vest4ng
Amendment No. 1 (the Vtllage Slactftc Plan); the four tract maps
would dtvtde the 345 acres tnto 1020 residential lots; destgn renuals have
been prepared for Vesttng Tentsrive Tract Naps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps
have bee condtttoned to comply with Slactftc Plan 199 Amndment No. 1, Change
of Zone Case 5107, and Develoix,ent Agreement No. S; a wetvet for the lot
length to wtdth ratto k'!11 be needed for all four maps. All environmental
concerns have been addressed tn EIR 107, EIR 202, and the tntttal stud4es for
these tract ma s, and no significant impacts ware found; the tract maps are
consistent wt~l~ the Comprehensive General Plan (as ended by General Plan
n
HOTZON: Upon morton b Cemrlsstoner Bresson, seconded by Co,~ntsstoner
8eadltng and unanimously cartted, the Corals,ton adopted the negattve
declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved
Tentative Tract Fips 22915 and 22916, and Vesttrig Tract ltaps 32470 and 23471.
all w4th a ~ratver of the lot length to ~dth ratio, subject to the proposed
conditions and based on the above ftndtngs and conclusions and the recommenda-
tions of staff.
Tract No. 23470
17(a) - All lots shall have a wantmum s?ze of 7200 square feet net.
17(b) - Delete enttrely
20 -Prtor to the tssuancl of occupanCy permtts for 150 untts, one tot lot
shall be traproved and fully developed.
21 -Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy permtts for 275 units, the second
tot lot shall be traproved and fully developed.
27 - Prlor to the tssuance of butldtng permtts (balance to rematn the same)
36 - The development of Vesttn Tentative Tract ~p 23470 shall comply with
tts Destgn ~nual, with a~ll provisions of Spectflc Plan No. 199
Amendment No. 1 and with Development. Agreement No. 5
Trsc~ ~::. 2~471
9
RTYERSTDE COUNTY PLANNZNG CIX~ZSST(:)N MTNUTES SEPTEXBER ~8, 1988
20 -Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy pemtt; for 200 untts, one tot "',
shall be taprovnd and f. lly developed.
26 - Prior to the hsuance of buTldtng pamttx (balance to rmm~n the .same)
32(f) - All front Jm~ma Sn~h~.11 be provfded vtth landscaping and mnually
operated, umle round ~rfi lion
Flood Control Condition 4 - Delete entirely
35 - The davelopnmt of Vest1 Tintalive Tract leap 23471 shall comply vtth
1to Ikst Manuals wtth a~ll _provisions of Spectftc Plan No. ~99
kaen~m~No.. 1 and with DeveloFment Agreemet No. S
Oeleto Condition 4 of the F1ond ContrOl letter dated anne 17, 1988.
Tract No. 22915
24 -Prtor to the tssuance of buildtag pareits (belance to rematn the same)
Agreement Ito. 5
Road Department Condition 26 - Md to the end "or as approved by the bad
Comtsstoner".
Tract No. 22916
2 - Add the folioring: except for the lot length to v4dth ratto.
20 - Prfor to tJa tssuance of occupanc permits for XSO untts In Tentative
Tract 22916. the park shall be ~[ly traproved and developad.
25 -Prtor to the tssuance of bbtldtng parstts (balance to rain the same)
32 - The developneat of Tentative Tract Hap 23916 shall comply ~lth all
~Jrovtstons of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Mendrent No. Z and Develoment
raant No. 5
33 -Prtor to tssuance of grading permits, tapacts to the Stephens Kangaroo
Rat Habttat shall be .dt4gated per the spectftc plan conditions of
approval.
Road Deparment Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
ComisStoner".
Zoning Area: Rancho Cal¶forn4a' Vesting TentatS, Tract/los.: 23372 Amd.
$upervtsortll Nstfict: First and No. Z, 22372 Md. No. Z, 23 3 kd.
Third P1inntng Caantsston: ~0-S-6~7 14a. ~
E.A. Nos: 32S46, 32547, 32548 Agenda Item No.: 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4
Specific Plan Sect. ton
gmlrf FLAMING DDgnGT
· -SIXIF IPIIT
Rergar4ta VIllage Developme.he Co.
1, ~ppllcant: ..
-- 2. Enfine~r: Hck Engineering Compan3r
3.J Type of Request: The 3 tracts rill sutxihtde47Z sores
· ' .. -- -"' bed of ~pervtsors on 5-13-88 proposes
"' $P 199 And; No, 1, zontng),
· ' "'~.~/6 "Surrounding Zontng:
....
0
~ 7e '
0
>, 8.
Site Characteristics:
Area Character1 sttcs:
· Zoning' to. the north and vest
A-2-:O, II-R, II-l; Zoning to the south ts
P.-I
Vacant land traversed w4th lo~ htlls
Located on eastere edge of Rancho
Caltfornt& camunity
AgenCy Recumendations:
23371 And, No, I
23372 And. No. 1
23373 And. ~o. 1
bad ' 942-88 3-:248 9-2248
Health 745-88 g-7-88 7-25-88 --.
Flood 7-22-88 742-88 74248 "
Ftre 8-X748 8-17-88 8-17-88
Sheriff 6-1~-88 · E-SO-a8 6-10-88
lone received u of this writing
withim a CIty sphere
13. Spbre of Influence
Yestie Tentative Tract Nos. 23371 Jlmd. No. 1, 23372 And. No, 1, and 23373 Md.
No. I taplemnt Vfilmp ms m 1armed retireant cornunity to the Ihrgmrtta
Vtllage Spectfic Plan (SP ]Jg Md. lie.
1, Change of Zone No. SlC~7, bnerel Plan Amndmnt No. 110 and Developant
Agreement No, S were heard by the Board of SUperrise no September 13, 1988.
Then tracts have bee des4gnnd to be consistant with these documents.
The table belov summrtze the tracts* relationship and consistency with the
Speclfic Plan*s planntng areas. As shoe, none of the tracts exceed the
pe 1trod number of residential un m
Tract llo. Pro~sed Spect fit P1 an
N of Area
o, Untto
Permitted
No, of Units
v'l'r 23372 And. IIo. Z 1183 33-37; 42-45 1197
vl'l' 23372 And. No. Z 232 41 234'
VI'T 23373 kad. No. Z 348 38 · 348
A design anna1 has ken prepared for m11' three vesting raps uhSch provides
guidelint, for landscaping, floor 1mesa elevations and zoning. kousUcal
studies have been pro sad and wil~ be taplee,hind es requtred by the
conditions of ap reva~. Mitigation for potenttd tapact, to fit, Pal,mar are
also Included tn ~e conditions of approval. Additional evaluation found no
cul tufa1 resources ,not ta.
Vesting Tentative Tract 23371, kended No. I tncludes an 18 hole golf course.
As also required by the specific plan conditions, the tract has been
condtttoned to ta~rovl the lark tn Planntng Area 45. Zn conformance with the
spectftc plan Vesting T/native Tract Z3372. Mended No. Z has been cond~t,~oned
for mitigation of' tapacts tO the Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Tt should be noted that the amber of untts for congregate are are on est~mte
and at11 be raytad at the developneat plan sage,
mats ave been prepared on all three tracts.
Rancbe ¥tllage "~ctl/evaluation has bee Ftdad by +.he reports p p
Additional envSrementmlendmnt and the acoustt~el studtee Ifipared for
for the spec¶f.lc plan aunt, environments1 telacts hive been found.
three tracts-' lb sign
:Z. VestIn Tenat¶re Tract 11o, 2337X Mended No. t, 23372 Mended No. X, and
23373 ~mnded Ho. Z Ire louted to Vfilage A of the nargartta Village
Specific Plan.
2. The thm tracts-~11 provide 1763 dvelltng untts and golf course open
spa~ on H4 X64 acres- (AmeNled by pl~nolng Comtsston t0-5-88)
3. Tract 23372 kaended IIo. t has bee condlttoned r. the 'Specific Plan's
condition of approval tO .dttgata tapacts tO the ~phens rangarco Rat.
4. The tracts ave been oondtttaned to comply vlth Spectftc Plan No.
Change of Zone P~- StO7 and Developaent. Agreement Ko. 5.
5. A .atver for hngth to .4dth ratio rill be mded fo Vesttng Tentsthe
Tract 2337X Mended 11o.
(X~CLUSTONS:
2. M1 anvtroanentel concerns have been addressed tn [Zes t07, Z0Z and the
initial studies for these tracts and no stgn. lftcant tapacts have been
found.
2. The tracts are consistent' ~th General Plan Mendmerit 11o, XSQ Change of
Zone No. SXOTt and Specific Plan 11o, X99, MeOdment 11o. X.
The tracts confore tO the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460.
RECOI,~DIDATIOII$ -' '
ADOFTTON of I tiegaily Declaration for F.A Hoe, 32546, 3ZS47, 32S48 on a ftndtng
:nac the projects vt1~ not have · slgnt,ftcant effect on the anvtronment.
APPROYAL of Vesttrig Tentative Tract Hos. 2337t Amnded No. Z, 23372 Mended 11o.
and 23373 Mended 11o. I subject to the attached conditions of approval-
~G:mcb:mp
ItXVERSXDE COUNTY PLANNIM DEPARTNEXT
SUBDIVXSI(m
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTfIG TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23373
proceeding ng·tnst the County of IUv·rslde or its agents, officers, or
mp_lo ms to attack, set astde, votd, or anal an approval of the County
of ~ev:rstde, its advisory ngoncies, appeal boards or legislative body
concernin Vestfn Tent·thaT rata Z3373 Amended No. X, vitch action-is
brought aLut wi~Rtn the ttme period provided fop in California Guymr·ant
Cod· Section 66499.37. The County of Ittverstde will promptl~ nottf~ the
subdivider of any such elate, acttone or proceeding agatnst the County of
RIverside and will coo rate full t· tim defense. Xf the County fat1· to
p~mnptly notify the so~tvtder o~Yan~ such elate, action, or proceeding or
falls to cooperate fo11~ in the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responsible to defend, 1ride·try. or hold harmless the
--' County of RIverside.
~ 2. The tentative subdivision shall compl with the State of Coltfaro1·
~ Subdtv¶ston Hap Act and to all the roqu~rements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
~ A, unless modtflod by the coodtttens ltlted belov. _
provtded by Ordinance 460.
4. The final amp shall be prepared bit · 1teen·el lind surveyor subject to
the requireants of the State of California Subdivision HaP Act and
County SurveYorms Offt~e and t~o coptea to the Department c: Butldtng and
Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the stte.'
6. If anY 'grading ts propose, t~ subdivider shell sutatt one prtnt o1
c_omprebenstve grmdtng plan to the Dela_rtmnt of Building and Safety. The
plan shall comply ~th the Untrue Building Code, Chapter 70 ms amended
by Ordinance 457 and Is mybe addfttonall~ provtded fo~ tn these
conditions of approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No. 1
Page 2
e
A grad1 pealtit shall be obtained from the Department of Butldtng and
Sirally ~Jlor to !comeacre t of ·n~ gradtag u
outstde of co nty mtntatned
n
road fight of any, .'
Any delinquent property taxes shall be petd prtor to record··ton of the
final ~m.p.
The subdivider shall coely with the street Improvement rectum·ado·tons
outltned In the RIverside County bad Dep·rbaent*s letter dated 9-22-88 a
copy of uhlcb ls attached,
Legal access ·s ~requtred by Ordinance 460 shall be provlded from the tract
mp boundar~ to · County mtntalned road,
).11 road assmeat· shall be offered for dedication to the publlc and shall
Con·tune In fo until the over·tag body accepts or abandons such
offers. All r~eedtcattons shoT1 be free frm ·11 encumbrances as approved
b the Road Carats·toner. Street nuns shill be subject to approve1 of
~e Road ComJutoner.
Easements, vhen requtred for roadray slopes, dretnage facilities,
utilities etc., shall be shown on the ftnal map tf they are located
with1· bla land dtvtston boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as dtrected by the County
Surveyor.
I/afar and seer·go dtsposel facilities shall be Installed in accordance
with the provts one set forth In the RIverside County Health Department's
letter dated 7-~5-88 · copy of which Is attache,
The suixltvtder shall comply with the fled control recommenda'~.tons
t n Dtstrtct*s letter dated
outlined by the Ittvers de County flood Co trol
7-22-88 · copy of uhtch ts kttached. Zf the land dtvtston 1t, with1· an
adopted flood control dr·tnage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance
460 appro fiats fees for the construction of ·re· drainage facfilttes
shoal1 be ~:el~lected by the Road Corals·toner,
The sulxltvlder Shall comply with. the' fire Improvement recommendations
outltned In the County FIre Harshal's letter dated 8-Z7-88 a copy of which
ts attached.
Subdivision phastng, including any proposed ~emmon open space area
Improvement phastng, tf applicable, shall be subject to Planntng
Department approval. Any proposed phastng shoT1 provide for adequate
vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially
confom to the tntent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
'Conditions of Aplrovsl
Tentative Tract No. Z3373 bedel No. I
Page 3
17. Lob created by tht; subdivision stroll cmply with the following:
Corer lots and th_rWgh lots, if anY, shall be provided with
addlilacs1 ,area Imrsbant to Section 3.88 of Ord(na ce 460 and so as
n
not to contain less net am the the hast amount of net area ~n
n.on-corner and through lots.
LQ.ts created by this subdtvistno shall be tn conformrice with the
development standards of the Spectftc Plan go. X99 Amendment No. ~
zone.
Idhen lots are cressel by major public uttlitjr easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclusive of the et$11ty easement.
d. Gradel but undevelopad land shall be m4nta4ned in a vend-free
· - cond~Uon and sire11 la e4ther planted with 4riterim landscaping or
provtdel vlth other erosion contrnl measures as approval by the
D~rector of ktld~ng and hfet~.
e. Trash bins, loadtng areas and factdental storage areas shall be
lotarea ave and vJsua11jr screenel from surrounding areas with the use
of block v~{ls and landscaping.
Prior to RECORDATIIMI of the ftnal map the fo11Mng conditions shall
sattsfle,: ~
be
All
Prlor to the recordalton of the ftnal map the applicant shall submtt
written clearances to the Riveraide County Road led Survey Department
that 111 pertinent requirements outltned tn the attached approval
letters from the following agenotes have'hen met.
County FIrm 1)apartstunt CountJr Health Department
Coun_ty Countjr
County PFIB~ COntrol Plannfn Departrant
~tsr O~strtct
Department Ranca
Astern:. Pldnfctpal Mater Dtst.
Prtor to the recordatton of the ftnal map, bnerel Plan Amendment :LSO,
Spectflc Plan IIo. ~99 kendn~nt IIo. ~, Development Agreement IIo. S,
and Change of Zone No. SZ07 stroll be approved bjr the hard of
Supervisors end shall be effective. Lots created by thts land
dtvtston shall be tn conromance with the developaent standards of the
zone ultimately appllel to the propertar.
extsttng structures on the subject preparty shall be removed prtor to
recordatlon of the ftnal map.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No. Z
Page 4
Prtor to reordatto, of the final subdivision nap, th~ subdivider shall
submit the follwt dotgrants to the Planntng Departrant for rev¶e~,
A declarelien of covenints~ .c~md. tttons and restrictions; and
A sample document conve~e~tle to the purchaser of in Individual lot
· untt dtch provtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions
r
and restrictions ts tncorporetod theretn by reference.
The declaration ef covehints, conditions and restrictions submitted for
revtev shall (a) provtde for a MnlBum tern of 60 years, (b) provide
fob~ the establiShaunt of a prolarry. okmers' assoc4at4on comprised of the
o~ers of each individual lot or ,ntt, (c) prevtde for ownership of the
coanon and (d) .contain to following provisions verbatim:
"Nothvtthstandlng any preYtalon tn thts t)eclaratton to the contrary,
the follwtng provision shall apply: .
The propertar o~ners' association established hernia shall manage and
continuously matninth the 'cosnon area', more particularly described
on Exh(btt 'ZZ]:-17' of the spectflc plan attached hereto, and shall
not sell or transfer the ~comeon areat, or any part thereof, absent
the prtor wrttten consent of the Planntng Dtrector of the County of
RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest.
The proper~ o,ner's assoctaUon shall have the r19ht to assess the
ovaera of each tndlvtdual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
maintaining the 'comon' area' and shall have the rtght to 1ten the
f f
property of any such Wear vho de nulls In the paJfment o a
maintenance assessment. An assessment 1ten, once created, shall be
prtor to all other 1tens recorded subsequent to the nottce of
assessment or other document creattng the-assessment 1ten.
Thts Oecllrltton shall not be t'~rmtnated, *substantially* amended or
rope_try deannexed therefrom absent the prtor vrttton consent of the
I~lanntng DIrector of the County of RIverside or the County's
successor-In-Interest- A proposed amendment shall be considered
'substantialt tf It affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the
'common areae·
Zn the event of any confltct between thts Declaration and the Arttcles
of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the property o~ners' assotter, ton Rules
and Regulations, tf any, thts Declaration shall control."
Contit:ions of ,~pprovil
Tentative Tract, No. 23373 Mended No. :Z
Page 5
4,8
Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and resttic ~'~s
shall be recorded at the sa time that the final map ts recorded.'
PriOr to records, toe of the find map, clearonce shall be obtained from
Netropolltan War Nitric, relative to the protection of applicable
easements affecting the sublace property. Lot line ad]usbnenLi shall also
be completed.
The ~fevelopor shall comply vfth the follovfng parkey landsca
re irenenee as shove tn Specific Flirt 'No. 199 Amendment No. Z
maTuntained b~r H0A or other public entit~r: (Amended by Planning ConnJsslon
:ZO-S-88)
:)
Prtor to records,ton of the ftnal mp the developer shall file an
application vtth the Coun_tar for the formation of or annexation to, a
parkray maintenance district for Vesttag Tentative Tract No. 23373
Amended No.' Z in accordance idth the Landscaping and Lt hitrig Act of-
Z97Ze unless the project is kithin an existing parkray m~ntenance.
2)
Prtor to t~a lssuance of buffdang permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaptn and irrigation plans from the County.
Road and Planning De rant. A~l landscaping and irrigation plans
and speciftcatJons s~11 be prepared in a rapreducible format suitable
for permnent f414ng vith the County bid Department.
3)
The 'developer shall post a landscape triotrounce bond which sha11~ .
released concurrent1 vith the raVeass of subd¶vtslon parlor. ~
bonds, quar/nteeing ~e viabtlit~y of all landscaping vhtch rill ~:
installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responslbtltty by
the district,
4) The developer, the developa~'s successo;s-tn-tnterost or assignees,
shall be responsible for taken overvary the dlst~ct.
such time as maintenance ts 811 park lindscaptn mintnuance ~nt41
The developor shell be respansJble for men,thence and upkeep of 811
as t oat
slopos, .landscaped areas and errage,Son systems until such' time h
Street lights shall be provided vithtn the subdivision tn accordance vith
the s~andards of Ordinance 461 and the follov~ng:
l)
Concurrently irlth the ftllng of subdivision improvement plans with the
Road Department. the developor shall secure approval of the proposed
street 11ght layout first from the Road Detartment's trifftc engtneer
and then from the appropriate uttltty purveyor.
Conditions of Approval
Tentsthe Tract No. 23373 Mended No. t
Page 6
2) Followlog approval of the street 11ghttng layout by the bad
De~rtment's traffic engineers the developer shall also file an
application WIth LUG) for the fonaltton of a s reel ltghtJng
3) PrJ~ to reCordalton of the ftnal rap, the developer shill secure
conditional _Ipproval of the 'street 11ghttng application from LAFCO,
nless the site ts w~thln U existing 11ghttn9 district.
4) All street 11ghts and other outdoor 11ghttng shall be sho~n on
electrical pTans submitted to the De irbaent of Butldtng and Safety
for plan check approval and shuT1 comply with the requirements of
.- RIverside No. 655 led the RhersJde County
County Ordinance
: Comprehensive General Plan.
Prior to the tssuance of GRADING PERH~TS the folioring conditions shill be
satisfied:
Prior to the Issuance of grading permits, detailed common open spice
area parking landscaping nd Irrigation plans shall be submitted for
Planntng Department Ipprova~ for the phi. of development tn process.
The 'plans shall be certified by I landscape architect, and shall
provide for the folioring.
Permanent automatic Irrigation systems shall be Installed on all
landscaped ireis requiring Irrigation.
2)
Landscape screening where requtred shall be destgned to be opaque up
to a Etateam ~hetght of stx (6) feet It maturity.
3) M1 uttltty servlce areas and enclosures shall be screened from vtew
4)
vtth landscaping and decorsthe barriers or baffle treatments, as
approved by the Planning DIrector. Utilities shall-be placed
underground.
Parkways and landscaped butTdtng setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide visual screening or I transition Into the primary use ires Of
the site. Landscape elements shall tnclude earth betruing, round
cover, shrubs and spectmen trees to conjunction with meandering
stdewilks, benches and other pedestrian amentiles where appropriate Is
approved _by the Planntng Department and Specific Plan No.
Amendment No. L
5) Landscaping plans shill Incorporate the use of specimen accent trees
at key vtsual focal potnts wtthtn the project.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 knended No. Z
Page 7
s)
It·re size·t· trees ranat be planted Within right-of-way of tritertot
streets and _l~oJect larkwTs due to insufficient road right-of-way,
,1 n outatdu of the road right-of-wry,
they shall bepa tad
7) Leedscapfng pl. ans shall Incorporate nattve and drought tolerant plants
abe.re appropriate.
All extsUng spectnee trees and significant rock outcroppings on the
sub act pro ' to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
sha~l note ~Yse shall be shoenee the pro:Ject's gradtag pleas and
M1 .trees shall be sintea duuble staked. lieaker and/or slow growing
1
trees shall be stee staked.
~O.. Parktag layouts shall coeplF with Ordinance 348, hctton Z8.12.
27. M1 existing native specie trees on the subject property shell be
preserved ~herever feasible, Jibere they cannot be preserved they shell be
relocated or roplaced with specimen trees as approval by the Planning
Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans.
28, if the roJect ts to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits,
an or·rail'conceptual grading plan shall be setwilted to the Plenntr-
Director for a prove1. The plan shall be used as a guidelines-,
subsequent detat~ed grading plans for Individual phases of development ~d
shall tnclude the folioring:
1) Techniques which will be uUltzed to prevent erosion and sediment·lion
durtng and after the gr. adtng process. .
2) Approximate time frames for grading and Identification of areas which
my be graded during 'the htgher probeblltt7 rata months of January
through Hirch.
;
3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. :
4) JKJ'eas of temporary grading outs.ida of · particular phase.
Grading plans shall confoe to hard ado ted HIllside Development
Standards,- A1 cut and/or ffil slopes, or tndTvgtdual combinations therot,
which exceed tel feet tn vertical height shall be modified by an
· proprtate coeblnatt n of a special terracing (benchin) plan, increase
(i.e., 3:Z~, slope pTanttng
combined
s~ope ratto retaining wlls, and/or
~lth irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract N~. 23373 Mended No. Z
Page 8
0e
tt~ ~o11Mng gradtag techniques: contour-graded Incorporating
t) The angle of the g~adnd slope shall be gradually a~lusted to ',he angle
of the natural tarratn.
Angular form shall be discouraged. The graded fern shall reflect the
natural rounded terrain.
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves vtth red11
destgned tn proportion to the tote1 hetght of the slopes ktlere
drainage and stability pemtt such rounding.
4) Idhere cat or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
· hertzonto1 ' neeera of the slope shall be curved tn a continuous,
undulattng ~ashton.
31. Prtor to the tssuance of gredtng penwits, a qualified paleontologist shall
be retatned by the developer for consulteaton and cant on the proposed
gredtng vtth respect to petenatal peleontologtcal impacts. Should the
Paleontologist find the petenatal ls high for tmpact to significant
resources, a pre-grade mattrig between the paleontologist and the
excavation and gradtrig contractor shall be arranged. Vhen necessary, the
peleontologtst or re resentsrive shall have the authority to temporarily
dtvert, redtrect or ha~t gredlng acttvt~ to alloy recovery of fosstls.
32. Prior to the Issuance of BUTLDZN6 PERHITS the fellerleg conditions shall
be sattsfted:
In accordance vtth the v~ftten roWfit of the developer to the County
of RIverside, a copy of vhfch ts on ftle, and tn furtherance of the
agreement between the 'developer and the County of RIverside, no
buildtrig permits shall be fssued by the County of Rherstde for any
parcels vtthte the subject tract untt1 the developer, or the
developer:s successors-re-Interest preYtried evtdence of compliance
vlth the term of satd Develolaent Agreement No. 5 for the financing
of publlc facilities. .- '
Wtth the submittal of butldfng plans to the Department of 8utldtng and
Safety the develo er wtll demonstrate compliance wtth the acoustical
study prepared for ~esttngTentattveTract 23371 Mended No. I vhtch
established appro rtate ,dttgatJon measures to reduce ambtent tritetier
notse levels to4E Ldn and extertor riolee levels belov65 Ldn.
c, Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted. wtthtn the
subdivision, however solar equtment or any other energy savtng
devices shall be permitted vfth Planning Department approval,
Conditions of ~pproval
Tentative Tract NO. 23373 )deeded No. 1
Page 9
Butldfng separation betwen all buildings Including fireplaces
not be less than ten (lO) font unless approved b3r the hperme~t of
Building and hie and FIre De rimes per_ _Specific Plan No. Leg
Asendsent NO. 1. ~bonded by Prsa~sJnl Coisdsslon 10-S48)
A11 strut side ~rd setlacks abel1 be · tintnon of 10 font.
MI front yards shall be' provt~ed vfth landscaping and automatic
Irrigation.
Prior to the tssuance of OCCUPANCY PEnNITS the tollwring conditions shall
be sat1 st1 ed:
Prtor to the final befldt Inspection approval, by the eutldtng and
Noh.ty De~rtmento yells shunT1 be constructed aloe Kaiser Parkey and
Nonchb Cklifornta No·de LB Nor·el Id~yo NOtset P·~ ray per the Design
Fleas1. The rac yell shall be to the approval of the
,~ ,~, phased vlth the project. (Amended by Planning
Commission 10-S-88) '
b. Hall aid/or fence locations shall co·fore to attached Ftgure Ill-17 of
Spectfic Plan No. Leg Amend·at No. I.
c. Al1 laidscaplng and Irrigation shall be Installed In accordance h
· pproved pleas prior to the Issuance of occupanCy permits. Zf se' "',.el
conditions do not rmSt planflu , ~ntorla landscaping and eraston
control measures s~a;1 be utllize~ as approved by the Planning Director
end the DIrector of kildtng and hfe~y..
d. All parking, laidscap~ng ~and Irrigation shall be Installed tn
accordance ~dth approved plans aid shall be verified by a Planning
Depart·at field tnspecl:ton.
s---bneFete-s;deralks-skall-be- seatrusted- Oreuikee t- the- subd4 v4 s4 on--in
· eeordlnes--dlh--tha-standards-of-OrdJnance-46i-and-S ectfic-Phn.-er-
ZOeJaendaee~-Nov-i~ (Deleted .by Plannin~ Corals·ton ~0-S-88)
Street trees shall be planted throug~ut the subdivision in accordance
~lth the standards of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. 199
Amendment No. I
1levelopuseS of Vesting Tentative Tract NO. 23373 beaded NO. 1 shall
cmply vlth all provisions oF SpeciFic Plan NO. Leg Amendment No. 1 and
Develop·eat Agre~.ent NO. S.
bRoy D. Sam '
·
OFFICE OF ROAD CONNI~SIONER & COUNT~' SURVEYOR
September 22, Zg88
Riverside Count), Hatelag Coneisaiah
4080 Leeo Street .
n
RIverside, CA IZSOZ '
Tract Hap ~3373 - Amend IS - bad Corre~
A
Sclmdule - TiN SP Hap #Z
Ladle and Gentlemen:
lilth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative lar~
division ape the Iload Oeparlmnt racecanada that the landdivider provide th,
folloving street :improvement plans aM/or road dedications in accordance vie:
Ordinance 460 and lifverside County Mid Zaprovement Standards (Ordinance 46Z)
Zt Is' understood that the tentative mp correctly shows acceptable centerlie
profiles, 811 existing easementst traveled Wys, and drainage covrses wit
appropriate Q's, and that their mission or unacceptablltty my require the m
to be rosulxnlttnd for further consideration. These Ordinancei and the fo110vin
conditions are essential partS and a requirement occurring in OH[ Is as bindin
as thovgh occurring in a11. The7 are intended to be complemntar3r and 1~
describe the conditdons for e complete design of the improvement. All qvestion
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referr.Jd to the ha
Co:amiss Ioner's Office.
The landdlvTder shall protect dunstream properties from damages
caused b~y altoration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra-
tion of d.~varslon of fiN. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilsltiesnlncluding enlarglngThe
existIn facilities or by securin a drat age easement or by"
both. XII drainage easeants shs~l be shove on the final mp
and noted as foilors.- 'Drainage h ant - no tallcling,
obstructions, or encroachpants b land fills are allowed%
protection shall be as approved ~ the had .Department.
The landdlvider shall accept and properly dispose of ill offsite
drainage rioring onto or through the site. · in the event the
bad Canhsloner permits the use of streets for drainIts
pu oses, the provisions of Article XX of Ordinance Ho. 460
vilrV apply. Should the quabattleS exceed the street
capacity or the use of Streets be prohibited for drainage -
purposes, the sulxiivider shall provide adequate drainage
facilities as approved by the Road DepartMent.
3. lk3or drainage Is involved on this landdivision and its resold' ~'~.
shall be as approve by She Road Depirmont.
4. 011 interior streets sh 11 be laprove In accordance via Cou~V
Standard b. ZOS, Sectton A or groat~r as approved bY the Road
Cemlssloner (modified no r/V). ·
I. The maxima conferline gradient shall not exceed ZSZ.
7. The Bantam conesriled radii shall be as approved by the bed
Department.
shall be roved vlth concrete curb end
Ranch) California Rod free centerbqlln8 and latch up asphalt concrete
gutter located 43 feet
Saving recenstructton; er resurrect of existing perle
dedicated right of ~ in accordance dth County Standard IIo. ~00.
raiser Parkva3r shell be laproved vlth concrete curb and gutter
locuted 38 feet from canterline and ,etch up as halt cincrete
paving; reconstruction; or rosurfacin of existing perth as
cieteralnnd by the Rod Conaalssloner ~thln · SO foot hal~ vldth
dedicated right of ~y in accordance vt.th County Sts.~dsrd l¢o. ~
Prior tO the' filing of the final mp vlth the Count~ Pacorder~-
0fflce~ the developer shall provide evidence of continuous
aalntenance of ·11 proposed rivate streets viihen the development
as approvnd bY She Road CamT~sloner.
011 drivev~ys shall conform tO the applicable Riverside County
Standards and shall be slwdn on the street Improve~ent plans.
tkon bloChalls are requlrd to be constructed on top of slope, a
debris retention well shall be constructed at the street right of
ray 11o8 to prevent silting of sidavalks as :pproved b~ the hid
Comlssloner. ' ' ·
Concrete s 1devil ks she11 be' constructed on Rancho Ca11 fore Is Road
.and raiser Parkva~ in accordance vlU: County Standard No. 400 and
40Z (curb sidewalk).
utah Cmm~y SUard Io, lOk , ~ , r
align·at as epprovnd b~ the Road Comiss' on·r*
$X40.00 er nit for iarcel; 107 U slitgallon for traffic Signal
until the tim of devllopaent;- h
Improve·hi plans shall be based upon a cent·tithe profile extending
· Bantam· of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at I grade and
~s J onlr.
maintenance b), Count4',
17- Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 8X7.
18. ASpbaltic mulslon (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
~ourtetn daJrs following place·at of the asphalt surfacing a shall
ba applied st a rate of O.OS gallon per.square Jrard.. AsPhaltnd
eaulsJon shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State
Stand.ard Spec J fl call ons. -
)J, Corner cutbacks In confer·net with Count~), Standard He. 805 shall
be shove on the final mp and offered for dedication.
20. Lot access-shall be restricted on Panthe California had and blsar
Parkway and so noted on the final mp with the exception of one
opening on Rancho California Road approximate17 400' wts~er17.of
intersection with raiser Pirkwl),,
2X. Landdlvtslo~s creating cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the streets
shall provide erosion central · sight distance control and slope
e. asanents as approved b~, the had Department.
All entrance gate facilities shall be located · minimum distinct
60* ira gate to flow' line.--
Ail cent·flirt· Intersections-shall be at
24. The street desJg~ and improvement concept of this project sha~l be
coordinated with Tit 23371 and TK 23372.
iS- Street lighting shall be re t~ed tn accordance vith 0rcltnanc:
led 4l~ throughout the lubdfilllon- 1he Cove·dr Service Area ~,)
Malelstr·tor GarBle abethor this prep··s1 qusllfles unde~
' existing ass·sanS district or not, Zf nots the .land tamer sh&11
· file an .·ppl icatlan vitk kAFC0 for annexation into or creation
· · %1 SIng billiS OiltriGs In accordance ulth Governmetal
'Code Ctloll g000.
H, Prior to record·tim ef the-find rap, the landdivider shill record
-' 'CC I l'S provldl legran ud ·ress for ~re·l Z thre 7 and shall
be subject to rev~ee IN approv~ IV, Riverside Cou t.,y Counsel. n
GH:lb
Y · truIJr ~fourS, ..
IqamaiqltV L.Olm
tsd~camol
23373 - ilma~D IX, 10AD COBX~'FL01
vttb respect to the condition of approvaZ for the above referenced Land division,
the Y~re Department racemends the foXloving fire protection usesurea be provided
is accordance with riverside Count7 Ordinances and/or recapteed file protsct4ou
standardsz
The valet Barns abe3.% be capable o£ lrovidtnl · potential fire flay of 2500
and an actual fire £1ov aver.table from any one hydrant abe3.% be BOO ~ for
hours duration st 20 ~SZ residual operatinS pressure*
AleroveS super firs hydrants, (6wz&wz2|z2|) shall be located at each street
tritersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in an7 direction vtth no
portion of any Lot frontage more than ~65 feet fra a~ydrant*
A~Scaut/deve~ope: s~a~ h~sh ane c~ of ~e valor sys~eu pines to ~e TIre
~lans abalX co~om to f~u hydrant types, 'lo~at~ou a~
~he foXYovenS cert~Lca~Sout
h accordance vt~ ~e toqueaunts proscribed b7
The teasired vatst system, ,holed/uS fire hydrants, shall be installed and sccei
b7 the appropriate utter alanc7 prior to ~ c~ust~bZe butZdtnS matet~a% betel
placed on ~ hdLvidu~ be-
~l buildSaBe shall be constricted v~ fire retardant roorht uater~ml me
described ~ Section 3203 of the UnLfom lu~ldhl ~e, h7 voo~ shinSlee
or shakes shall haw a ~aee el* rat~ui and sha~ be appr~nd b7 ~e Fire
l~Xor to the rs~ordstl~s of the fend asp, the developer shs~ deposit vX~h the
Leverside CoUnty Fire Departsent, s essh sue of liO0.O0 per Zoglun~t ss uitilstio2
for firs protectSou bps~ts, Ihou~l the devsXopar choose to defer the the of
Saysent, be/she usy eater into s vrittsn sireant with the County dsfsrrin~ I
questions relsrdenl ties mssdsl Of soslesions mbs~ be serened to the
· Xs-'fel sad rsSbssrinS stOff,
%%
DeorSe I. Tam, YZannenS Officer
P. IVEI~SIOE COUNTY PLANNINI DEPARTHEN? eATS: July 2~. 1988
Tract ReD 23171. Arianeed No. I
The EnviroNmentre1 Nmmttk Services hem revlmumd Trmct nmp 23373, Amended nmp
No. I dated duty 190 Itll. Our arrant r, eeaenta'el11 rein ms previously
stltd le ~e~a.r letter dated June 13o 1918.
AUG 3 19~ ,-=,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNIf;G !)EPAPTuE~iT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTiQJGT
MI
~sts is · s~cs- L% to casst:g~ · ....~-.~4m caz~es as · 28 sere ~a~ tn ~
?s~.v ~d- ~sy srsa. ~hs slim is a~ t3m narb~sdus~ turns: o~ ~
oE gstssr h:bmy sssl ~ Ca3~ttbcnls lksd. ~s lzo~c~ Is · ~ oE
SpscJ.eta Z~sn X0 {SazgsrSts
l:rsinsge frees ~ 1:ram ~ to t-'s ~ Ccn~dss&crt. r u l:srt o~
ths~fn~reccrdofthssub~visimfSzs~mupc~ls:c~. ,
cr 4f ths ,m rx, ding o~ · final. ~ mp tm btl.vsd, d~'ml.,'m;~m
slz~l.% Im ...4s u · ccrditlcn of .~m vstve~ lsrlor to ~ ·
xt ths qr. im of t~s lmrd &t.v'~efr, ~ :~.l.k.,g · rsqul:ed s~-
~Sdavit reque~ defe:ms~ of ths lmFnmt of Eses, t~e drginsge
fees may be p.id ~o t.b luf. ldL'~ I:~ect. cc at t~m ttmm of Saranrice
of · graaing xmmLt buL Xng pm Lt esch a :,ved
d.tvis,ton :f~rsal nap c~ lmzcml n's~f F'gv"J. ded l's:s,.~.ve:, this cpC:Lm ~
de~er the ~'eem ma~ rm~ l:m exercised ~ mr~ parcel vlwze grmdJ,-mg
cc mtructu:em ~have been btit~atmd m t~m lmzcel within the lxJ~r 3
yes: periaS, osr la:nd.u ~ e. Lt.3'~:. scr. tv~y hnve ~em ~ssued as
Bin. Vmse-Ang ']X'uc~ 23373
Mm'dmdlfm. 1
·
:b,~, "m'al~ge eama, wmm d'aXX b b~ b of ~ixeimgm
O~fatm dmimm~ ~mcilittem m~nld bm l~ca~md within Ix~icly dedicat-
ed dmAmm~ --: . ~mm ~xtnmd ~mm t~m m~fectmd lxuper~ c~ne:a. b
~ mlLT~tr of thmmm cL'itm:ia Am emmemSed, mS~t~.cral ,L-ainage
'e~,.mm d'dmmld bm L.'d'ulXed.
Drainage ~acllitiem ct~etttm/s~m ~-'-ittms a~mAld be designed m
cmwe~ t~m trfi~mmx? lO0 ~ m~ ~c~a. Mditicnxl e,e~genc,/u-
o~2M:wimm, a e:'a/nagm emmanuel. ahc~d bm c~ainmd ~ t~e af~ectmd
~,~'~ ~w:m ~mm t~m mleasm el c~:mntratmd c~ divertrod nm~a
fi~m. & cmA~ e~ t~m :ecc~ed drainage Mat ,~xtld be m~mittm~
to ~ l:~.mU'ic~ ~:m myiew .mAc: m ~ :m~ of ~ final romp*
~,z7 l:rtzl.y 3Kxz,,
I.d-~ ·
mgmmemm.sm
dmmmmmmull
a4.m mmum ~ui*J
dill,&& lllll
DEPARTMENT
of HEALTH
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 8ISOS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AtLas X&thy Oilford
Jell TRACT MAp lilYIt ~hat certain lend situated in the
uincorporoted territory of the County of Riverside. SLat
of California, being Parcels l, S,3,4 and S or Parcel
11884 &s shown on i ~p ~ereof filed in Book 144. Piles
~rough JJ OF Pircel Maps in the Orrtce or the
Recorder or said Riverside C~Ly LeVeLher with & pertim
the Ranthe Tenscult grated ~ the Government or
St&toe of boric& Lo Lute Viinee ~pitent dated January
3860 and recorded in the Orrice or the Co~ty Recorder
in Diego Co~ty,
{8 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department or Public Health his reviewed Tentative H
No. 33373 sad recommends Lh&tz -
I we%or system shall be installed according t~
plane and s~ectfication as approved by the valor
company sad the Health Department. Pore&neAt
prints .of the plans of the witor system ,h,ll
be subsiLted in triplie*too with , minimum so,Is
not less thus one inch eelsilo 1O0 feet. along with
the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
~otnt specifications, sad the size of the main
&t the ~unction of the new system to the
existing system. The pluss shall comply in
ell respects with Dlv. $, Pert l, Chapter 7 of
the California Health and Surety Code. California
Administrative Code. Title 22, Chapter 16, sad SeAl
Order He. 103 or the Public Utilities Commission oJ
State or CaliFornia. when applicable.
Riverside County Plinning Dept.
At. ins KiLhy Gigford
:
The plus shill be signed by · registered engineer and
wsker e&npLny rills the tollowing cork·fleet·eRr 'I
certify thst the design ot the utter system in
Trick Map JllYl is sccordance vith the utter system
alp&meSs plus st the Ruder, he California Vigor District
and titst the ester se.r.vice,storago end distribution
system viii be idequtte to provide viter service to
ruth trick. This certifiestieR does not constitute s
gutremiss thst it viii supply vigor ks such tract st
any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire
protectJan or any other purpose'. This certification
· shill be signed by I responsible official of the vigor
b
company. lbt_nlsua,eu!~_btJubeJ~td-~g-~ t_~euu~y_
Igcv_tXgr_'l_Ogrlgt_~LHXit~JL,ltll~_~-vg_v-ttk-l_nrLgr--H
tbt,J:tfutet fmr &he
This Depirtaent his · statement from the lienthe Californtl
VaLor District sOres·rig
Wary lot in the SubdiviSion on demand providing
sstisfactory fin&no·el irrangements ire completed vtth the
subdivider. It viii be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the recordsLion of the
final
This Departmen% has I statement from the Eastern Municipal
VaLor District seresing ks. II~ov the subdivision soyage
system to be connected to the severs of~ the District, The
sever system shill be instilled according to plans and ,
specifications is tpproved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health bpsrtRenk, Permanent prints of the
plans of the sever oyster shill be submitted in triplicste,
&long vith the originsl driving, to the County Surveyor, The
prints shill show the intermix pipe diameter, location of
Rsnholeo, complete profiles, pipe And Joint specificstieRs
ud the size of the severe st the ~unction of the hey system
to the existing system, Jk single plit indicating location
of sever lines ud vigor lines shill be a portion of the
registered engineer ind the sever district vith the
tollowing certifications 'Z certify thst the design of the
sever oyster in Trick Map 23373 is in accordance vtth the
sever eye tom expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal VaLor
District ud thit the vests disposal system is adequate at
Biveroido CoteLF Platolug DopL,
JkTr14: E&thy 0ittord
Juno i 3, 1988
this time to Lre&L the sntfcipsted v&mteo Iron the proposed
tr&ct,'
tL~tYltS,it_ttisL,l~e_xtt~s mrt-r ~o tbt_cteutlt_gg£_ibt
It viii be nwcess&rytor finsncisI &rrsngoaents
prior to the recordslion of the finsl asp.
to be o&de
SMzt&c
/-
DATE: dune 10 3.988
T0: Assessor
ktldl~ and Sefet~
SurveTor - Dave Duds
load Department
lisalib - lalpll Lucls
Fire ProtectIN
Flood Control DIstrict
FIsh & Game
LAFCO, S Pals1
. U.S. Posed Servants - Ruth E, Davidsea
RIVERSIDE COUNTy
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Sheriff's Department
Eastern 14unlclpal eater Nst.
Rancho"Collfornta eater Nst.
gistnora Unton School IHst. -
Teaucull UnIon Schonl DIs'.,
SIerra Club, San Gorgonto Chapter
CALTKAXS f8
Ittncho California Area - First
Supervtsorlal Dtstrtct- g. of
California bid, V. of raiser Parl
t-I Zone - 21 ~res 348 CondoeSnl~
(RELATED CASE: TIt 23371 & 2337Z)
o A.P, gZ3-ZI0-0Z3
Please rayled the case described above, along v~th the attached case rap. A t'
DlvIston Coattree meeting has been tentatively scheduled for June 20, 1988. ~..t
It will then So to publtc hearing.
Tour cooneats and recmmendatioM are requested prior to June 5, 1988 tn order the
Intrude thee ta the st&If report for ~Ss plrtfcullr ash
Should ~og have any questions regarding thts tees, glease do not hesitate to cones
Kathy Gigford at 787-6356
Planner
The k'lslnore UnIon HIgh School DIstrict facilities are overcrowded and oul
educational programs seriously tapacted by Increasing student population
caused bJ, new residential, coanerclel and Industrial construction.
Therefore, pursuant to bltfornta Government Code Section 53080 of AS 292
end SB 3~7, this district levies ·-fee against 811 nev development proJec
udthin Its boundaries.
PLt-J~E print ham and tttle Joseph Enserro, Assistant Superintendent
4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 757-6181
46-209 OASIS STr. cr~ .4C
INDIO. CAL. JRNi
(619) -~
q~tTf-: .luRe 1, lg88.
- ,o: assessor
Surveyor - Dave RUda ,
' led all - Ralph Laths ,
Fire Protection v JUN 13 1988
Fled Control DIstrict -.
FIsh & 6aimt IqlVEPtSIOa COUNTy
LAIrCOs ,S Palate7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I.e, Postal S~..rvtce - Ruth E, Ruvtdsoa .
Shertff's Department
Parks pa nt - orge B. ·
·
Airports Oep. rtment · 3~S48 -
UC~ LIfe Scbnce Dept · e,V. Ikyhev - Robert ;4r~, Willira arrest & Assoct· -
OOFTT ' ' ': " '.- Itsecho California Are - First
Eastern btcfpsl Mater Nat, Supervtsorlal Otstrict - N, of Ranthe
.CIl$fornta Ruade V, of htser Parkway -
Runcho rallfornia inter DtsL
EIstnore Llnlon School
Temecvla Union School NIt. - (RZLATED CASE TR 23371 J Z337Z) Hod
Sierra Clube San gotpate Chapter - A.P. 9/3-210-023
CALTRAI6 f8
'irisfen Ceemlttea meeting has bee tentdt. hely sch . . If it clea:
Mill then gete p,blic hear
Tour coanenLs and recmaendatfons are requested prtor to aunt S, 1988 tn order that ve
include thin In the staff report for this part, Scalar case,
Should :you have any questions regarding this item, please do not besttaLe to contact
Kathy Giftoral at 787-OS6
Planner
DATE: C~,-'~ 'X~ SIGKATtJ~
PLEXSE prtnt nan a~ t~tle
~-.
O~ LEMON STREW. 9~ ~
~SlD~ ~FORN~ 92501
EASTERN INFbRMATION CENTER
Archaeological Research
UniversalLy el Cardornia
Riverside. CA 92521
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM ~
qNDIO. CALIFORNIA 92;'
(619) 342-8:
DATE:: aune X ...i.988
Assessor
Building Bed SUFe~
Surveyor - Dive Dudl
.... Road Department
Hulth - Ralph Laths
Fire Protection
Flied Control District
Flsk & ham
LAFCO, S Pats1
U.S. Posrdil" Se~veTce - bah E. Dart&ton
JUN 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Elsieore Union School Nag.
Terntale Union Schonl Nit.
Sierra Clubs Sin 6orpnto Chapter
CA.TItANS i8
VESTING TRACT 23373 - {Sp P1) -
3~548 - Ihr artta Villa e hvelop~
- Robert kin, 1filltam ~rost & Ass;
bncho Callfornll Area - First
SCary¶sorts1 District - N. of Ran~
California bade II. of rdtser Park~
IkR Zone - 21 Acres 348 Continnier;
- (RELATED CASE TR 2337Z & 23372)
- A.Po 923-210-023
Please revtee the case describe above, along via the attached case rap. A Land
Division Comittee meeting his been tentatively scheduled for dune
tt vill then 9o to public hearing.
Tour com, ents and riceemendations are ,quested prior to anne S. 1988 in order that
include them in the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any questions regarding this item. please do not hesitate to contic
Kathy Gtfford it 787-6356
Planner
4080 LEKaON STREET. 9~" FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(7.14) 787-5181
46-209 OASIS STNEET.
INDIO. CALIF~C,
t w# 34
A1TA~ NO. 6
m~m'l'~
S',ITAJIWqPT'23373VTM. C~
17
CITY OF TEMECULA )
%%
Cakdr,,feut 4
Io Sa, el,ego
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
'EXHIBIT .NO.
' C ;.SE
~P.C. DATE IPI-I-qL",_.~
EXHIBIT NO.
'CASE
P.C. OATE I~l't-Oll
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I
·
·
·
·
·
:I-R =.- ·
~P
EXHIBIT NO.
case, No.,nHZ~.~,
CITY OF TEMECULA )
x/~"
L
EXHIBIT NO.
p.c. nAT., I't....q-ql
Al'rAClmmff NO. t
DEVB. OPMBIT ~ (~ttCICLIIT
18
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Vesting Tentative Tact No. 23373
The following f~ee.s were reviewed by Staff reletive to their applicability to this project.
F~e
Habitat Conservation Ran
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
PuNic Facility
(Traffic Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Rood Control
(ADP)
~ondition of AnorOval
Condition No. I
Condition No. 14
Condition No. 9
Condition No. 3
Condition No. 2
Condition No. 6
Condition No. 5
nT,dqWm~t3?3V~CC 19
ITEM
14
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
March 24, 1992
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373, and;
ADOPT a Resolution entitled: A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Temecula approving the First
Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 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, and;
APPROVE the First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373, based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting on February 25, 1992 the City Council continued the consideration of
the First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373. The
items were continued to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The Council requested that Staff,
the applicant, and representatives of the Villages Home Owners Association (VHOA) meet to
discuss the situation relative to erosion. In response to that request the City Attorney,
Director of Public Works, and representatives of Bedford Properties, the Buie Corporation and
the VHOA met on March 3, 1992.
S%STAFFRPT~3372VTM.MEM
As a result of that meeting, e tentative resolution was agreed upon. Bedford Properties and
the Buie Corporation have agreed to jointly pay the VHOA $15,000.00 for past siltation and
erosion problems, plus an additional $5,000.00 if VHOA installs a concrete ribbon in the
wash· In addition, the Buie Corporation will clean the Long Valley Wash in May, assume the'
obligation of future maintenance of the Wash, until such time as the City releases erosion-
control bonds for the subject tracts. The agreement will then be contingent on the bankruptcy
court approval of the document.
The Staff recommendation above is contingent upon all of the documents being properly
signed prior to the City Council meeting on March 24, 1992. If the documents are not
properly signed Staff's recommendation would be for a continuance·
vgw
Attachments:
Resolution - page 3
City Council Minutes, February 25, 1992 - page 9
City Council Report, February 25, 1992 - page 10
S~STAFFRFT~3372VTM.MEM 2 ""
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
S%,STAF~3372V"r14.MEIVl 3
ATTACHMENT I
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 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 the 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 March 24, 1992, at which time interested persons have 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 No. 23372;
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:
S%STAFFFtFT~3372VTM. MEM 4 ~
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.
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 Ran.
The proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 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 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.
~" S%STAFFRPT~3372VTM.MEM 5
Pursuant to Sei:tion 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.
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
De
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 substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record
or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Council, in recommending approval of the proposed First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, 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 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%STAFFRFT~3372VTM. MEM 6
De
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.
Fe
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.
Ge
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 her. in incorporated by reference,
due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits,
and Conditions of Approval.
e
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of
the community.
SECTION II. 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.
S~STAFFRFT~3372VTM. MEM 7
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 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 a portion of Assessor's
Parcel No. subject to the following conditions:
Riverside County Conditions of Approval dated November 8, 1988
City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated November 4, 1991
City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated February 25, 1992 deleting Condition
No, 2,
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 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 24th day of March, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S\STAFFRPT%23372VTM.MEM 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 25, 1992
S%STAFFRFT'~3372V'TM. MEM 9
Ciw Counoil Miraares
DRAFT
Febmew 25, 1992
9, there is a problem with the language regarding park improvements
to the City for maintenance. He recommended approving the MOt
to veloping a revised Section 7, accepting dedication pursua
procedure the Community Services District.
ular
It was moved
approve the attac
subject to staff
ayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Cot
um of Understanding (MOU)
g a revised Section 7, as
~ember Moore to
:ling Paloma del Sol,
the City Attorney.
The motion was carried b, following vote:
AYES: 4 COUNCIL
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES: 1 COUNC
Mufioz
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIl
None
Councilmember M~
should be asses
Memorandu
voted in opposition
the original 65 acres instead o
standing.
use he feels the Quimby Fees
amount listed in the
RECESS
Birdsall called a recess at 8:00 PM. The meeting was rec<
y Services District Meeting at 8:16 PM.
the
PUBLIC HEARINGS
17. Vestinq Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie Mamarita Village
18. Vestinq Tentative Tract 23373 - Buie Marearita Village
City Attorney Field stated the applicant does not agree with the Conditions of Approval
contained in the staff report and is agreeable to a four week continuance to the
meeting of March 24, 1992.
Mayor Birdsall asked if those who submitted a request to speak slip would be willing
to speak on the issue at a later point.
David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of the Villages Homeowners
Association, asked that the concerned parties meet and work out a solution prior to
the night of the Council Meeting.
Minutes%2%25%92 -7- 03113/92
Councilmember Mufioz removed himself from discussion due to a conflict of interest.
Loree Santamoro, addressed the Buie Margarita Village maintenance yard, stating that
maintenance of this property has been neglected and other requirements have not been
met. She stated permits have expired and this poses a health and safety issue. Mayor
Birdsall stated this item is not on the agenda but asked staff to look into this problem
and come back with a report.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked that when an item is continued, public comment not
be taken because it is unfair to the applicant who does not have the opportunity to
respond.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue Items 17 and 18 to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The motion was carried
by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
20.
MitiQated NeQative Declaration and Condemnation of Property (AP NO. 921-300-006a1~
as moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember '.: -~ife to
this item to the meeting of May 12, 1992.
The m,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
:arried by the following vote:
4 CILMEMBERS:
0 COUN4
0 COUNCILMEMBEr' _
couNC b-_"_':-
Councilmember Mur~O.~:f~':,-~d he abstained to avoid
Ordinance ~.,uUire Fire Resistive Roof Coverinas
Tony,r ,~o, Chief Building Official presented the 'staff report.
· '..dyor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:35 PM.
Lind~, ,~iS, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
~,,' j-N~)ne
:' None
of a conflict of
Minutes%2\25%92 -8- 03/13/92
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY COUNCIL REPORT, FEBRUARY 25, 1992
S%.STAFFRPT~3372V'TM.MEM ' 10 ~
VKNTUItA GO~INI'Y OrlPlGf
1310 PONDIIIOSA OlllVr-
SUITe I
LAW OlPIPICI"S
3lOO IIItIITOL. ITIllCrr
IUITC
r/e41 141-slle
February lO, 2992
OilAND &Ve'NUW,, IIyea IrLOOi
ANGELES, ~AI. IFOItNIA tO017
lll31 1.1HIO0
tILlCOPIeR: Iihll LII",ItOO
Mr. Greg Erickson
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-0736
Re: The Box Culvert under Pal o mar V.tllaae
Dear Greg:
At the last Council meeting and during the hearing on the
Temeku tract map extension, it was brought out that the box
culvert underneath Palomar Village in the Lucky Shopping Center
is heavily clogged with silt. The tract map conditions for this
project required that a business association guarantee
maintenance of the culvert, as documented in the letter from the
Riverside County Floo~ Control and Water District to Robert Bein,
William Frost & Associates, dated May 11, 1989. In addition, the
City Nuisance Ordinance, contained at Section 6.14,002(b) of the
City Code, designates as a nuisance nland, the topography or
configuration of which, in any man-made state, whether as a
result of grading operations, excavation, fill or other
alteration, interferes with the established drainage pattern over
the property or from adjoining or other properties which does or
may result in erosion, subsidence or surface water drainage
programs of such magnitude as to be injurious to public health,
safety and welfare or to neighboring properties.w
It is hereby requested that you make arrangements as soon as
possible to have the box culvert cleaned and gated from public
access. I am also presently working on an arrangement with Buie
to arrange for their contribution to the cleanup of ~he Long
Valley Wash. I would like to see all these problems cleaned up
as soon as possible.
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
February 25, 1992
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, First Extension of Time
PREPARED BY:
Ma~k Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
RF:a, 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
in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
DISCUSSION:
The map referenced above was continued from the January 28, 1992 City Council meeting.
The City Council requested Staff to review erosion control, and to develop a Condition of
Approval relative to age restriction in Planning Area 40 (VTM 23372).
The City Attorney has written a Condition of Approval which requires that all of the residents
of Planning Area 40 be 55 years of age, or older. This would include the proposed
apartments where it was ambiguous as to whether or not there was an age requirement for
that portion of the project.
The on-site erosion control has been deemed adequate by the Department of Public Works.
Relative to existing or past erosion, the Public Works Department has included a Condition of
Approval that requires sediment removal from drainage areas.
The new Conditions of Approval are attached and labeled "Additional Conditions of Approval".
S~STAFFRPT%23372-t .CC
At present, 8 joint application is being pursued by Buie Corporation end the City to obtain
relief from the bankruptcy stay to permit monies to be paid over to the Village Homeowners
Association to clean out the wash.
On a related matter, the City Attorney has made demand upon Bedford to clean the silt out
of the underground culvert under Palmr Village in between Buie's property and the Village.
As of thi.'s writing, no response h~s been received from Bedford.
I~ST~3373-1.CC: 2 ~
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map NO. 23372
Date Approved
Planning Department
'The covenants, conditions and restrictions for the development shall require that each
permanent resident in each dwelling unit shall be 55 years of age or over, including any
apartments in Planning Area 40 of the Specific Plan. The reference at pg. 144 of the
Specific Plan that the apartments are not subject to any age restriction is incorrect,
and the Descriptive Summary at pg. 143 of the Specific Plan that the "planning area
shall contain solely retirement community housing" is controlling."
Public Works Department
Prior to March 25, 1992, the Buie Corporation shall make arrangements to remove all
the sediment from the open channel and box culvert north of Rancho California Road
between Margarita Road and Humber Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
~ S%STAFFRFT~3372-1 .CC 3
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
February 10, 1992
Page 2
Please call me as soon as possible as to when we might
expect the culvert will be cleared of silt.
Sincerely,
t F, Field
City Attorney
CITY OF TD~ECULA
CO:
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
Tim Serlet, City Engineer
Dennis Klimmek, Esq.
Council Minutes
motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
~8.1992
Moore, Muf~oz, Parks,
NOES: 0 INCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 ILMEMBER=
None
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recees
previously scheduled CSD
PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Par
review tapes an
conflict
10.
PM.
at 9:00 PM.
was reconvened following the
that although he was absent at the
prepared to vote on the public hearings.
~uncil meeting, he did
Mu~oz stated he would be absent from voting on Items 10 11 due to a
Birdsall announced that Items 10 and 11 would be heard concurrently.
Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 23372 - Buie CorPoration - Margarita Villaae Soecific
Pltn
11.
Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 23373 - Buie Corporation - Maraarita Villaae Specific
Pli~n
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill stated that applicant has requested a continuance
for two weeks and requested direction from the Council whether a staff report should
be presented at this time.
Councilmember Parks expressed preference to hear public comment, but asked that
staff and citizens not report on issues already addressed.
Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks asked whether the issue on whether this project would be
restricted to Seniors. Mr. Thornhill stated that the language in the Specific Plan is
unclear and therefore staff suggest this condition be added to the Conditions of
Approval.
N i nutes\l \Z8\92
-7-
02/14/92
City Council Minutes January 28.1992
Director of Public Works Tim Serlet, gave an update on drainage issues, stating he has
received reports from two consultants regarding the blockage of the Long Valley Wash.
He explained the Two reports reflect different viewpoints, one being the box culvert
was plugged due to inadequate maintenance, and the other the blockage occurred due
to erosion from neighboring properties, He reported, however, that the two maps in
question have not been graded.
Myra Vonsalves, 41556 Zinfendel Avenue, expressed concern that this development
remain a senior project and not an apartment complex. She requested that a feasibility
study be conducted for the commercial site and stated the Vineyard tract has no
barrier to this commercial area, She also asked that a traffic study be completed, with
the impact on The Vineyard tract considered.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess st 9:30 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:31 PM,
Mayor Parks asked that the Council hear from a representative of the applicant to
address this issue.
Jim Resney, Buie Corporation, representing the applicant, stated he did not have any
comments at this time,
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked Mr. Resney if he is willing to meet with concerned
citizens to put together conditions of approval to the full satisfaction of surrounding
citizens. He stated he would be willing to meet and put together conditions and
determine a fair share of costs involved.
Barbara Bentley, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, stated she is against approval of the
extensions and is very dissatisfied with this project.
Ralph Brownell, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, stated The density on this project is still
confusing. He stated the County of Riverside requires developer's to protect
downstream properties, yet Buie has failed to abide by this rule. He asked that the
City Council take a close look at the responsibility of this developer.
Diane Taylor, 41942 Humber Drive, Villages Community, stated the Villages
Homeowners Association has had to pay almost $100,000 in damages from silt. She
stated that no one will take responsibility for this problem, and as a result residents
have been hurt.
Joseph R. Shekoski, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, suggested denying the extension of time
requiring the developer to resubmit with the City, who would then have control over
this project.
Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, stated the Villages Homeowners Association
has had to pay approximately $80,000 to remove foreign material from the Long
Ninutes\l\28\92 -8- 02/14/92
P-itv Council Minutes Jsn,~rv 28.1992
Valley Wash, He explained that little of this material originated from the Villages, anr'~
most came from Bedford and Buie Projects.
Jane Vernon, 30268 Meraey Court, stated the developers Musing this damage need
to take responsibility for their setions end dean up the wash.
Mike Fiducia, showed a video tape to the City Council of a rain storm before the
Palomar Village Shopping Center was completed end before there was any erosion
control at the Buie Corporation Project.
David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of Villages Homeowners Association,
approved by the Board to speak, asked the City Council to for help in working with the
developer to clean out the Long Valley Wash. He said if the extensions are approved,
the City will have no ability to gain cooperation from the developer on these issues,
and asked that the Council deny the first extensions of time on Vesting Tentative Tract
Map Numbers 32272 and 23373.
Jim Danow, Counsel to Villages Homeowners Association, stated the laws regarding
management and control of property require the upstream landowner to be responsible
for damage downstream, He asked that this problem be solved in the City Council
forum and not in a court of law.
It was moved .by Mayor Pro Tem LindemanS, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The :motion was unanimously carried, with
Councilmember Mui~oz absent,
James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, requested that this project be conditioned with
standards required to catch the run-off so it would not damage downstream property,
He stated the Environmental Determination of this site was obviously not done
correctly because it has adversely affected health and welfare, and surrounding
property, He suggested the EIR for this project needs to be updated to reflect current
technology for water management,
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 10:25 PM to change the tape. The meeting
reconvened at 10:26 PM.
Councilmember Parks asked staff to research any legal recourse the City may have to
force developer to clean up dirt and silt problem and what legal restrictions exist since
these maps were not involved in the erosion problems.
Councilmember Moore asked that concerned parties get together to resolve this
problem and asked that a condition be placed on these maps that it remain for senior
residents only.
Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans ask staff to research the health and safety issue regarding
the Long Valley Wash. He also requested that if first extensions are granted, the issue
of proper maintenance be addressed as well as a feasibility study for the commercial
N inutes\ 1 \28%~2 -~* 02/1/,/~2
City Council Minutes January 28.1992
phase. In accordance with the request from citizens of the Vineyard Tract, he asked
that a traffic study be completed.
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill recommend continuing Items 10 and 11 to the
meeting of February 25, 1992.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to
continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 and 23373 to the meeting of
February ;25, 1992 with staff being further directed to investigate the City's recourse
in directing the developer to pay for cleaning up the damage to Long Valley Wash.
Staff was further directed to pursue the source of the silt problem and require a
condition that the development is Senior Housing only. Staff was also instructed to
place an evaluation of the specific plan on the agenda.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mufloz
RECESS ·
yor Birdsall called a recess at 10:36 PM. The meeting was reconvened aT~ PM with
present. /
Chanae of N.o. 5631, Tentative Tract MaD NQ..-2r5320 - Bedford Prooerties
It was moved by Mayor h~...em Lindeman. s, s~conded by Councilmember Mu~oz to
::::::::::::::::::::: -- ..-
., - - ~
AYES: 5 ,~OUNCILMEMBERS: Linden, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks,
.,/< Birdsall
NOES:/' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
.,~NT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Ninutes\l\ZB\~2 -10- 02/1~/~2
NEW RESOLUTION
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
ASSESSOWS 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 Ordinqnces, 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 February 25, 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. Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following ,requirements are met:
b'~iTAFFRPT~23372VTM. CC 7
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and eking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the lend use or action proposed
will be c~nsistent with the ger~ral 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 propose 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, (hereinaftar '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 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 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:
I~ITAJ:FRR~23372Vl'M. CC 6 ~-~
That the proposed lend division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
That the deign 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 6f 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 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 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 prol~osed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed"
within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
__ $~TAFFRFi~23372VTM.CC 9
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and drape 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
prime frontages; end the internal circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions ere in conformerme 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 igni~cant 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,
mSTNr~PT~23372VTILCC 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, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 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 25th day of February, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
~ S~STAFFIqP~23372VTM.CC 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
RNANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
crrY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gory .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:
R¢'~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 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 (Nee. 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~R,ANMNG%23372.CC 1
Page 2
Vesting Tentative 'Tract Map No. 23372, Firm 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%Pt,ANNING%23372.CC 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Fq. anning Department
January 14, t 992
First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
Mark Rhoades
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
BEttkFRRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, and:
APPROVI: 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 CorDoration
Mergerira 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
SOecific Plan 199 (Margari:ta Village)
S~$TA FFRPT'~33 ? 2VTM. CC
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:
VicarIt
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
letarming 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 portions of the Margarita Village Specific
Plan No. 199. The two mope were tema~vely approved by the County of Riverside in
November of 1988. The City of Temecula Planning Commission recommended approval of
the First Extension of .~me on November 4, 1991 by s 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 Iotated 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, sou~h 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 perk issue is mitigated as a result of the appropriate condition of
approval for fee payment. Erosion control measures for the proposed project were completed
prior tO the item being scheduled for a City Council hearing.
S~STLfiWIT~2327~tCC
2
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSIS'T'ENCY
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 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
amenides 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, circQiation 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.
$~TAFFRFl'%23372~/TM.CC 3
10,
The project as deigned. and conditioned will not adwsely effect the built or natural
environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact mat impact
mitigation is realized by conformance with the project'a 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 deign of the subdivision, The type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they am 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 me site plan and the project analysis.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein inCorpormtad by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval,
vgw
Attachments:
Planning Areas 40 and 41 Standards, Specific Plan No. 199 - page 5
Resolution - page 6
Conditions of Approval ~ page 14
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 16
Exhibits - page 17
Development Fee Check List - page 18
S~STa,"qqqm%t3312V/~LCC 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING AREAS 40 AND 41
STANDARDS, SPECIRC PLAN NO. 199
$~ST&FFRFT~23372VTM. CC 5
39... :~1-,m4,q,,.J Araa 40
-_-- - -
b. fZ,~ Usa and ~~" ~~--"~;:
Please refer ~o 0~-9--.- I~-- .3~~.(h.S~, ~'4~.'
PI~ Zone O~~e T2).
t
Access in~ plm--4-~Aree-40'w~I1'be ~&~v~e~"foT
access T~a~ t'~ the souf. h which c~nnec~t f,~ ~m~-.-~
Parkway.
A landscaped buffer is pllnned beV;ee~ Planning Areaa
38 and 39 =o help sep---~- =ha. za~leff~aT,--~ses
the adjoining commercial uses-.'
A major recrea=ion and ac=ivit~r~..~-~' ~l....
Village "As adJacen~ to FTs'm'~TAZ'ea'3T'~=S 2erva'~he
residen~s of the re=iremer~c'ccmmun~t-y. A varie=y of
facilities are planned: ~he cen~er may include ~ennis
cour=s, lec=ure halls, SW~mm4-~, and a4~4-~J
planned a~ the en=rance =~ l~w-w~w~-Ar8~36
California Road. (See Fiv~."'III~22'S'1'1'r-T]-) A
Minor 'Re=iremen= En=rylandscape =rea~nen~ is planned
along Kaiser Parkway. (See Figures III-24 & III-25.)
Building heigh= shall no= exceed 3 s~ories, with a
maximum heigh~ of 40 fee~.
Subjec= =o approval by the Fire Chief and the
Depamen~ of Building and ~'~3[, -~4--~;ys and/or
firelaces shall be allower~em=rea~ inV~ ~dayards
a maximum of =wo (2) ~'"%e:lr_' la:.cfcher~-s=r~--=~rwT
encroachmen=s shall be ~rmiTced ~n the fron=, side or
rear yar~ excep= as prov~a-a =or in Sec=ion 18.19
Ordinance No. 348.2922.
No=e: Numbers in i~alics
Conformance number 1.
amended by Substan=ial
dr
--2.44 - ---,,
d.7/u~ ~ ~ ~ ~: vLT. I.: be.-d.r~: :L.. 4.c=_ .~.'
Please refer to Or~4--~,- No_..34a,aS12, (See S, -~
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab),
c_. P~nn~r~St--nd~rdr
Access -in~ P~-we~--/ATea' 4Iv tit b~ ~,wvlded from
Kaiser ParkwRy and a local ar, uawa. r~adt~ the. -~..~,
(See Figure ZI-3C.)
A major reureaUion and ac=ivi~ cen~ar is p~a..ma ,
Village hA" a~Jacen='~n'-P~n~-+~/:ATua· 17'~n~- mmTv~'~hm
residues ~f ~e r~', ............ ~; .A .~~ el'
facili~ies are pl~t ~~n~ 4,~,,~.--~is
coups, le~e ~, ~~,:-'~4.4~ facili-
ties.
A Major Retirement En~ landscape treatmen~
Minor Retireant En=~ ~--~--nt.- +-
along Kaiser Parlay. [S~~~--24-&
Building height shalI.~"'n~ =~n, ~ a
m~im~ heigh~ of 40 fee~.
S~Jec= =o approval by ~e Fire ~ief ~d
Depamen= of Building ~d Safe=y, chi~eys and/or
fireplaces shall be allowed ~o encroach into sidey~
a maxim~ of ~vo (2) fee~. No o~her s=~c=urxl
encroachants shall ~e p~r~ ~~ ~, s~
rear yard except as pr~~Z~ ~.~..~4.~ ~.~
Ordinance No. 348.292Z
~e maxim~ ratio of ~o~ area ~o lo~ area shall
be geetar ~an two ~ ..s, no= including basem~
floor area.
Note: Numbers in italics' []
Conformance n~mher 1.
amended by Substantial
-t
--I45-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_
S~STAFF-1~l'~3372V'TM.CC 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE RRST EXTENSION OF TIME
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 23372 TO SUBDIVIDE
46,9 ACRES INTO A 66 LOT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
LOCATED NORTHERLY OF RANClIO 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, Mid First Extension Of TIme for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
application was processed in the tim and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Mid 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 MaD 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. Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
,~ S~$TAFFNFT',23372VTM.CC 7
®
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan,
The planning agency finds, in spproving projects and taking other ac~
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
Them is I realonlble problbHity thlt the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the genmal 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 adored general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The propond use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordirmnces.
The Riverside County 'General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Ran, (herainsfter '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 Nan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Nan,
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"
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 aDDroving 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:
$~$TAFFRF~,2.1372VTM.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 pla~.
That the site ef the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development,
That the site of the proposed lend 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 ictjure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
That the design of the proposed land division or the Wpe of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems.
That the design of the proposed land division or me type of improvements will
not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through,
or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be
approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be
provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public, This subsection shall apply only to easements of record
or To easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
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 complies with state planning and zoning taws, due
to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as 'allowed"
within the zoning designation of Sl~ecific Plan 199.
~- S~STAFFRPT'23372VTM.CC 9
'G.
The site is suitable to accommodate the Proposed land use in terms of th~--~
end shape of The lot configtsatilm, cimuts~on patterns, access, end de.
due to the ~fact that; adequate ares is provided for all proposed residential
structures; adecluata landsrAping is provided along the project's public and
private frontages: ~ the inmrn~l circulmion plan should not create traffic
conflicts as deign proviliorll Ire in conromance with adopted City standardS.
The mot es d:lsiCn, cl end colqditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare, due to the fsot'thm the conditions stated in me approval are
based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential
adverse impacts of the project.
The proposll will not have an adverse eflL-.t on surrounding property because
it does not mlxa!~t 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 subjeot its.
The project as deigned and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural environment es 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 acceptsbe access to 8 dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, end usesbe by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project cutter
proposes access points from Ksiw Psrlcway which have been detersin. ~'~.u
be adequate by the City Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the WPe 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 sDplicstion 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.
S~ST&IIfiFT~3372V'rM. 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.
PASSE), 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:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
S'~$TAFFRFT',23372V'TM. CC
11
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S~STAFFI~T%23372V'TM.CC I 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
First Extension of Time
Council Approvll 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 Ran prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shell 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 bounden/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 libran/
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:
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.
Delete Condition No. 24 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September. 30,
1988, and replace it with the following:
S~STAFFRIrr%23372VTM.CC
13
Prior to recorderion of the final map, the developer shell deposit with the Department
of Public Works a cash sum as established, par 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 s written agreement with me City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of s building permit,
An erosion control and slope literection plan shell be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review arid approval, The installation shall be certified by s registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent Ixoparties frem damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post s 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 Ran fee ram multiplied by the am of new development, The charge is
payable to the Rood Control District prior to issuance of permits, If the full Area
Drainage Ran 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;
batera Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control District:
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Community Services
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CA'rV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CA'!"V 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
$%IT&FFIqleT~3372V"rM.CC 14
PRIOR
payment of Public Facility fee, e copy of which has been provided to developer.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shell post security to secure
paymen~ of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be $2.00 per
square foot, not to exceed $10,000, Developer understands mat 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 impapt fee for this project; provided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof,
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 ~reet 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.
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,
Margarits 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 Cit~/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~STAFr-RPT~3372V'TM. CC
15
pT.teUTm~., ___rV~MMTIIT~I Iffllrl~L~l
MoTamber 4, lt91
C.w~Tp_MXMHOJ~IaWDopenedthe public hearing at 7:30 P.M~,
ED BBBCH, 44601 Harvey way, Hemet, representing th~
applicant, concurred with the modifications to the
Conditions of Approval.
OONMIISIOIFIRFORDRoved to close the public hearing at
7:25 P.M, end recommend that the City Council Adopt the
Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 25408 and Adoot
Resolution No. 91- (next~ approving Tentative Parcel Map
No. 25408 Subject to the Conditions of Approval along
with the modifications to the Condition for the oak trees
as follows, "Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
applicant shall relocate and transplant all specimen oak
trees. A qualified arborist shall prepare a report
outlining the relocation and replanting procedures. In
the event the trees do not survive transplanting, the
applicant shall be required to replant ten 24" box oak
trees for every one lost", staff to work with map on the
1230 elevation on the base line topo, and condition added
by transportation department at the previous hearing as
follows, "Prior to recordation of the final map,
developer shall provide bus turnouts with pedestrian
entrances.". Seconded by COMXIBBIONER FI~HEY.
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAiN:I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
CSalRMaNNOXOLaNDadvised that he had received the letter
from the City of Murrieta requesting that the City of
Temecula Planning CommisSion continue their action on
these two items and although the Commission did not
postpone their action, it was not meant to mean that the
City of Temecula was going to ignore it's neighboring
communities to the North; however, this map has been in
process for quite some time and the letter from Murrieta
was rather open ended without any real definite time
frames for the completion of their traffic studies and
therefore the Planning Commission could not support any
further continuance. Chairman Hoagland added that the
action was a recommendation to the City Council.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked that staff present the following two items
together:
TPCMIN11/4/91
-7- ~/6/9~
pT.-MMTN6 C"'OJIMTBBTOIf IeTBIUT~ft
Hovetuber ·, 1993.
8. V2BTXN6 TBNTATFVBTRACTMO, 23372-
Proposal for extension of the for a 66 Lot Condominium
and apartment subdivision. 46g dwelling units on 46.9
acres. Located northofRanchoCalifornia Road, westside
of Kaiser Parkway.
9, VESTZNO TBNTATIVB TRACT ~0, 23373
9.9 Proposal for extension of time for 348 condominium units
on 23.5 acres with an additional 7.5 acres of commercial.
MARX Pa~O~DF~ presented ~he staff report and clarified
~hat the recommendation was for the first extension of
time.
COMMIBSION~a FANaY questioned approving the extension
without erosion control in place.
NA~I~HOaDE2 advised t hat the expiration date of the map
was November 8, 1991.
ROBnT RZGBITTZ advised that the applicant is in a
financial situation with their lender which they are
currently working on; however, the first extension of
time needs to be acted upon simply to keep the map alive,
and staff wants to get it to City Council. He added that
staff has a number of issues that will be addressed with
the second extension of time, and this applicant will be
required to make improvements to Margarita, as well as
other issues, prior to recordation; however, at this
point staff wants the e~osion control issues resolved,
but staff does not want to forward it to City Council
until the condition is satisfied.
COMMISSlOl~ERFAHEYquestioned if there was adequate park
land.
GARY KING advised that all the City could request at this
time was Quimby Fees; however, staff did offer the owners
the opportunity to offer land in lieu of the fees and the
applicant expressed their lack of interest, as well as,
staff received notification prior to the meeting, the
applicants opposition to paying the Quimby Fees.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed a concern for approving this
extension without addressing staff's concerns that the
tract will have an impact on public health and safety,
which staff will bring forth with the request for a
second extension of time.
TPCMIN11/4/91 -8- 11/6/91
involved with the expiration, staff t ·
map alive to address these issues.
~w-vIiaa IOiiAXD ~pened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M.
~a~uX.W~ eTLL, 600 B Street, Suite 1100, San Diego,
representing the MargaritaVlllage Development Company.
In regards tot he fees, Mr. Gill advised that the project
i~ pax~c of a development agreement which stipulates
specific contractual obligations. The applicant is just
advising the Commission that they will continue to work
with the City on these fees.
In regards to the grading and implementation, Mr. Gill
stated t hat the applicant has indicated that the erosion
control and grading measures are starting to be
implemented; however, they are not sure if it will be
completed byNovember 8, 1991, butt he Margarita Village
Development Company has receivedauthorization from their
lender to spend the necessary funds to complete the work·
The following individuals requested that the Commission
deny First gxtension of Time for VTT 23372 and VTT 23373
based on the changes towhat was originally presented as
a retirement community, the proposed densities and the
impact those densities will have on traffic and
and the developer's inability to provide adequate erosi,
control to date:
CaRL aBBOTT, 31987 Vineyard, Temecula.
Alia BLaNCO, 31748 Corte'Toz~cosa, Temecula.
T~OMA8 BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
RAPLH BROWNELL, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
J.R. 2HEKOSKI, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula.
WILLIAM BRCCg8, 41571 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. Mr.
Baccus presented the Commission with a letter requesting
that the Commission deny the request and presented the
Commission wi~h a petition.
MARY PHILLIPS, 41532 Chenin Blanc, Temecula.
MYRA CONSALVES, 41556 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
STEVEN CURNOW, 41636 Chablis Court, Temecula.
CRAIG EVANS, 41390 Rue ~adot, Temecula.
TIM KILFOTLI, 41529 Zin~andel Avenue, Temecula.
MARTHA KARATT, 41752 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
KEN CHRISTENSEN, 31903 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula.
The applicant's representative declined their opportunity
to rebut.
TPCMINII/4/91
-9-
11/6/93
~Xovtm~er 4, ¶991
COMMISSIONER FIllEr asked what the Commission's options
were in taking action on 'this item,
~C~MCaVXMaUSadvisedthatthe Commission could deny the
extensionof time, approve the request for extension of
time or the Commission could conditionally approve the
extension. In relation to t hap ark fees, the Development
Agreement is not clear on what is addressed with respect
to park fees; however, at this point, the City is taking
the position that those fees are appropriate, and the
City Council can listen to the applicant's argument
further and make their decision.
COMMISSIONER FaXBY questioned what findings the
Commission would have to make to deny based on a health
and safety issue.
JOHN CaVANAUOH advised that the denial would have to be
supported by specific findings or make the finding that
the proposed project is not likely to be consistent with
the future general plan based on these findings.
ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that if an extension of time is
applied for, the applicant has sixty days from the time
that the map would have expired to record the map under
the original Conditions of Approval. If they do not
record the map within sixty days, they must have that
extension of time in order to keep the map alive for
another year. He advisedthat this map does not have an
approved extension of time yet, and if it had been
approved it would be ~unning out on November 8, 1991.
With the conditions.this applicant has in front of them,
they will not be able to record the map in the sixty day
period. The applicant will have to get that second
extension of time and therefore the map will come before
the Commission again very quickly.
COI(MlSSlONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hea~ing
at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt ReSolution 91-[next) recommending
that the City Council ApD[ovethe 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, seconded by
CO)[MIBEIONER FAHEY.
CHAIRMAN NOAGLAND questioned Item No, 4-C-6 on Page 8 of
the Resolution which states that the Planning Commission
makes the following finding, that Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 23372 is compatible with surrounding land uses, and
TPCMIN11/4/91 -10- ~1/6/91
stjted that he had n probles a~cepting ~his. ~..
comassxoszx CXXFXABFF robested that' his motion include
~hat Item NO, 4-C-6 be deleted from the Rescluticn~ with
concurrence by COMMIBBZOMBR FABle.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
" NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMHISSIONERCF~IF/~BFFmovedto close the public hearing
at 8:45 P.M. and Adout Resolution 91-(next) recommending
that the City Council A~nroVethe First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Trac~ 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, and deleting Item
4-C-6 of the Resolution, BecondedbyCOMMISSIONERFAHEY.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PLRNNING DIRECTOR REPORT
GARY THORNHILL advised of the following:
· The City Council is requesting a joint meeting and asked for the
Commissioner's availability in late November or early December.
· Community General Plan workshops are on schedule.
· Permanent staffing has been filled, will be phasing out contract
staff in the next couple of weeks.
pt~NNING COMMISSION ~ISCUSBION
COMMISSIONER FAREY asked for a list of Planning Department
employees and their functions.
COM)(I88IONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern that there is going
to be many more developments that have not provided adequate
erosion control to date.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
TPCMIN11/4/91
-ll- 11/6/9~
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
5%.5TAFFFIPT~233 72V'TM. CC
16
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
crrY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1991
Case No.: Am Extension of Tim Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
Pralarad By: Mark Rheades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning
Commission:
AnnPT Resolution 91-._ Recommending that the City Council
APPROVI= the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23372, contingent upon the implementation of corrective
grading and erosion comrol 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:
Mergerite Villlge Development Company
PROPOSAL:
First Extension of Time for a 66 lot condominium complex
and an apartment or congregate care facility with
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~TadqqqR~3372.VTM 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Proposed Density:
Planning Area 44):
Planning Area 41:
Total Site Density:
46.9
66
25 D.U.IAC.
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 8 portien of the Mergerits 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 enmity 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
amenides 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%STA~3312.V'rM 2
shah 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'l public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformInca with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and canal.cloned will not adversely affect the public health,
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on
mitigation measures necessary to reduce or elirain,to 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 ueea; end 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 conformInca 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 Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the Cit~'~'
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 her, in incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report. Exhibits, and Conditions' of
Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission:
vgw
ADOPT Resolution 91~ Recommending that the City
Council APPROyE 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. --.
S%$TAFNIq'~3372.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~$T&FFleT'~3372.VTM 4
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 9 1 -_
S~T~3372.V'TM 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RE~OLUTION N0.91-lOB
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RRST EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23372-A 66 LOT RESIDENTIAL-
SUBDIVISION ON 46.9 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOWS
PARCEL NO. 923-210-014.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the Time Extension in accordance with
the Riverside County Lend 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 Sate and local law;
WHEREAS, me Planning CommisSion considered said Time Extension on
November 4, 1991, at which tirhe interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Time Extension.
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. ·
$~$TAIq=RIFT~3372'VTM 6
The Riverside County General Ran, as amended by the Southwest Ares Community
Plan, (hersinafter "SWAP") wee adomad prior to the incorporation of Temecula as me
General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the ares 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 e timely fashion with me
preparation of its General Plan,
The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP end meets the requirements
set forth in Section 65350 of the Govs,,,,,~nt Code, to ~
Ae
The City is proceeding in e timely fashion with s preparation of the general
plan.
The-Planning Commission finds, in approving projects end taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(1)
There is reasonable proMNifty that the Time Extension proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or
which will bq. studied within s 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:
Ae
The proposed use must conform to 811 the General Plan rs~luirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
Be
The proposed subdivision does not affect the genersl 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 amenities 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~&TAFFI!rT~3372.VIM 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 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 crests 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)
VeatiRl. To; activ3 Treat leak ~. e~37~ ia 3s,.~stibl8 witk ourrounding
ka~l uz:ee. The har...z~y k~ seals, bulk, h3ilht, de~.oit~, 3nd covoragc
:r:atea · pc;..;alibis ~.hyeioel Fel~tia.-.e~ip with o~joining propertics, duo
to the foot that the praiseGel io oi.~.ilor in as;..potibility with surrounding
lord user, o~d edHlueto area ~d ~oci9.~ features ;royida for siting of
pwopoaa~- develo~;..ont iR tew.~.o of Ion_~ocolcing and internal troffio
oir~ulotio~.. (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)
(9)
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 conformonce 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.
(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 heroin
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~STAFFRP'I%23372.VTM 8
That the City of Temecul. Planning Co·relation hereby determine· met me previous
environmental determination Adoption of EIR No. 202 still applies to said Tract Map
(Extanion of Time),
SECTION IlL Conditions.
That the City of Temecule Planning Cc.,,,,,i~e~on hereby recommend· that the City Council
approve the First Extermion of Time for Veering Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for a 66 Lot
residential subdivision on 46,9 8cre· end known ee · portion of Aslessor's Parcel No. subject
to the following conditions:
1. Exhibit A, ·tte d~:.;! hereto.
SECTION N.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thil 4th dIN of November, 1991.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY th·t the foregoing Resolution w·s duly adopted by the
R·nning Commission of the C~y of Temecul· at · regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th
day of November 1991 by thl ,following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
$~ST~3372.V'11a 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S~STUF.Fr~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 Delart~n'ent
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of 8 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 Conssrvation 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 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%STAFFRPT~3372,VTM 1
Delete Condition No. 24 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September, 30,
1988; end replace it wiffi me following:.
Prior to recorderion 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 e building permit,
An erosion control and dope 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 shell be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage duo to runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a performance bond for erosion control and dope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shell be paid. The charge shell equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Ran fee me multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Rood Control Dietriot Wior to iuuonce of permits, If the full Area
Drainage Ran fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.-
As deemed necessary by ~e 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 -'
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City'e CATV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit Shall be installed to CA'I'V Standards at time of street
improvements.
Prior to any work being Iperformed 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.
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 thlt said Agreement may
S~ST,JqW~n. VTM 12
PRIOR
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 ~ereof.
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 shell include Rancho California Road,
Margarits 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%STA~3372.VTM 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT FROM THE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
$~TAFF!qleT~3,,ll,2.VTtA I 4
·. -.~:BHn'ML~O
~"' ' ' ~
v
I ~O~. PlaMtng Hpa~nt U~MDA~ ~ ~ 8, ~9~ ~..
S~: V~ZNG T~ATZV[ and T~ATZV[ ~CTS located the "~
~lrt~ Vtllige SHotfie .Plan (SP
and ~t~ Su~tsortll Dtstrtcu - hnc~ Cilt o~ti Zoning Area.
' ~CO~~ N~:
~ Re~tve-iN Ftle Ue.PtaM~ng
' '~ " · 2~S-M: for '
[ ~~ of Vesttng TeUttve T~cU ~7i Mnded No. ~. ~337~
· ~ded No. Z. 23373 ~dH ~. ~, Z~70 end Z347~ I~d Tric~s
Z29~5, :Z9~6, 23X00 kendad No. X, 23X0~ 23Z02, and 23Z03 Amen,ed
No. Z.
oe
e
ANn.
Depm. C.~mnls
ILEVF. RSZDE COUNTY PLAHNZN6 CONKZSSZON KZNUTES
OCTOBER S, lg88
(AGENDA ZTEH$ S4, S-3, ~S-4 - REEL 1003, SZOE Z - TAPE 6, SZDE 2)
VESTING TItACT NAP 23373 ..MENDG) NO. I - EA 32548 - Nargartta Y 11age
Developrant Company - Rancho California Are - First/Third Supervtsortal
Districts - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 348
units - 31: acres - SPtgS Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TIIACT"It~ '23371' MENDED NO. Z' -' EA 32~16 .- Ikrgartta Village' "'
Dayclaimant .Compan3r - PAncho California Area - First/Third Su ervlsortal
DIstricts - north of Itancho California lid, east of Hirgartta ~ - Z:t83 un4ts -
3)8t acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT 23372 AFtENDED NO. I - EA 32S47 - Partstits Vtllage Develoixnent
Company.- Ranch· California Area - First/Third .Supervtsortal DIstricts - north
of .Rancho. Celtfornta'ltd, wast of Kaiser.parkway - 469 antes.on 86 lots , 441
acres - SP lg9 Zone. SChedule A
The hearings ware opened st 6:S0 p.m. and closed it 7:11 p.m.
STAFF RECOIe4EKDATZON: Adoption of the negative doclarataons for-EA 32S48, EA,
3ZS46, and EA 32547, approval of Vesting Tract Hips 23373Amended No. 1, 233TE
Amended No. I and 23372 kMnded No. 1, 811 sub3ect to the proposed conditions;.
Ms. Gtfford also recoenended approval of a waiver of the length to fidth rat1·
for Vestin Tract23371 kmnded No. 1. The sub3ect tract mps ware located
within VtlTage A of the Hirgartta Village Spectftc Plan, and euld create 1763
residential lots and I 9olf course on 2S4 acres. Stiff hid found the tract
maps to be consistant vtth the idapied specific plan. Hs. Gtfford recoeme"'-
several changes to the conditions of approval. Coanlsstoner Purrlance ask·,
about aftscal tmpact report, and was tnfomed this report had been furnished
recently for Amendment No. I to the spoctftc plan.
Jtm Rein·y, representing the applicant, briefly revieed the developneat,
advts~ng they ware proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement con·unity
whach tncludeda chNaptonshtp 9olf course with a 37,000 squire foot clubhouse
faclllty In the center of the pro·act. He then referred to Condition 33(f)
for all three tract asps, ~htch required front yards to be provtded flth
landscaping and automatic Irrigation, and requested that thts requirement
deleted for larger lots, is it was hts optnton that these ham·owners would
prefer to do their wn landscaping. The CC&Rs would require the to comply
vtth specific standards. fir. Resney requested that thts condition be amended
by addtng to the ted "or shill be 1natalled wtthtn 7S days after close of
escrov as provided in the CC&!ts 4n the 4SxlO0 square foot lot areuse.
Road Department Condition Z1 for Tract Hap 2337~ and Condition 14 for the
other two trice nips requtreda debrts retention wal] ~here block walls ware
required at the top of slopes. fir. Resney requested that this condition be
amended by addtrig: *Zf applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Road Conntsstoner that a Raster Homeovmers Association or other enttty vtll
sattsfactor4]y mtnta¶n the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, it hts opt4on,
wall." He t ought that f they
watve thts requirement of adebrts retention h t
could convince the Road Cone~ss~oner that there would be no st1~ng problems
and that the slopes would be maintained, the debrts retention wall wauld ~-
S3
RZYERSZDE COUNTY PLANK/N6 ClYJiZSSXON MZNUTE$
OCTOBER S, 1988
be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt tt muld be better not to hive the
sill wall.
Road Department Condition 22 for Trlct 23372 and Condition 15 for the other
tad tract asps' related to the ,d'ntmum 30 foot.garage setback free lice of
curb. fir. Rashly felt this*condition conflicted with'the specific plan
development stlndards ,htch lllowed 16 foot drlveeaJrs with roll up doors,
setback either fr~l the back of curb or the back of stdevllk. He would prefer
to have the specific plan standards applied, but requested thlt the hearings
not be continued.
Lee Johnson advlsed the .'slaw; wal 1 dll tneited*.tn bid Olinfluent Condition 21
was I wall they hid been rjqutrtng for the past three'or four yelrs when the'
Planntng Deparment required I block wall It the top of I slope. Depending on
r~e stze of the slope, the hid Department Design Engineer could require a two
block high wall It the property 1the to keep the debris wishing down the slope
from crossing the sideelk.: 1hey would be willing to coltstaler IIIJf other
ilternlttve the developer might suggest, Is long Is tt accomplished the
purpose of this condition. He requested that this. condition be retained.
Commissioner Donehoe asked whether adding to the end nor Is ipproved by the
Road Department' would give the developer the oppOrtunity to provide In
alternative plan, and fir. Johnson agreed that tt would.
fir. Johnson advised' the garage sethick required by Rold Department Condition
22 for Tract 23371 (ConditiOn 15 for Tracts 23372 and 23373) via the minimum
setback required by Ordinance 460. He hid reid the language requested by the
applicant, but would prefer' to retain the condition Is originlily proposed in
the Road OepartJnent litter. fir. Resney explained they hid been discussing the
possibility of providing I 4 foot sidewalk, end would ltkl to hive i 24 foot
setback rather than the .26 foot setback required by this condition. However,
If the Road Department preferred the existing lingalga, they would iccept
fir. Jo nson adYtsed the co~dttton would not alter the width of the stalewalk tn
h
any way.
Cmmtsstoner Beadling referred to fir. Resney's request that front yard land-
aupin end Irrigation not be requtred for the 11 r lets, and stated she
,.,. ,,o.,,....,.. ,.,...,. .,.
condition be retalned Is ortgtnall~r written.
There was no further testimony, and the hearing ms closed at 7:11 p.m.
FXNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesting Tentative:Tract Paps 23371 Mended No. 1,
23372 Mended No. I end 23373 Mended No. I are locatod wtthtn VIllage A of
the tiergirlie Ytllage Spectftc Plan (No. 199); the three tract maps wtll
provide 1763 dwelltng units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372
Amended No. 1 has been condittoned wtth the spectftc p]in's condition of
approval to mittgate tepacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts
have been condtttoned to comply wtth Spectftc Plan 199, Chang, of Zone Case
5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a waiver of the le~ length to width
ratio wtll be needed for Vesttrig Tentative Tract 23371 Mended No.
envlronnentai concerns have been addressed tn EZRa 107, 202, and the tnitta]
54
nlVEJtSlDE COtafff I~XN6 CO IeLTSSZON MINUTES
OCTOBER S, X988
studies for these tract maps, and no significant tapacts have ben found; the ~'~
tract maps ire cenststent;i with the Coerehenstve General Plan (Is amended by
CGPA lSO), Change of Zone Case SXO7, a~ Spectftc Plan lff Amendment No. X;
and conform to the requiremrS Of Ord.l~tnclS 460 and 348. The proposed
project w111 not have a stgntfiunt...ef.~ect. o8. the e~vtrommnt.
and unanimously urrted, the Commission adopted t.le ttve declarations for
EA 32546° EA 32547 end EA 32548, and approvld Vesttnge~entettve Tract ~ps
2337X kendad No. I vtlla Matwar of Um 1at length to width ratto, 23372
Amended No. Z, and 23373 Amnded No. X, all subject to the proposed conditions
amended as follows, based on the above ftndlngs and conclusions and the
recmmmndattom of.ruff', -' .:
Tract Ito. 23371
9 - Amend to reflect the September 30, X988 bad Deportment letter.
23(2) and 23(3) -amnd to require the developor to complJr Mtth the parkey
landscaping requirements es shake tn Spactflc Plan No, 199
Amended IIo. I Mnless mintanar/.e is provided bJf a
hoereamers association or other pobllc anttry.
26 - Delete the last sentence (*The ftnal map for Vesting Tract 2337X shall
Sham the park as a numbered lots).
33(c) - Roof-muntnd smchk~lcal equtpmnt shall not be permitted wtthtn the~
subdivision, macapt for the clubhouse ahtch my have screened
equtpmnt as alpproved by the Plalmtng Delartamntl however, solar
equtpmnt or any other erie saving devices shall be permitted wtth
Planning Departant apprevar?~... '
Condition 34(a) for Tracts ~3371. 23372. and 33{a) for Tract 23373
t projec ". (to clarify that wills may be
Add sand my be phased W th the t
phased with. the development of the tract,
Condition 33(d) for Tracts 23371 end 23372, and 32(d) for Tract 23373
Butldtng seNration Mawann all buildings including farepieces shall not be
less than ten fat unless appreved by the DeNrant of Butldtng and Safety
and the Fire Deplrl:ment per Specific Plan tag Amended No. X.
34(e) for Tracts 23371. 23372 and 33(e) for Tract 23373 - Delete
Road D artsent Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373
Add T~ the end or as approved by the Road Department"
SS
RIVERSIDE CIXJMTY PLANNING CO IqISSION HINUTES
5EPTEHBER 28, :~g88
TRACT HAP Z3ZO0 NqEIIDED NO~ Z - EA 32328 - oug De , Corp, - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisortel DtstrJcts - west
· of Butterfield Stage lid, north of Rancho CalJfornJa Rd - 29Z lots - Z22.5~
acres ~ g-1/$P Zone$~ SchedUle. A. , ..' ".. .' -:. ".
TRACT HAP 23101 - EA 32533.- Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area -Ftrst and Third Supervisortel Districts - east
of Katser PiNy, west of ktterfteld Stage lid- 263 lots - 87, acres -
5P/R-2-6000 Zones. Schedule A
TRACT'HAP '23t02 - SA 32534- Hirlbirough 'Dev....COrp~'- Rancho'-.
C:allfornta/Sk4nner Lake Arei -Ftrst and Thtrd Supervisortel DIstriCts -'north
of La Serene !Say, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 26,4, acres -
SP/R-Z Zones, Schedule A
TRACT PAP 23103 HiDtOED NO. 1 - EA 32535 - Ikrlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
t t
California/Skinner Lake Ares - First and Thtrd Sgperytsortal Dtstr cts - was
of Butterfield Sage Ibl, north of RantS Colttomes IM - 18 lots - 29, acres -
SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A
The heartngs were opened at 9:49 a.a. and closed st 20:08 i.e.
STAFF RECONqENDATZON: kioptton of the negatlve declarations for EA 32318,
32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Hips 23100 Amended
No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I vlth I waiver of the lot length
to width ratto, sublace to the proposed condtt¶ons. The subject tract maps
were located wtthtn Vtllage 8 of the !qargartta Ytllage $pectftc Plan, and
would divide the 254 acres tnto 605 residential lot3. Staff had found the
tract maps to be consistent wtth the Comprehensive General Plan, Spedftc Plan
199 Amendment No. 1, and the zontng whtch hid been appl~nd to the speciftc
plan through Change of Zone Case S107. Ms. Gtfford recoenended several
changes to the condlttons for these tract maps, relattng to requirements for
mintenance of the open space areas, perk requirements, useable yard areas,
and fenctng requireaeries. Itr. Klotz suggested modtf~f~ng the last condition
for each tract amp bJf beginning with the phrase "Developinane of the". '
Comlsstoner Iresson requested that changes be made throughout to refer to
etther "publlc use tratls" or "recreational tretls" instead of "equestrian
tra¶ls"; he felt these terms would more accurately descrtbe their use.
Berry Burns11, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as
amended. It was his understanding that tn the event any portton of the
development agreement .Is held to be tnvaltd (for any reason), the conditions
requiring compliance wtth that agreement would be null and votd~ this was
conftmed by County Counsel.
There was no further testimony, and the heartngs were closed at 10:08 a.m.
FZNOING$ AND CONCLUSZONS: Tentative Tract KBps 23t00 Amended No. Z. 2320~.
23202, and 23203 Amended No. Z are located wtth~n Village 6 of the Partirate
RIVERSI~ COUMTV FLANMII~ CCle!IS$101I MINUTES
SEPTENBER 28, lg88
Vtllage Spectfic Plan; the foUr tract raps would dtvtde the 254 acres 1fifo. 605
lots; the tract raps have bee condtttoeed tn accordance vtth the
Kangaroo list; the tract raps have been' condattmed to conFlY wtth Specific
Plan 199 keenant No. l, 'Change 9f-Zoffe Case St07, and {eveloPment'r reameR1:.
No. 5; a liver for the lot length to vtdth ratio vtll ha needed fo ~ract
23103 Marldad No." 1. M1 eev4romental concerns have been addressed
107, £IR 202, and the tattin1 studies for these tract asps, and no significant
impacts have been found; the tract maps are consistent vtth the Comprehensive
General Plan (as ended by General Plan keendent No. 150), Specific Plan 199
Mendmat M. 1 and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract raps conform to the
'roqutrements' of 'Ordinances 348-and 46.0. IM..propose prOJects. WIll not have
significant effect 'on the envtrement.
NOTION: Upon BartOn b Commissioner Iresson, seconded by Camtsstoner
Beadling 'and unantaou:~y carrted, the Caratssloe adopted the nqathe
declarations for EA 32318, EA 32S33, EA 3294 and EA 3253S, and approved
Tentative Tract Paps 23100 Mended No. l, DI01, 23102, and 23103 Mended
No. I vtth a liver of the lot length to wtdth ratto, sub3ect to the proposed
conditions, ended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions
and the recommendations of staff.
Tract Nap 23100 Mended fla. 1
22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for Betafinance of the
cannon open space area by otther a County hrvtce Area or a Mowers
t
Assoctal on).
23. Prtor to the Issuance.of occupancy peMts for 160 untts on Tract
23100, the park area Shall be developed per Spedtic Plan No. Mended
24. Replace with the standard alternathe condition providing for
mlntenlncl Of the canon open slice ires by etther I County hrvtce
AsSactor on.
Area or Hamwhets t
37(b)
llall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Figure iZZ-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Mendmat No. 1.
The developneat of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Mended No. 1 shall
t c
comply vtth ali provisions of Spec ft Plan No. 199 Amendment Ha. 1 and
Development Agreement No. S
Tract Pap 23101
17(h) Rear yards and useable stde yards shall have an average fqat area of
2000 square feet.
22. Mend to conform to Conditto6 24 (to provtdo for maintenance of the
common open space area by eqther a County Servtco Area or a Homeowners
As soct att on).
3
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG CI]~ZSSZON MZNUTES
SEPTDIBER 28, 1988
Prior to the tssuance of occupancy permtts for 160 unJts on Tract
23101. the park area shall be developed per Spectftc Plan No. Amended
No. 1. ..
Replete' ri'th'the stande~:d"elte~'nll:,tve c'Ondt C~On' providing for
mtntenence of the camon open space area by etaher a County Servtce
Area or Ham·ownerS Assoctetton,
37(b) ~all end/or fence locettons shell substantially conform to etaached
Figure ZZZ-Z8 of $pec.tfic Plen No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
38. The development of Tentative' ~ract'No, '2310i s'he11 camp1: .~th .ell
provisions of Specific Pleno, :199 Amendment No, :L end ~evelopmnt
Agreement No, S N
Tract Hap 23102
Jlmend to confom vlth Condition 33 (to provtde for mtntenance of the
cQ~non open space area by etaher a County Servtce Area or a Horn·owners
Assoctettofi.
3e
Replece wtth the stenderd altern/ttve condition providing for
mint·hence of tM claimon open space area by etaher e County Service
Area or Hoe·owners Assoctetton,
35(b) Hall end/or fence locettons shell substantially confom to atteched
Figure ZZI-28 of Spectftc Plan No, 199 Amendment No. 1.
36. The development of Tentative Trect No. 23102 shall comply Wtth all
~rovtstons of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I end Development
greement No. S
Tract HaD 23103 Amended No. I
21. Amend to confom to Condition 22 (to provtde for Maintenance of the
cm~on open spaceerea by etaher a County Servtce Area or a Homeowners
AssocSatto~,
Replece wtth the standerd elternettve condition providing for
matntenence of the common open space erea by etaher a County Service
Area or Homeowners Assoctetton.
34(a) ~all end/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached
Figure IZZ-28 of Specific Plen No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
The development of Tentative Trect No. 23103 Amended No. 1 shell
Comply with ell provisions of Spectiftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and
Development Agreement No. S
4
RIVERSIDE. CQUNI'Y PLANNIN~ C(XetlSSIQN MINUTES
SEPTEXBER 28, Z.~. "".
(AGENDA ZTEHS i-3 AND 1-4 - REEL Z002, SiDE Z - TAPE Z, SiDE l)
TRACT HAP 22e16 - EA 32S05 - Itshelm California Oev. Co. - Ranca California
Area -Ftrst Supervtsortal Dtstrtct- north of Paubl lid, vest of Butterfield.
Stage IM -259 lots - I03.3~ 'ac.res.- R-II/Sp.' ZoneS. Schedule A
Am - First Supervtsortal District - south of Illecho Vista lid, vest of
Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 lots - gZ.6~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
Y[STXN6 TRACT NAP 23471 - EA 32528 - raiser Developaunt Co. - Roncho
California Area -. First Supervtsortal District - south of Rancho CaTtfornta
Rd, vest of' raiser Pk~ - 255 Io13 - 44i acres -'It-)J.SP Zones. Schedule-A
VESTING TRACT HAP 23470 - EA 325i7 -ratser Development Co. - Itlncho
California Area - First Supervtsortal Dlstrtct- north of Roncho VtsCl lid, .
vest of Kitset Pkvy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Schedule A
The hearings ~ere opened at ZO:lO a.,h and closed at Zl:lO i.e.
STAFF RECQPg4ENOATZON: Adoption of the negattve declaretiDes for EA 32527, EA
325~8, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 22g15 and
22916, and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 subject to the
proposed conditions, and a waiver of the lot length to ~dth ratto for all
our tract raps. These four tract maps yore 1scateel tn VIllage C of Sectftc
1an ~99 Amendment No. l, and would dtvtde the 345 acres tnto Z020 rutdahlia1
lots, provtdea ZO acre School stte, a S acre park stte and 3 tot lots. Staff
had found the proposed maps to be consistent vtth the Comprehensive General
Plan, the adopted specif1c plan, and the zontng ~htch had been applied to the
property through Chin e of Zone Case .~iO?. Ms. 6ifford monaended several
changes to the condttTonS of approval; these changes related to the minimum
lot stze, lot length to vtdth retto requirements, perk requirementS,
landscaping/irrigation requirements, and I requirement for dlvelolxnent of the
tract raps tn accordance vtth the adopted spectftc plan and approved
development agreement.
Comtsstoner Bundling questioned PLs. Gtfford's recoemmndatton for deletton of
the conditions for Tract Maps 23470, 229~5 and 22916 requiring landscaping and
Irrigation. PIs. illford explained these three tentative naps roposed sinimam
7200 square foot lots and the County did not normally requtre ~:ndscaptng and
irrigation for lots of th(s size. Hr. Sireater felt thts condition could be
reclined, Is it yes County policy to requtre landscaping and Irrigation for
7200 square foot lots tn the Rancho California area.
Robert Ktmble, representing the applicant, advtsed they ~ould prefer not to
provtde the front yard landscaping and Irrigation, and requested that the
condition be deleted. Camtsstoner Beadllng asked ~hether Hr. Ktmble had seen
the letter submitted by 14r. and Hrs. Ptpher objecting to the denstry proposed
In r. he ~rea adjacent to thetr estate type homes. At her request, fir. r, tmble --~
located Mr. Ptpher's subdivision Nhtch was next to Itancho Vista Road. They
yore proposing the 7200 square foot lots allDyed by the spectftc plan f hls
or t
area. f4s. Gtfford advtsed the tract nap yes I roftltng of a previously
f
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANHIM CQPFII$$XON PlXNUTES
SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
approved nap. and there Was no change tn the density; the proposed tract map
Was vtthtn the density range allovmd by the $plctftc plan. Coatssinner
leadltng quoted from the letter, whlch requested that the density be reduced
to the denstry originally proposed by the spectftc plan. She wanted to know
t
what thts dens ty was, and was t.nformed there.hid been no change tn the
dens1 ty .. "'
Hr. Ktmble racluest~d that Condition 4 of the Flood Control gtstrtct's letter
for Tract 23471 hi deleted. :Thts condition raquired Binenhance ramps in the
Long Canyon C:hannel; these rues ere not needed because the hid dest ned
this channel for their underlying map vtth 4:1 slopes. Hr. [otz agre~ to the
deletton of this condition. ' [table' then ~ted that. Road Department
Fir. reques
Condition 26 for TraCt"ZDlS ind .Condition 28 .for TraCt 22916 ~ amended by'
adding to the end 'ant as approved'by the Road Commissioner"; R . Johnson
agreed to thts change for both tract raps.
Condltton ZO for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and
XSO units, and ·
t tssuance of building pamtts or Mr
developed pr or to the f
Ktmble requested that thts condition be amended to require the rk prtor to
advtsed Hr. Ktmble*s request would delay complietton of the lark unttl aftor
the entire tract had been completed; staff felit 150 untie would afford the ·
applicant an opportunity to butld sore units, ted at that potnt the Improve-
ments could be tted 1nan road Improveriches. The park .vould also be useful for
the tract to the north, ,hath was being developed by the same developer.
fir. Ktmble requested clarification of the new condition staff hid sag ested
for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for thl-Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r.
Goldman explained this condition referred back to the spectfic plan condi-
tions, which required et?.her a PamorandLn of Understanding vtth the Department
of Fish and Gm or that th~ applicant comply:with the Count3rdide program
being established by Riverside County.
Robert Dudon/y, also rapresenting the applicant, advtsed he Was actively
involved with the task forcl appointed by the Board of Supervisors regarding
the Stephens ringstoo Rat program. There was no set pro rm at the present
ttme, and he Wanted to knoi whether they would be char9~ the $750 par lot
fee, or whether they Mould be held up until a specific progrm was estab-
lished. He did not want to be dela ed, as th!y would be rel to pull
tng permits wtthtn the next few wa:{s. fir. Klotz explained ~e Board build-
hid
generally endorsed the concept of hlvtng a developer eke I depostt of $750
per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted;
project to go fonm. He felt this optton would be
this would alloM the rd
available to the developar. He explained this was not nocessartly the
ulttmate fee, but was on1 I security to be deposited aptnat the ulttmate
mitigation fee. This exp{anatton satisfied fir..Oudonay s concerns.
Mr. Ktmble advised it was thetr understanding .that tn the event Development
Agreement No. S should be held tnvaltd at some time in the future, the
approval of the four tract maps would st111 stand, but the condition for
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLRIIIIE ClNilSSIOII MINUTES
SEPTBIER 28, 198~-
compliance With the develoPmet a teerant we ld be null and votd. fir. Klotz
advise this was explicitly provt~e~ ~th n ~
agreement.
t dave1 olxnent
Bob Ptpher, 41825 Greentree Re·d, Tanaka1·, advtsed the developrant tn ,htch
one-third ef thts proper~y. They had submitted the
letter requesting that the petit·n· of the subject tract raps adjacent to
thetr ·re· be requtred .lo Create lo13 ·titlit .in stze. fir. Ptphe~ hid. · flip
of the Hergirtti Yt11·ge $ixctftc Plan dated Pierob 30,' 1986, 'whtch 'showed the
den·trY 'tn thtS eije·'1o be' ·pproxtmatdily bel:f Of'the den·try currently.' '
proposed. 14r. Ptpher idvtSed thts was so equestrian eras, and people restdtng
In the ·re· needed rtdtng trstls. He requested · connecting trill from Psuba
to Ranch· Vtsta along the beandeFy between thetr subdhtston end the subject
day,loin, n· or along rat set Parkway; this uould provtde an additional
landscaped buffer iris. '
Hr. Pipher edvtsed tW had no problm with the proposed school st·e, but felt:.
the circulation system proposed to serve the school was 1nodequate- In ht~ts
opinion, Street el" should be extended to rat sir Parkway; thts ~ovld then
provtde access to both the: school site and the lark from KitSir Plrkway.
the present ·1me +there was · steady floe of tr·fftc, and providing In ·cce
to the lark site and school from Xatslr Parkway wuld help everyone tn the
are·, tn ·ddttton to inktrig the lark more accessible. Because of the trsfftc
on Katser Parkway, Nr. PtpSer thou ht tt would be difficult for people lhtng
on the other side to reich the laST. He therefore suggested that one or two
parks be required 'on the' other stde 'of re·tsar Parkway, to benefit residents
that area·
Mr. Ptpher requested a solid wall along the beunda between thetr development
and the subject project. The people residing tn ~hrTs ire ware requesting
buffer, and would appreciate anythtng the Commissioners could do to help
the. in inswar to a queStton by Coannlsstoner Brass·n, fir. Pt her advised
there was no street be·been the ·re· ha was representing and ~e sub3ect s
the lots frem the subject tract mp ware backing up agatha· the lo13 in his
subdivision.
Vhen fir. tipher agatn requested equestrian .tratls, Ha. 61fford brtefly
reviewed the proposed trail system, whtch tncluded· ira11 ·long Ranch·
California Road, gotrig UP the Katser Parkway and ~ easement; no tratls were
proposed' in the southern ·re· as requested by fir. tipher. Commissioner
aresson requested that these trstls be designated as publlc access or
recreate·hal trails Instead of equestr¶an trails. fir. krnell edvtsed that an
equestrian tr·~l had been established all ll'ong Psuba Bead, going east end
west, and there was · mrth south tratl tn the Hetropolttan Hater Otstrtct
easement gotn9 by the sc.,oo~ adm(ntstrat¶on Stte along Rancho California Road
to Katser Parkway, TIll ..asidehis of the Green T;ee Irll could use the trail
along Psuba, whtch connected to the fret1 llon Green Tree Lane. This was L-
regional fret1 system, established under the tiTrat·ton of the Psrks
Department.
I. I., k, AND usb.
,'-- '~ ~ ~ ' """"""~"i
VAgANT roLL" J
RES
VACANT
HILLY
,flit
- , V&CA
4411'
· VACANT~
.VACANT .:..
HILLY -v ms~zr. VACAN'
**** TIt,'
VACA
RE$1_D,E,N'~I**A_L.
I Aplk KACOR . . _ '
Use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE
&,'so RANClIO CAL kp. Oist. I
· ,: :::::. ' .. ..,.:-
lIVERSIDE C:OlJN'T~ li'LANNI~ ClI~IS$1Q~ tIINUT~
SEPTEHaER 28, Z988
Corers·toner Bresson requested tnformtton on the tTPe of buffer to be
provided. Fir.' Burnell alvtsed there uould be msonW walls tn the ·re· north
· rid south of Ranch· Vtsta Road; be thought th4s veuld sattsfy fir. Ptpher's
concerns.'- fir- hrnelT alvtsed the nirg·ctta Wllege Spectftc Pl·n hid '
or~gtnill3 bee~ ·pproved-vtth'· sl.~ghtly htgMr.deestty.tn thts' are·..They
had added land Kith the amended spectftc plan but hal not Ch·ned densities' 'in
the ·re· of the .sub3ect tract raps. The lxhtbtt presented IW F4~. Pipher ms · '
conceptual exhibit prepared IF/the engtnelr ~or tnternsl ace only ·rid had
never been presented to the Count3~.
fir. Ktmble responded to Hr. PiplMrts request 'for an aldttton·l park an the
p·rkuey, i~ .·dv~st_ng. Costa~n Homes tea prnvtdt · lark.
other's4de of Kaiser7 , ~he norr~; ~hey wre pT·nntng'to uPgreden~th larks
· pllnned for Tract 22 I:S to
over and ·bove the rnqutremnta of the specific pl·n.
Coadsstoner Donehoe asked abether staff yes rat·mending that · condition he
added to require the wll as · buffer bet·an the subject tract maps and the
area represented b~r fir. Pipmr, and ms informed thts ws · candillon of the
spectftc plan.
Lee Johnson referred to fir. Ptpher's sag eatJoe that "l" Street be ktended to
K~tser Parkany, and alvtsld beth he and ~hn doMson (Transportation Pl~nntng
Set·tan of the Ro~d.Deparment) felt thts ms an excellant rat,rotunda·tan.
Ctrculatlen In thts area might be traproyal IW inktrig thts connection rather
than havtng the school sewed by · cul-de-sac street. Thts muld also five
both the school and the park stta access frm · 66 foot vide street. tlhen
Coantsstoner iresson asked abe·her thts could be ·ccompltshal Kith,u·
red, signing the rap, fir. ~ohnson reAltel he felt the mp vould hive to be
sanded. fir. Sire.tar felt thts provtde· mch be·tar access.·
Comtsstoner aeadllng felt that a long cul-de-sac street gotrig tnto· scheol
was poor planning, as 41 requtred the cars and school busses brtngtng tn
Comtsstoner iresson teas canearned Ibout crest(rig · 4-vly Intersection, 'and
Hr. Johnson agreed that · 3-vi3r Intersection created less preblems. HeN,vet,
he still felt that prnvtdtng access to
circulation service to the school s
Hr. Burnell dad not feel it was necessary to extend "8" Street to Kitset Park-
Nay tn order to provide adequate drculstton for the school. He teas concerned
that the change 4n the roldw·~ mtght cause problems Kith rng·rd to the sewer
lines. fir. Burnell teas also concerned about · 4-vl3r ~ntarsect~on ·t Ks(set
Parkway. he felt retaining the existing
overall 'better c¶rculatSan system for residents of the ·rel. Corn¶·st,net
iresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because ~t ~ould not encourage through
traffic ·1on9 the school site. fir. Johnson pointed out that there would be
less opportunity to eventually obtain stgnil';z·tion for · 3-teay tntersect~on
than for a 4-teay intersection-
8
RIVEP~IDE COUNTY PLANSIal COMMISSION MINUTES:
SEPTEmER 28, 1988
· sdvtsed the had met with the school dtstrtct and showed them the
well as the prooPt.s., rt Site adjacent raiser Parkway,. and.the school district
Ceemdsstoeer Iresson suplifted the trc map
major street,
designed, as it was satisfactory to the school district;-
There ,as no further testtinY. and the heartog wu closed at XX:XO a.m.
FINDXNGS AND CONCUJSIOII$: Tentithe Tract Flaps 22gXS, and 22916, and Vesting
Tract Paps 23470 and .2)471'are located within Vtilage .C of-Specific Plan 199'
Amendment No. 1 (the Pargartta Village Specific.Plan); the four tract maps
would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots; design mnuals have
been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Hips 23470 and 2347X; the tract maps
have been condtttonecl to comply vtth $pectftc Plan 199 Jlmendment No. 1, Change
of Zone Case 5107, and I)evelopment Agreement No. S; I rotvet for the
length to width ratio wtll be needed for all four maps. All environmental
concerns have been addressed in EIa 107, EXIt 202, and the tntttal studies for
these tract nips, aM no significant impacts were found; the tract maps are
consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (Is amended by Garters1 Plan
Amendment 150), Specific Plan 199 kMndmant No. I and Chart of Zone Case
5107; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 arise460.
NOTION: Upon motion Commissioner Iresson, seconded by Cmmtsstoner
Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative
declarations for EA 32517, EA 32S18, EA 32S04 and EA 32505, and approve
Tentative Tract Paps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract Paps 32470 and 23
all with m waiver of the lot length to. width ratio, sub3ect to the proPdos:~
conditions and based on the above findings and conclusions and the recmmenda-
atone of staff.
Tract No. 23470
17(a) - All lots shall ave a minimum size of 7200 square feet net.
17(b) - Delete entirely
20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy pemits for tSO units, one tot lot
shall be improved and fully developed,
21 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy pemtts for 275 units, the second
tot lot shall be improved and fully developed·
27 - Prior to the issuance of building pemits (b/lance to remain the same)
36 - The development of Vestin Tentative Tract PaP 23470 shall comply with
its Design Hanual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No, 199
Amendment No, I and with De..elopment Agreement No, 5
Tract No. 23471
ItIVERSX~ COUNTY PI. NmXNG CCM4ZSSION MZNUTES
SEPTHER 28, ~.g88
20 'Prtor tO the tssuance of occupancy ;emits for 200 untts, one tot lot
shall be 1erared and fu113r developed.
26 -Prtor to the tssuance of belldtng pamtts (balance tO reinate the same)
32(f) - Aii:'front yerd~ Shall be Iro;~;d ':"~ith laodocaptng and m~ually'
operated, pertinent undergroundltirr~gatlon.
Irlond Control Condition 4 - Oeleto eettre13r
3S - The developneat of Vesttng Tsetattvl Tract Hap 23471 shall compl~r vith
1IS Des1 llnull; wtth e1.i prayIslam of -Spectf.~c. P1an No.. 199 .
0eleto Condition 4 of t~ Flood Control latter dated June :tT, X988.
Tract No. 229tS
24 -Prtor tO the Issuance of tatldtng parBitS (balance tO remtn the same)
32 - The develol~_nt of Tentative Tract Hap 22F. S shall cone1 vith all
provisions of Spectftc Plan No. lgg Mendmat No, 1 ind T)evelopment
Agreement No. S
Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end 'or as approved by the Raid ~-
CclBtJ$tOnera.
Tract No. 22916
2 - kid the follc~ring: except fo~ the Tot length to wtdth ratto.
20 -Prtor to the tssuance of occupant pemtts for lSO unlts tn Tentative
Tract 22916, the lark shall be fcu~ly traproved and day. eloped.
25 -Prtor to the tssuance of latldtng permtts (bilanc.e to remtn the same)
32 - The develolaent of Tentative Tract Hap 23gX6 shill comply
provisions of Spec4ftc Plan No. ~99 Mendmerit No. ~. and Oevelo;mnt
Agreemet No. S
33 -Prtor tO tssuance of gradtng pemtts, trapacts to the Stephens Kangaroo
Rat Habttat shall be mtttgatnd per the spectftc plan conditions of
approval.
had Departant Condition 28 - kid to the end "or as approved by the had
Commt ss 4 onere ·
Zun tng Arel: liBecho Cal tfornt l Vest44 Tentative Tract Sos.: ~337Z And.
37
Sopervlsorlal Dlst. rlct,:: Ftrs~ andNo. 1, 1337~ Md. No. 1, r3 3 ~nd. No.
Third flaming CamtssSon: 10-S-88
E.A. Nos: 3~546, 32547, 32548 Agenda Ztem No.: S-2, S-3, and S-4
Spoctftc Plan SK+.ton
· 4 · 7e
o
~ 8e
E~ 9.
4:
Applicant:
Engt near:
T71~e of Request:
Location:
Ex.¶stSne Zunlng:
Surround1 ng Zontn9:
Site Character¶sties:
Area C:haractert sttcs:
Comprehenshe Geeoral Plan
Land DIvision Data:
Vesting Tract
23371 And. No. 1
23372 Aml. No. 1
23373 Md. llo. I
kresge
394
37
31
Kargart ta Vtllage Oevel opmen. t Co.
RIck Engineering Coalany
The 3 tracts ~dll subdtvSde 472 acres
Into i763 residenttaT units
Re. (CheF- of Zone S107 heard by
Beard of S~pervtsors un 9-13-88 proposese
SP 199 kl. IIo. I zoning).
7Jeteg to the north and east ts R-4,
A-:-ZO, It-R, R-l; Zontng to the south tS
Vacant land traversed wtth low htlls
Located on astern edge of Pancho
California camunt~y
Rencho Vtllages (briars1 Plan Amendment
No. 1S0 proposes a eneral plan
as1 nation of Spectflc P~lin No. 19t
:C~n~nt No. 1)
Unlta Denstry (Du/k)
1183 3
~3! 6
348 11
Z:- AgenCy IcemeedaMonS:
&137i kad. No. Z
Road ' 1-22-88
Health
Irlood 7,,U-II
FIrs 1.4741
Shlrtff
ZZ. Letters:
13. Spars of Influence
Irafleeces
~372 kad. lie. 1 ~3373 kad. ;to. I
3-~-88 9-2248
9,-7-18 7-,2S-18
7-ZZ-II 7-ZZ-88
1-1748 8-17-88
f,.ZO-II 6-1048.
lane received as ef this wattrig
ARALI'SX$:
fills · ectftc Flu (OF 191 Md. lie. 1) Spectftc Plea IIo.
~. %~c~ have ~ dnt~d W ~ ~ststont
· S~tflc PIIR'I pllmlq I~aS*
of metal.Ms1 e ·
pe~4tted ~elr ~ U
Tract No. Pro_posed Specific Irl an Peattied
IIo. of U~$ts Area IIo. of Units
VTf 23372 ,kM. No. I 1183 33-37, 4Z-4S 11.97
VTT 23372 k:d. leo. I 232 41 234
348
VTT 23373 Md. No. I 341 31 . TTTif
T7G' ·
A design mnud Ins been prepared for a11' three .sting raps .Mch provides
guidelines for landscap4q. floor lane. allyoMens and zonteg. kousttcll
studies hive Nee IH'oposod INI kri11~ be tap18aented as reelaired bY the
conditions of ap rsval. lttttgatton for potential I acts to fit. Paleear are
also tncluded tn ~e conditions of approval. Mdittonasq~ evaluation found no
cultural resources onstto.
Vesttrig Tentative Tract 2337X. Mended No. I tncludes an ~.8 hol0 golf course-
1 conditions. the tract has been
As also required bY the spac¶ftc P an
dtttoeed to taprove the_ lidirk t8 Planntng Area 45. ]~n conformrice with the
for atttgatton of
21 shNld be noted that the mp~er of untie for congregate are are on est~mte
and wall be revteued at the developneat plan stage.
Mve Me prepared on all three tracts.
EnvQromental assessmntsre assessed t9 EIR t07 and E~ 202 prepared for the
EnvSromentel tectsftcve Plan and the ~rgertta Vtllage Spectfic Plan.
Z. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2337X Vt~l ed~ Ito. Z., 23372 Mended No. 1, and
23373 Mended No. Z are located tn A of the Ihrgartts Vtllage
SImctfSc Plea.
2. The three tracts will provtde Z763 due311eg untie end Flf course open
spa, on iS4 :X64 acres. (kmnded bY Plenntng Camlesion XO-S-g) ;. ~
3. Tract 23372 Mended IIo. ~- has me condtttoad r the Spectftc Plan*s
condition of appreval to mattgate tapaCts to tm ~ephens rangetoo Rat.
4. The tracts 'Mve been condtttonad to conply with ectfSc Plan tlo. 199,
Change of Zone No. S~07 and Developanna Agreemat No.S~-
S. A etver for length to width ratio will be needed fo Yestang Tentstave
Tract 2337~ Mended No. :~-
CSNI~LUSTOeS:
~.. All environmats1 .concerns hive been addressed tn EZRa TO7, 202 and the
teSttel studSes for these tracts and no stgn¶ftcant Sapacts have been
found.
2. The tracts are consistent w4th 6eeeril Plln Mar, dana No. 1SO Change of
Zone I(o. SX07, and SpecSflc
3. The tracts conform to the requSrements of Ordinances 348 and 460.
ItECOHHEXDATIOIIS
ADOPTION of a hgattve bclarattoe for tA floe. 32H6, 32547, 32548 on e fendtrig
tha~. tan projects Will not, hive e signtie!cant effect on the envSronment.
APPIK:)YJ;J- of Yestang Tentat4ve Tract ha. 2337X Mended No. t, 23372 Amended No.
I, and 23373 Mended llo. 1 subject to the attached cond¶tSons of approval.
J~G:mcb:mp
RIVERSIDE COUICI'Y PLNeIINS OEPJUtTKBIT
SUIOIVISION
COIIDII'IONS OF &oPtOVAL
VESTIIG TEIITATIlfE TRACT lOo
STANDme CONOZ. TZOq
The ~ubdivider sh all defend, tademil , and hold harmless the County of
z. .,.,%,. 0,,.,. WfO,--
td or 1to agents, officers, or
proceeding against the County of ltvors ·
emplo es to attack, set islde, votd, or annul an approval of the County
of ~vorsldo, 1to advtsorT agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concernto Vest1 Tintalive Trsct:3371 hentided No. 10 uhtch acttoe ts
brought e~out vlt~Jh the ttae potted provtded for tn Cll lfornta Governrant
Code Sectton 66499.37. The County of Riverside v111 mtl~ eottf7 the
_,,,' prOmpill nottfl the suE~Ivtder ~YEn~ such c18tl, 8cO, oil, or proceeding 61r
, fo115 to ~Nra~ fully tn the defense, the flutbdtvtdlr 1h111 not;
thereafter, be responsible tO defend, tndemt y, or held himless the
~, County of RIverside. ".
2. The tentative subdtv~tstoe 9111 COapl vtth the State of Callford-
Subdivision Pap Act led to 111 the re {r~mnts of Ordlnlncl 460, Sched~ .~
~ A, unless rodtiled b~ the conditions ~stod bolou.
~ 3. This conditionally epproved tonisOlve mp vtll expire tam 3airs after the
~ Count~ of RIverside hard of Supervisors apprOVal date, unless extended Is
m provided b~ Ordinance 460.
~ 4. The final mp Shallo~ prelarsd bY a 11consad land surve3ar 'subJect to all
~ the requireaortas the Stoto of California Subdivision ~p Act end
~ Ordinance 460.
·
The subdivider shall subsIt one copy of I soils report tO the liverside
County Surve3ar's Offlco and tm copies tO the Oeplrtoent of lutldtn9 and
Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
XF a~y Fading ts proposed, the subdivider shall subsIt one print of
c_oeprehenslve grading plan to the Oe~rtaent of Building end S~fety. The
plan shill cempl~ k4th the Untfom htldtng Code, Chiptar 70, as mended -
b~ Ordinance 4S7 end H mybe additionally provtded for tn these
conditions of approval.
CandiStorts of APPreva137
Tent·the Tract M. 23 I Jimended No, Z
ad¶n mat shall lie obtained from the Depotmen· of lulldang and
rid Hght-of 'sly,' ': ' ":...." ; · ....· · ·" . · . · ' .. .
t f
8, My dallmiuent FropartY taxes shall be Imtd prtor to recordit on o the
ftnal asp-
11 ly Vith the ;street ~Wq)y_mnt ricomend··tons
The subd¶vtdlr ·ha c°elPtdl Count ROad 9llllrtlalflt:l 1later dated
"1-30-88 · 'cop}, of . ':- · "
.::,..,:-- ...........,
ZO. ' cess as requtred by Ordinance 460 shall M provided from the tract
mp bound·r}' to I Coen~y mint·toed read.
II. &11 road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall
continue tn force until the governing bedY accepts or abandons sucl~
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encuebrances as approved;
bad Coemlss¶oner. Street!nat abel1 be sub·act to appreval oe-
~b~Ae~ad Comtsstoner.
12. Easements, vhen requtred for roeMy slopes, drainage facilities.
utilities, etc., shall M shine on the ftnal mp tf they are located
M1 offers of dealtcat¶on and
wtthtn the laml division boundary,
conveyances shall be submitted end recorded as directed by the County
Surve~mr,
~.3. 1later and sea·rage dtsposal factl'tttes shall be Installed tn accordance
v(th the prov¶stons set forth ',n the Rherside County Health'Oepartment's
letter dated 7-~.5-88 a coF~Y of ahtch ts attached,
The subdivider shall cmPlY ,aSh the fleod control recommendations
~4. outlined bgf the' Riverside Count~ FIlHHI Colltfqll Dtstrtct'l letter dited
7-22-88 · copy of:,h¶ch ts attached, If the land division lies
adopted flood control drainage are liar·aunt to Sect¶on tO.2S of 8rdtnance
460 · propr¶ata fees for the construct(an of ·m drainage
shetl ~ ~011ectal by the bad Coma··toner,
~.S, The subd¶vtder shill cmplY v¶th' the fire ~mprovement recomendlttons
outl(ned in the Count~ fire 14lrsl~l's 1attar dated 8-17-88 a copy of ~hich
ts attached,
CondiatoM efk val
Tentative Tract ~ :Z337Z ANndad No. ~.
Page 3
:%7,. LotS' cratodtl~ this-sebdlvtslen shall caaldT. with ~ .fo11.~ng:.
~ b~ lo~ ed th~ 1el tf a~ aM11 m vtd~ wi~
addStin1 nl ~rsuant ~ kt~e 3.N ~dtnHce 4l~ud g at
b.~ Lot,s creat,ed by' this' SubdiVIsiOn'the11 :be. to.-.'conformnee .wIt,h the
" it
devolopmnt,"standards of 'the . .SpecJfic Plan fie. X99 Mendsent o. X
zofieo
c. Sen lots are'crossed by major pebllc ettllty easements, each lot
Mve a net usable area of not less than 3,600 squire
she, fe
exclesive of the etalit7 easeant,.
d~' Graded but undeveloped lied shaft be taintsteed tna ueod-fr~e
condition end shall be esther planted with tatarts landscaperig or
vtded with of,her erosSon cont,rol measures as epproved by the
~r~tor of lu41dlng end hfet~.
e. Trash bans, loadSrig areas and tactdental storego areas
locatod ave and visually screened from surrounding ereas with the
of block ~;[ls' end landscaping.
XL Prtor to RECORDAI~0Ii of the final asp the following condis,tons shall be
satisfied:
e. Prior to the recordat. toe of the tiM1 mp the applicant shall subaft
written clearances to the liversIda Count7 Road led Surve7 Oep~rtment,
that, 811 pertinent requirements out,lined in the attached Uproval
letters frm the fo11Mng agenCtes ave bee met.
.~~~bl
perfect
Mater Net..
beety;_i_a~:Oe rtment.-.
OmenS' PIIilRg' ~lmrtmmnt
JMncho Ihtar Oiltract'
~;d '~n conformrice wit,h the develoinent, standards o ~
'~i11~-ta:~:effecttve. Lots creat,ed by this fl~e
zone eli,Stately applSed to the property.
Conditions of J~prova137
Teatsthe Tract No. Z3 I Amended No. 1
Page 4
21.. Prte~ te record'ties of the flU1 gridtristan ape the suHhtder shall
the Office 'of the CeenV. Couebol~. ' ' . '"'"
,,...,...,io,'o, .-
2) A sup1, document conve_~Td title to the purchaser of an tndhtdual lot
or un~t uhtch provides that the declaration of cormwets, conditions
and restrictteas Is Incorporated tiEr, to bY reference. ~
Th~ declaration of covenants, conditions end restfictions submitted for
revte~ shall (a) provide for a aiRteem tern of S0 7ears. (b) provide
for the establtshaent of I propurn' oemers* association comprised of the
aveors of each tedhid'a1 lot or untie (c) provide for ownership of the
cannon and (d) contain to following provisions verbatim:
· Noahwithstanding an~y provision ¶n thts Declaration to the contrary,
Shall app ~:
the following provision I
The property wears' assoctattoe.estsbllshed herate shall annage and
coottames1 mtntstn the 'c area** nora larttcularly described
The pro~l~ mmer~s association shf11 have the right to assess the
aveera of each lndlvtdual lot or' unit for the reasonable .cost of
meetStat the 'cannon area' and shall have the rtght to lien the
mint,hence assessment- M
prtor lw a11 other 11ena recorded subsequent to the nottce of
assessment or other document creat ng the assessment 1t,n.
Thts tMclaretton shell not be tamtnatea *substantially' moandad or
Poparty deannexed therefrm absent the pr{or ~ttten consent of the
~lanntng Dtrector of the County of Rherstde or the County's
successor-In-Interest- & proposed mendment shall' be considered
'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or mintchance of the
Cond~tions of ~
Tentative Tract rlor~.v2337%/mended lio. %
Page S
Xe the-over of aey.eeefil ct batalia.this bclarattoe'and the Ar~tcles
:.'''*''
Once a proved, the declaration of covenants, toedtalons led restrictions
shall Pm~ tutordad at the fame time that, the final mp tS recorded.
Coat sslon %0-S-88) a
a mintnuance district for Vlst,¶ng Tlntat~¶ve~q~i~t~ fla. ,2337'
~ndrk~ Jlo. :1 tn :,co, dance with tm Idndecap~n9 and i'.(ght,ing A~ -
%9720 unless the project, ts ~thtn an extsttng parkway mlntenanca.
2) Prior to the issuance of burialtea permits, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and trrtgat,ton plans from the Count},
bad and Planning Department. AI1 landscaping and irrigation plans
and specificaliens shall be 'prepared In a reproducible format suitable
for peruanent tiltrig with the Count7 load Department.
3) The developer shall pest m landscape performance bend ,htch shell be
released concurrent13f udth the release of subdivision performance
bonds, quitshinning the vtablltt}, of all landscaping ~hlch ,4-11 m
installed prior to the assumpt,lon of the maintenance responstblliV b},
the district.
4) The doveleper, the developar*s successors-in-tat,ernst or assignees,
shall be responSIble for 811 parkay landscaping maintenance until
such time as mintnuance ts taken over b3f the dlst,rict.
$
The developer shall M responsible for mintnuance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation ~stems unit1 such Ume as those
· rations ere the rospons¶bfitt,tas of other part,ins as approved b}, the
P~nnSng DI r
recto ,
Street lights ~hmll be prov$Ge;d vfthln the subdivision tn accordance
the standards of Ordinance 461 and the follo~tn9:
24,
~2. Prier. to Feetdig%Pen of fla..final 'mp~ clearance sial1. be .eataiRed from
'the' · 'tIM Of .applicable
% · . Iletropelfta~:lktee District. relative te Let l~a~ustinlnts shall also
easements affecting .the. sub3..ICt prolie .F.
be completed.
Co~dttto~s of Approval
Tentative Tract lie. 2337X Mended No. 1
Page 6
l) CoecurretlJr with the'-fil.lng of subdivision .Improveneat plans rich the
lload Oepe_rt~n~ the dWoloNr sii~_.11" secure approval. of the · proposed.
street ltgkt 1qeet first free isle lied Oeperlmnt's traffic engineer
and Use frm the appreprtato et1111~ purveyor.
2) FellandeS sppreval ef the street lighttag layout IW' the bad
Dep~_rtmnt's traffic _~~gtneer,. the developer shall lisa filetan
appltcatto~ troth LAFCO for the .formSton of a street 11ght ng
· district, .:or.' annexation to an extsttng 1.tgh~lng district, unless the
eta ts within an extsttng lighttee dtst tot. ' ·"
3) Prtor to retardation of the final rap, the developer she, secure
coedlttonal approvd of the greet 1feb_tins pltu~to~
unless the stto Is art this
for plan check approval and shs~l coep~ vith the requirements af
Riverside Courtelf Ordinance No. 655 and the RIverside County
Comprehensive beers1 Plan.
26. The park eros (Planning Ares No. 45) of the specific plan shall be
taproved alo with all rokl Improvements prior to the 1sinsace of
butldtng palm°teSts for 800 dvelltng unt~-4 to Tract 2337~ Mended No. X. Tee
fina~ - .-for-yest~ng-Troet-Z337i,sha~T-she~-the-Pirk-et'a'nembered'tet~
(ANndedUCt. Planning Coaniss~on ~0-5-88) - '
27. Prtor to the t~suence of GP.~TNG PER~TS the following cond¶tSons shall be
slit st1 ed:
Prior to the tssuance of' gradtag permits, deistled cannon open space
ares perkt~ landscaping and Irrigation plies shall be sueattend- for
Planning hpertment spprovel for the phase of development in process.
The plans shall be certified ~ s landscape architect, and shall
provide for the to11owe rig..
~.) Permanent eutomttc Irrigation systems shall be installed
landscaped aroas requiring
2) Landscape screening ~hero roqutred shall be designed to be opaque up
to a sinlive height of six (6)'feet It
3)/,11 uttllty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view
v~th landscaping and decorative birrters or biff'ie treatments, as
approved b~ the Planning O4rector. 1Jetlilies shall be placed
underground.
4
toMtrices of ~P us1
Tentative Tract, ~, 23371 Mended No, Z
Page 7
"4) · Farkeys' end landscaped'. 'tiffdial '-aiM'. ~he11 be landscaped to
tale' vlmd 'screntnl er l. transition Into the eriemr/use area of
h
sideelks, timrims end other pedestrian
_apprevM ~. the Planntng Department and Space tic Plan lie. 19g
kant I-
'S) 'LandScaping ~I~e~S' SIte11' ~e~Orporate'l:~e ~se '~f*specteen accent 'eras
at, keW vtsual focal petals vtthta the project,
6) l~ero streets trees cannot be Flunasal dthta right-Gf-vay of interior
streets aM pel~tect parkva)s due to tagefficient rod rtght-of-vaJr,
theJr shall be anted outstale of the road right-of-ray, ...a
7) 'Landscaping p!ans shall tacorlmrats nattve and drought tolerant plants
vhere approp ate.
8)
All extstlq spectmn trees and significant rock wtcropptngs on the
g) All trees shall be ednleua double staked, Hanker and/or slw 9rov4ng
trees shall M.steel staked,
lO, Parking laJmuts shall comp17 vith Oral¶hence 348, betSee Xa.t2,
3) Preltmtnar7 pad and roadwry elevations, '~
z)
t)
Approximate time frames ~or grading and Identification of areas
W be graded during the htjher probab¶11V ratn mnths of
~rough lvlarch-
Techniques ~tch vill be ettllzed to Irevet eroston and sedtmentatton
durtn9 and after the grading process.
M1 exlsttng nattves ctmn trees on the subject property Shall be
28, preserved ~hertver feastaTe. Idherl the]r cannot he preserved the shall be
Director fro' U ;val, The ;;Fen shall be used u a euSdel(ne far
subsequent deta111~°e~d tad¶rig plans far tmlhtdual phases of development
shall tnclude the foilloving: -'
CAred(tines of' Approval
Tentative Tract Io. 23371 Jlmended No.
Page 8
4) Areas we .tlqmra~ grading outside of'a Firefeeler phase.
30, "grad(el plato' sh'a11 'cm~em' b lea~d 'adapted 'Hillside' hvelo;ment
Sbndahb: A1 cUt ami/er fill sle~es, or indhtdual canine(ions therot,
· htch exceed ten feet tn vet('ca1. bet ht $h$11 be madtiled by in
$ppreprt$te combination of s mctJ terracing (bunching) plan, 1noreaSe
slo ratto (t.s., 3:1), rat, llnl v$11s, end/or slope plan(tag combtried
wt~elrrtgatton,' All drl.vMys ~4n~1 not exceed · fifteen percent grade.
31. 'All M $1o'/as' laceted adjacent 'to'eegraded nitur$1 to'eta and exceeding'.
0
tee (Z).. fit tn-vertical hatthis $h$11 be contour-graded Incorporating
the fallrating gridtag techniques:
Z) The angle of the graded slope Shill be gradullly adjusted to the angle
" Of till natural terrain.
Jr
2)" Mgular ferns $hlll be discouraged. The graded form shill reflect the
natural rounded tarrite,
3) The toes and tops of slopes sh 11 be rounded oath curves wtth radii
dustgrind tn prepor(tee to :he told hetght of the slopes vhere
r
d etaage and stability pemtt such rounding.
4) 1dhera cut or flll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
horizontal contours Of the slope shall be curved tn & continuous,
andMinting fishion. : ..
Prtor te the Issuance of gradtq permits, a qualified peleeetologlst shall
be ratatried If/the developer for c~_nsultatton end conmen( on the proposed
gradtag Mth respect to potential laleentologtcal tapacts. Should the
paleontologist find the I~tenttil ts htgh for Impact to signS(icier
resources, a Frl-grade me(tag be(eta the plleontologtst and the
excavation end grading contractor shall be arranged, llhen necessar7, the
paleontologist or representative shall ave the authority to temporarily
dhert, rldlract er halt gradtag acttvlty to alloy racevar~ of fossils.
Prtor te the issuance of BUILDING PERNITS the Solloving conditions shill
be satisfied:
accordance vtth the vrttten raWest of .the developer to the County
of Rherstde, a copy of ~tch tsm f(h, and tn furtherance of the
ag neeeat betveen the develo r end the County of RIverside, no
ha(riding mtts shall be ~ssued by the County of Rherstde for
parcels v~thtn the subject tract until the developer, or If~y
the
develo r's successors-in-interest provided ovtdence of compliance
wtth ~Kee terms of sat~ D~ve'topment Agreement No. S for the financing
of public facilities.
ceNttit.fie o4' & re1
Tentative Tract 23371 kendad No. I
'b. -Vith.thil setmitts1 e~ befid~ni Idles to'~he Departant of kJldin9 ~nd
SBfeV tkt day,leper d11 deNstate uapllince with the Icoultlcll
_ire re4 fee Veltl Teatalive Tract 13371 keendad No. Z
noise levels b 45 Lds end fit,tie 'netso levels below 6S'Ldn.
c. loot-mounted lncbentcal eatpaint shall not be pemJtted etthtn the
.suMtvt,aOn, except' 'fe~- the clubhe, El 'uhtCh mJr 'have screened..
equips, el aS pproved IW' Planning Mrecto'r. 'hver' Solar equ'tpmnt'
or .any other ee:rgJr firing device sial1 he permitted vlth Planning
DepartBent epprovll. (ABedad by Plannl.ng Mission
d. eutldtn separatfe~ betmen eli imlldlegs Including fireplaces shell
"' not he ~ess than tee (10) fm unless epproved by Department
· ' kfldfng .and Safety and FIre Department per ecfffc Plan No.
~aendment Re. Z. fakedad by Platotel CamlsstonS~S-88)
e. A11 street side ~urd setlacks shell ha e minimum of 10 feet.
f. All front 3rerds shell ha preyideal with landscaping end automat'
t rrlg·tfon. "
Prior to the Issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the telleering cond¶ttons shell
he satisfied:
Prtor to the find Iratiding'Inspection approve1, tW the ktldtng end
hta fe'ty ~al~fo~· bad, LI brae liU, raiser Perk ila~r end Parg·rSta
echo De rim t, villa shell be constructed el,rig ratear Parkway end
hid per the Oesi Naneel. The required wall shell be subject to the
b~r PlanntngngCometsstno IO-S-~. ·
be
MIll and/or fence lee·floes shell confoe to attached Figure ZZt-17 of
Specific Plu No. 199 kenbent lie. 1.
c. All landscaping and trrtgatto6 shall M Installed In accord·rice utth
· pproved plans prior to the tssuence of cccupan~ parutts. If seasonal
-conditions de not rutt ,llnttnge interim landsca leg and erosion
control m·sures sh·lrhe utt&JZzed Is Ipproved bY the PF:nntn9 DIrector
d. All perking landscaping ·M Irrigation shell be instilled tn
accord·nee vlth Ipproved plans led shell be vet, clad bY ·Plsnntng
Deparbnent field Inspection.
end the DIrector of lutldfng Ind hfet~.
Condtt~om of Approve1
Tentative Tract llo. ~3371 Mended No. I
f. Street trees shell M p_luted throughout the suedivision 4n.accordance
with the standards o~ 0rd~n~nce dO end Spectftc Plin M. Xgg
Amedmnt llo. X
3S. "bvelopeent of Vesttrig .Tentative .Tract,. No. Z337X Mendnd No. ~ shall
conely ~lth 811 ~rovSstons of SpecifiC' Pl'ae 11o. X~ Mend~ent' llo. · X 'and -.
.DeveloFment Agrement IIo. S.
Gmcb:eP
EXISTING ZONING_
./R-A-I/2
SP
e
· -,. R-A-tO ~
..T'
ReR
ReR
i
use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE
Area RANCliO CAL Sup. Dirt.
t?L,,e.~.c S.L ~.n~S ksess~'S '8k .923 Pe.zo,tt,n
T. II ,l~ll. let. l,l,4
CirCUlOtiOA RANCliO CALIF. RD. t 14ARGAR|TA RD. IIO*
ElemeM SO. GENERAL KEARNT t RANCliO VIST~
i ~"";"";';~ '::; ed. Ok. Pg. ::c~ Oat, 3-13-86 Drawn By
; I"- 2000' .'?/I/£,q"~/Z~' CCX//V'TY ,cL,d.,Y,'V/N; Z)E',~,d.'i'7'aL~(7'
NO ICIL!
taRoy O. la.me
OFFICE OF ROAD COIfW$~IONEli · COUNTY
Sel).taaber 30s ZIg
Ilverslde'Cam~ Rinsing Ca~ssleel
4010 Lemon Street
Illverslde, CA IIIOZ
Lidins and kfttlemn:
9tblllkl litel
lies" Tract Rap Z33'/t - abeam IZ - Road Co
· ' ScMdulI A o Tee SP Rap #Z'
VITh respect te tin' conditions of epp~ovel for the referenced afloatlye '
division map, the load bpertmnt reomndS that the laddivider provide
telsieving sirlet lerovemnt plans and/or road' dedications in accordance'
kS. lance 460 end Riverside CounV lind berovemext Standards (Ordinance-4
taut tm tentative m correct17 shows acceptable cen~er
It Is understood tmp
profiles, ell existing exsemnts, traveled nays, end drainage courses
appropriate Q'so end that their ladssloe or enacceptabilItY BU require the
to M rosebullied for further consideration- 1hose Ordinance and the folle
conditions are essential parts and · requiremat occurring In ONE is ·F-' ee
as though occurring In a11.'TheF ere intended to be coeplementar*'-~-.,d
describe the contit!lions for e croplate design of the improverant* A11 ~deSl
the true meaning of tm conditions shell M referred to Tim
regarding s
Coenissloner'S Office. " --
Z. The land~lvldnr shill protect dramstreks properkins free damps
caused by altnration of the drelnsgQ Pottarnlo I.e,o contentre-
tire of diversion of floe. PromiSe aM11 M provided by
r.: '
both. ~1 drainage easerants She~l be sheart on The final map
and noted as fellwas q3ralnlge Elsemet - no trailcling,
1be lenddivider shall accept end proper17 dispose of ell offsite
drilnage fleeing onto or through the site. In the event the
bid C0entssloner peruIts the u$s of streets for drainage
Pu os$s, the provisions of Article XZ of Ordinance No. 460
purposes, the subciivlder shall provide adequate drainage"
facilities as approved by the bed 0ep4rtaent,
TJ~ctal~"Z3371
' SliFtmkr 30,
Iqt3or drainage Is Involved on this londdhlsloe and Its resolution
shall. be as aplroved b~ the bed Department,
S. ta Sea lILy shell be laproVed Viihie the dedicated right of
In accordsace elt~ CBen~y Standard No,
L-'stNet .A., (fro street 'c' to .|.omn
· .spireveal lt~ tin'load .CamlsS*.eeer, (66/li'), '. '. '..;
7. Street *1' (fro street *o°: -el, lid fm StlIIT ego '{l La Slrlnl
ta~) and Street "Ca from StY-aT, '1° to eproxiataV 71Qe'uest of
hisor Parkue~) shslt be lap red In accordance witIt Iqodlfled
Country Standard IIo. Z03, Sac[Toe A, (48'/48'),
:8. Street "Ca (700's easterly eriCaltar ParkusJt) shall be ImproVed · tn accordInca with Ibdlfled CeueV Standard
9. Street 'X', Street '1" (free Strict "Z" lilF), Street era'.. (fro
Street ele to Street =SS") Shill be Improved In accordance vftth
Nodtried Covey Standard No. t03, hctloe A. (44'144'),
Street *Re, shall be Imprevel In accordance vlth Modified County
Standard No. 104, Seefloe A, (40'/40'), ·
Streets 01)* thru *N*, *l*; *d* timre *Q*, *$* tare °ld** *Y* taro °DD'
F
Strut, elEo, Street · From eGG* thre eLLa, Street '14H" (free Street
'5S" Sl,Y)e Streets elOl" ~ "AAA· led trio Monalaid Streets rMfudn.~
between Street "l' led ells led between Street "1" led Street "CO
shall be improved In accordance ut~h Plodif led CounV $tsedard
10S, Secttoe A, (H*/36*), .
12, $ia+,b'~ '~' "~JimdJha11 be Improved viibin the defiCitrid
1blur District prior to
Slp'dlHr ,t0, 3111
PIle I
14. 1he maxima cant.riSen gradient shill at exceed
iS-- 11a alma censorline redl I' ~11 be as appreved i~ the bad
Zl- leade hllf. lined'led lia_elarlta lind sin11 ke lep~ved
.. eeeaste ee;& md letter ted 43'feit .fre eente 1lee. Led eitch
e as 11 concrete pay! I reconstructiN or resetfacing of
feet kil~f ddtf~ dedicated right of easy In etc, ce .tth Coun~
Standard IIo.
ZOO
Brlor te' tla...fll lng of the tIM1 .amp vith .the Coue~ liecorder's
Office, the. developee' shell levide '.eVIdence of eenttnUovs'
proposed Irate 'streets elt~le the .develolaint
m lntenahce of ell bid ComTrssloee ·
as Ipproved ~ the r
Sldevalks elihie the develolaent shell'be as eppreved I~ the bed
Coralsat,net.
The alelea lot frontages along the eel-de-sacs end knuckles slel~
be 3S fat unless othervise specified In the particular sorting
classification.
All driveva3rs shall conform tO the applicable Riverside Country
Standards Bed shall be shove on the street leprovemnt plans.
A minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed
betvane driverays.
Iben MockNails are required tO be constructed on top of slope,
debris retention w11:shk11 be constructed st the street right of
va~ line tO prevent lilting of lidcaulks as epprov~d by the bad
Comlssloner.
The minimum garage settack shall be 30 feet measured from the face
I
of curb. Sliovld the developor prov de evidence of roll up doors oe
the INIldln9 plans, a reduction of 4' ml~ be all,veal but in no case
feet ran tack of sidewalk or
shall the garage be closer than ~0 f .
n
curb In the abse ce of sldevalk.
Prlear~ ud .sac,rider/access roads to the nearest paved road min-
tslead b3r the Counter s1~11 be constructed within the public rI ht
of v_a), tn accordance vlth CounV Standard No. 10S, Section l, ~3~'/
/60') st a grade and allgreener es epproved IW the had Connlssloner.
Prior to the recordsSloe of the fins1 asp, the developer shall
de sit edth the RIverside Count~ bid Department, I cash sub of
f
$Z~0.00 per lot as mitigation for traf Ic signal impacts. Should
" ' Inl sa M}uen~ to the
~ Wloel~ o1~1'1 il'blsed upon e centSfilM'Profile extending
f'bfltfmm of 300 fat MFoed the pro~ct boundaries It e Fade and
e
me I ateniece b]~ Country,
lietOPical end commntcst4oes trenches sial1 .M provided In
accordance with Ordl'nence 46X, Standard '8X7, ~
27, Asplultlc eelsIon (fog see1) sial1 be applied not less than
fourteen duo follow! placemet of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at s rate on~ O.OS gallon r aware 7lrd. Asplull
emulsion shall centone tO betleeS 3~ 3~ and 94 of the S~ltt
30.
Standard Specifications,
Ste'nderd cul-de-sacs end knuckles and offset cul-de*sacs shall
censervoted throghout tm hnddlvlslon,
Career cutlacks In conference with Count7 Standlrd No~.lOS slull
be lime on ~he fln~l mp end offered for dedication where
applicable.
Lot ecclls shill be reSOrtCOld on ILlecho CIl lfornll.'Eoed, NlrgirlLL
· , i
bid, KIller Plrkwa~y end La breni'llty and so noted be the f
3~. LanddiviSions creating cut or f111 alebus adjacent tO the streets
shell provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope
easemats el spprovtd b~, the bad Olpsrtaent.
32. All centarllne intersections shall be st
33, .1lit errfit design and Improvement concept liedJelled with TI 23372 end TI ~1373.
34. Street 11 being $hl)l hi re tred in lccordance with Ordinance 460
led 46t t~roughout the lubd?uvlllon. Service Area (CSA)
The County
kialnJstrltor deternines d~ether ihls propose1 qUiltfeeS under
&d~dl
pap J
A11-prl~ete end Mlle'entraeces ud/or~ tn~ersectlons opposite
preJeet she11 be coerdtnetad mia this project end sham ee the
· street Improve·hi Ideas,
3L"A strll;I plan I$ required for lienca California bad. The rainy
ef the existtag striping eMIl be the respon$tblllVnnof the
applicant, Traffic signing and striping-$hall be do s tW Count~
forces mith'.e11.:lncurred costs Mrae'iq~. the sppllc$ ~.
37. The role 'entrance gate shelb M located · minimum Of IS0" frm the
I
time llnc of lancho Ca IfornJ· load,
GH:lh
V truly u
'
TIOM:
1ElilIP. SIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTN -'NT I)ATZ:
J,.lv 2~. leIBI
Still: .Catlw illford :
~ SKitsrile. E~vlre~entsl Health ~erviees
~ Trsct ~1171. aMEnded W-. I
The Environmetal IMslth Services has reviewed Trsct IMp 23371, A~ended Nap
le. I dated duly 19e 1988. Our ~urrent r. ementl will runale aS previously
elated In our letter dated June 13, 19t8
PJ~m-FLS:D~ CC)'Jr~I~
PLAf~.~f:46 C, EpARTMe,&.T
'."COUNTY I IVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT
of HEALTH
June
--
RIVilI. iIi:}I:COglrrYPLMeiI140EIF"r-
4080 Lemon Street
Rj-vereide, CJklZlO~. ..
lttmt Kathy litford '
RNEKsEUE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jell TRACT MAp lllYl't ht certain land situated in the
winter orated territory or kite cmu~ty or liverside, Its e'
3eSO ~d recorded ,a the Office st the CoyLy Beeorder ·
S~ Diego C~ty, California
{~.0~9 Lots)
~ ~$em Mml.
me.m ~ ~
&ill
~mmml
sale kml4m ~
6lll Well~II
6entlemerrm
The Department of Public 14ealth his routeyed Tentst.ire Map
14o. ~3371 sad ricoMends thiS:
Avster system shill be installed according
pimps and specificst.ion &s epproved by t.he vatmr
company and the 14emlt. h Department. permanent
prints or the pleJ~s or the visor system shall
be submitted in %riplics~e, vith · mtntma pcsl-e
not leas that~ one inch equals J00 rent, ·long vT~h
the originiS drmvtng ks the County Surveyor,
prints shall shov the lnternml pipe dismetsr,~
lociLion or v&lvem.e~d tire hydrants; pipe sn
3sins specificsLions, and the size or t.he main
· t the Junction st the new system to the
existing gymtom* The plans shill comply in
all respects vith Dtv. S, Part l, Chips.or Y o
the California Health and SafeLy Code, Cmlifo;n&:ners
Administrative Codo,'Titlo RR, Chmpt.er 16, in
Order 14o. lOl 9r the Public Utilities Couission of
It. ate or California. ~hen.eppltcible.
Rivers lde County Plsnntng Dept ·
Pale ~ ,' :. ;
Attar Kirby giftoral ""
The plane Shall be sllned;Irya registered engineer
valor company vikh t~e fOilwing cerklFtcsL~on: el
certify'LAst the design of the Miter oyster in
'Truck-Map JllYi-is'uccord&nce vt~h the vaLor oysteR' ""
expsnsion pitas of thoR sachs California ester District
and thut the valor service.sterile &rid distribution
system viii be &dequske tO protie valet service ks
ouch truck. This cerkiFlo~kton deem not constitute
guarantee this it viII mupply valor to much tract it
· 'any specific quantities. tiers or pressures for fire
protection or shy other purpose". Thtm certifiestieR
shill be signed by a responsible orrictsI or the Miter
coupshy.
T~is Department has s statement From the Ranohm California
Miter Distr~ct igree~ng to serve domestic visor ~o esch end
every lot in the subdivision on densad providing
satisfactory Finsncisl &rr.engements are completed vith the
subdivider. It viII he Recesstry for the finsncisl
arrangements to be muds prior to the recordsLion of the
fin&l map.
This Depirtment his t statement From the Eastern Municipal
WiSer District agreeing to slier the subdivision soysUe
system to be connected to the severs of the District. The
sever system shill be installed sccording to plans tad
specific&tieRs is upproved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Deptrtaent. PoresRent prints of the
pl,n, of Use sever system shill be submitted in triplie,to.
&long vitb the original driving', to the County Surveyor. The
prints shill shov the inkemil pipe diLueter, locution of
sinholes, complete profiles, pipe tad Joint specificsLions
and the size of the severs st the junction of the nov system
to the existing system. X single pitt indicating lociLion
of sever lines snd valor lines shall be s portion of the
soyage pl-~m snd profiles. The pith0 shill be signed by a
regtstere~ tuginset ind the sever district vith the
Foliovine r~rtiFicutton: "l certify thst the design of the
sever system in Tract Hap :3371 is in accord&rice vith the
sever system expansion plums of the gistera Municipal Mater
DistrAct sad tAiL the vigil dispos&I system is sdequ&Le &t
, .~
Riverside Count, y Plmminl Dept.-
June 1J,..1968
: ·
Lr&ct, - e
· ~cit_al'nt_sual~bl.tUbs~.~.td_~t.~,b~_Geuu~s-lgcxtXef:-'t-lgglst
~t_Ct~it~_Sj._itSt~_ln_UttkLlEieL. it_&bt-~tgUtl~f:e£-~bt
zignod i~-~eu_ef:_Lbt.f:iui~-m ·
I% viii be solesairy for finsneStS irrsngemenke
prior-ks.the reeordstion of the
" Sincerely; " '" '': "'~""" "
Environmental Ilealth $erv$ooe
t.o be Bide
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTRQL- AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
f,~all' IM,IFIINIA ellis
· , · I rFl&l 91'L
Riverside
Flannlng Departme t
County ildsint straitvan CaW ....
liveraide, .Ca1 Irerail: .... '
Attention: lie·load TIm No~CA~
· rf~Feed heded No. I
Area: 'l"e, mee,-fe,
Ve bare roytoyed this can and hie the felltort4 ants;
'ticopt for Bit since natu. IoCel ronoff'ihich: lay traverse'portions' of th
' ropetry the project is considered free free ordl~r stors flood hazard
~ouevor I store Of unusual mgnltu e could cause lobe ~&ezge. New construe
tton sh;uld cWl~ vlth all appllc~le erdtaenCea.
' natere1 vatercourses for be lr~ sites. The roturn1 vatercoursos sho~d I
kept free of betldt o ned obstructions la order te mintAte the nitur~
drainage patterns ef~e area end te prevent flood damge to nov buildings.
A ante should be placed on en envtrOnae_ntd constraint sheet startog, 'All n
buildings shall be fiendproofed by elevating the finished floors a ateteam
)8 1riches above adjacent froandsurface. ireston protection shall be provSd
for mobile hoe supports.
Thto 'proJect ls'tn the rules a
' me
drainage plen f · shall be ps-t~ ta accordance vlth The applicable
regulations-
The proposed zoning t· consistent vtth oxlstln flood hAzArds. Son flc
control facilities or finedproofing sky be req~rod to fu11~ develop to 1
taplied densiV-
The Dlstrict'· report dated aT, no se. lift tl ·1111 currant for t.hls proJt
The District tins pot object te the proposed minor change.
The attached comments apply-
cc:
Ytr~ trelF 3roars,
KETOIk'~H L. EWARDS
"~
· ': HIe, H. I(JkSI. fiJBA
ntor CIvil [qtees
~L~WARB~
/
RIVIRIIDE COUNTY iFL, I:~D CONTROL AND
!WATER CONIERVATION DISTRICT
#use 30, IMI
eooom&aeevevum
RIverside County "
Count.y Adsinlet:alive Center
RIverside, Cultremit
Attentions. Ipecl!fio ,lug
Z~dies and Gentlemen.
be vesting tract 2337~
This Is a propeel.to divide about 400 a~res in the Tesscult
Valley ares. The site is along the east side of Margtrits Rosd
betWen Ranthe California Road and in Serene pro~ec~.
As · portion of IpecAfAe Plan 199 (MergerAt& ~i~age~.s "
Of felts floes from two meier vetorlds ere t. ribrca:l, LO the
slices northeast and southeast corners, The applicant proposes
to accept. and ~onvey the flows from the northeast with ·sLorm
drala system, and t~e flora from the southeast, with · golf co,~
grass channel from vhere the floes arose under Sancho CallIs: .a
Road in I culvert,
O~aite flows vould be drained into the above UdO r/stems with
mr, reels and store d:ains according to their natural drainage pat-
tern. According to the applicant, the site vouXd be roughX~
graded with of falSe ud oneits flows directed into the proposed
golf course and temporary drainage facilities. TALe is m:l. XowabXe
~f the natural drainage patterns are preserve and the temporary
bettitles have the X00 year atom capacities.
are the District's recmendatLonss
~toek/TemecuLa gelleT Ares ~age ~Zu for
~a~age fees have h~ adored ~ ~o hrd, ~a~naVo
fees ~aXX ~ ~td am oe~ b~ ~er ~e provisions of
~e "hles ud Regulations ~ ~LnistratLon of ~ea
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as pazt of the fixing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel mp is waived, drainage fees sha:l be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to re~ord"
· certificate of compliance evidencing the vaivr-',
the parcel mpl or
Rat Veer, Lug Tra~ 333'73.
June 20, lglB
the ol~Lon of the Lind divider, upon filing · re-
quired affidavit requesting defe~nen~ of ~e
~/ded ~~, ~e ~on u defer ~e bee my
~~es bye bu ~i~ia~ed m ~e ~r~eX
~r I you ~rA~, ~ ~~8 for eA~er ae-
.ae~ve · .- ..
Made should be elevated at 'least I fOOt abo~e the'ZOO
7ear flood plain in the adjacent drainage faci3. itiee.
Eros/on protec~Loe should be provided for s~l fi,~ e,opee.
exposed ~o the po~enLLal: erosion I~ea:da,
,0
H~drological and l~draulic calculations for both the ~
porarF and ultimate drainage facilities should be subhal:t-
On,LIe drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be cone/ned vi~hin drainage easements
shown on ~he f~naZ Rap, A nots should be added to the
fina~ map e~ating, ':Drainage easements sha~l be ..Xept.. free
of buildings- and .obstructionso ,
Offsite drainage faclZLr~Les should be located
publicly dedicated-drainage easemen~e obOe/ned from the
affected property Mere, The documents should be
corded and · asp/submitted to the District prior
recorda~Lon of t~e final nap,
A].X lots should be graded to drain to the adds.cent e~reet
or an adequate ou~Ze~.. .
She lO 3roar st,ca f~w should. be contained viihie the
aurb and the 100 3rear at,re ~w should h sonSinca
~~ ~e e~ree~ righ~ of wy, ~en e/~er of ~ese
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the ~:ibu~azT 100 year e~orm f~ovs.
Additional omcgency esclpe should also be provided,
Riverside County
Vesting Tract 3317X
Juno 30, ltll
I. The property'W street and lot grading should be designed
drainage ImttjsrnS ~th raslss~ ~o Lvlbut~vY drainage
· . · othervAil, a
e~es~ outlet into esd outlet aotSditioas~
drainage oe~ent abemid be-ol~;.~mind fx. ctm .tTbat affected'
pr~.r~y mere for Us release of concan,t ed or
varied atom flows, A ~ of the recorded drainage
sueresent should b sulmittod to the Diettic for review
~rior to the roastdories of the final mep-
Zf the t, Tact S8 built" in phaSeis each phase IhaXZ. be
tect. ed free the' Z in ZOO ~.ear t, rlbutar~ of. era
e2 ·°
Temporar~ erosion sentreX measures should be implemented
lamediet"sly feZlee/rig rough grading to prevent deposition
of debris onto deanstress properties or drainage
faclXi~es. '
Deve:Zo&,-ent of t, his property should be coordinat"ed with
t~e development. of ed:Jscent" propert"Leo to ensure t"hat"
watercourses romesAn unobstruct"ed and et"ormwttere are not"
divort"ed from one vut"ershed to another, T~Lo may require
the const"fact"Los of t"emporary drainage facilit"les or
offslt"e construction and grading.
Zvidence of m viable maintenance mechanism should be sub-
m~ted ~o ~he District ud Coney for review and
prior U re,rda~lon of ~e ~nsZ
14- A copy of the improvement" plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrolugio and hydraulic cal-
culations should be submit"ted to the D/strict" via the
Road Department for review and spprova~ prior to racerda-
vies of the final mop. eradinS plans should be approved
prior ~o Issuance of grading permits.
of this of~L~o st 714/787-2333-
Verr ~uXy ~o~s,
Jtick Engineering Compt~.y
FHN
nior Civil Engineer
g~4) nT4~X
~e Tire b~ertuent zecmtde ~ felXwlQ fire ~roteetin Beeauras be pr~lded
~ accordance ~tb ~v~eSde ~t7 ~dheucee ~/or rocoe~ed fire protocsin
11m valor serum ehaXX be capable of previd~ul · potential ff~e flee of 2S00 ~ .~
end an actual fire floe available free an7 me hydrant 8haXi be 3~00 ~1~ for 2
hours duration at ZO PIZ residual operettas pressure.
Ipproved super fire hydrants, (6'x&'xiidl) shall he located st each street
intersection and spaced not more then 330 feet apart In an7 dlrectiou~ith oo
portion of an7 lot frontale sore than 165 feet free · bidrat,
ippXicaut/deveXopcr shall furnish one copy of the valor eyeten pXau ~o the Yire
Plan shall tourore to fire hydrant types, location ud
Departsent for r,ime,
special, and, the OySteR shall ROOt the fire fray requirements, Plan shall ha
sLlned/epproved b7 · reSistsred civil eal~aeer and the local vator company viii
the folloviurcerttficatioat aZ certify that the deeiBm of the valor eyetea Lo
In accordance vith the requirements irescribed b7 the R~verside Count7 tire
Departaent."
7ire flows for the sousir7 club vl~be determined ties plot plan is.re,Loved,
The requirsl valor eystm, lucludiuS fire hydrants, shall be Installed and acceptel
b7 the appropriate valor alency prior to eq conSnettle buLldial uateria~ hoists
p~aced on an individual lot, '*
~i buildings shall be constructed vith fire retardant roofing material as
described in Section 3203 of the gaLlon Building Code, Any rood shinSlee
or eha~ee shall have a Class ale ratinS end shall he approved b7 the Fire
Dopere-ant ~r/or to lnta~Xetiou,
Net to lle feefistiee elll
geerode_ P""
' :' "'~tleel flllfdbll tlli IllsIll el liedltlolli~lll'llll3'X Ill fifefled .to till
lAl~ei~srtselt fleasial ell Isllleeflll el&If. "
lilll}lel~llgll
Development hviev
08-liv-lS-q .98
Tour Reference;
VT 23371,233?2 e end
23373
Belated tO' 8P 199
Katiefits V~llsle
County of' liver,ida
sol0 Lemon Street'
XivereZde, CA 92501
Deer !mto, Omit,Palm
Tank you for the opportunity to revSev the proposed Vestinl --
Trsots 23371, z'?z, sod 233T3 Zoosted easterly of X-l! end
Hurlerits load ~tveen leash, California load and Lo Serene
~n Ran,he California*
Please refer to the attached matertal on vhioh our soma,eta. have
been indicated by the items ohmeked and/or by those items noted
under nddit~onal soma,eta,
Zf any york ia nee,salty within the state hiSbray rllht of vaYm
the developer must obtain"an erierose.he,at permit from the Calfran
Pillriot 8 Pe~m4t 'OffLee prLor to bag%nninl work.
Zf edditione2 information is desired, please seX1 fir. Patrisk M.
connazl7 at (?lab 383-e38a*
Very truly yourSm
:... mf. vszz
Dlstriot Permits tnlineer
sos Lee Johnson, Riverside County load Department
° d~r restores
mN~mmery te aittpte the auralalive Sqar. ef ~ .... mid mb"mXnale mhmld b
. JFoyidod Irlir to or idUi dWjq~n~msnt if the arm thst aeeeuttates theS~
It appears flit the Vatrio e~f ' ' iaqe line'stud It/this i~, ~:-1 ooJld ha
al~lfleeut eft'eat an the state hi I~ systel if the Ires. kV lessuru ne
developmr. ·
3Ms pertim of stab hllhwSY is laded in the Csliforub Msster'Plsn
Rilbmyl Z~T$IMe for Offloisl ~lsis~s _lil~s~ DMiIMtIon, snd in 'the
sSmcX my. vbn to nsve Uis mteffieisll/desilated u · sure sosnit
This Imrtton o1" state hll, b,my hmms Imemm offSeSslly desSfnst4d ss · stmte seen
h~2~ly, snCl develapmt in tltts Mrridar M be oaqmttbl® wltl~ the seec
Xt-' Is ~lzed t~st tlsr~ is oon-Sdersble publie omeern shout Mise l~ev~
sdJmoent to bssvlly trsvslod M4b,~. Lsnd develqsent, in order to I~esx
eta this merne By require special noise sttaumtSm rossares. Developc
property si~ld Lne, lude shy nec~ nobe mttemm~tm.
Norml rf2ht ar wy dedfcmtSon to Provide
the state hilh4y
C~rb and 2utter, 3tste Stsndsrd ' , a~onl tIM stste htWssT.
Psrkin2 be prohibited ulon2 tbs :re hl21my by psintin2 Ib curb rM
8rid/or by the proper placesent o~t~ p~rktnl" slIM,
redSuo ~ returns be provided st intersections with the stlte tti112d
Jl'~"Undsrd ubeelctllr rup mast be provided tn the returns.
TehSmslsr soHss to tbs state hll~ be provSded by st~ndsrd
dr1 vswsys.
VeP,&eular 8eoes s Ihsll not be provided v~F~ln . of t~e tntersect lofi st
Tdxicular access to the state Mltae~ be l~ovided by · road-type
'Tom 8-F21.~ (lsv, S/87) (Continued m reverse)
· tPsfrle stuly ladiestin8 ee-smi efYeeS~e flu psalm-as snd volas,
lspscLs, md ~ sl~llstlon ssssn~ k lrspsred,
Msqust4 ofT street parkJals uhtc~ does not require kddnf onto the Rata
be provldmo
PsrkinR lot. bs deve~olsd Is · mmsr list niX1 sot osuse shy realist sovee,
mt, rsnoe Its the stste
HardImp psrklaf no~ be developed btas busy drlveb~ en~rsnee
Care be ~sken dm~ developin~ ~ls J~ ~sl ty ~o J~,ss:t: we end perpe~Js~e
sledlye bsrsssed stcrs runoff to insre last · Mlbmy drainage prowls
lrly neeesssry nc~se altersslim be peovtded as psrt of' the develolnent
Flesh refer to $~taehed sdditlonal mats.
[[[
I anpy of' shy oasistim elf allfoul e~ revised s~.
· oopy or any dorarants 3rovld~nl sddltlmsl stste MI3~Qy rilht of ~sy upm
· .s :~dstlms d' tbs
ME ~ LIll: THE Cl*f~RllTWlll TO REFER ~ THE APPROVAL PROCI3S:
~' Any JM-opossls to fin-L~r develop this peope~y,
d'u.~e 10 e 2. I I I
L,AJ2 an-oN~ JHBRFFI fiAT/ON · (7143 .~:, :2
dU~il3 ~d.
LLvereide Co~u,L# PZIAALnI Department
e080 lduon S.~z.~et, 3th Floor
X~vtreLde, CtZlforl~a 92103 '
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
oftSee u ~m It ~111. ~* h~ ~de~ has ~v~eved the
~epo~t.
, ~
Pro~ect 2337Z, v:t33. L~creaee the popuZation Ircnrch by approxLus~eZy
e,Tll; pz'o:Secl: 23372 vL3.Z :l. nmiee 'Cb.e ~popu3.ation bY approxf.ne~:e:Zy
bearr~.~: by selMainS that aZ1 Nsidences hive a minimum of three
The deeJ:ebZe reeLdentldepuZT.retLo Ls iZ,I dipoiLse per Zt000 persons,
This project, upon Qoip~e~lon of k~Z ~ee ~aleso vl~ requ~N ~2.Z
deputies to ~acl~itate lav'enfoHuent p--tection,
Beat 3Z az'eit vil~ in ex~mtLni population of approxLms~eZy -aS ,000 per-
· f y~ have ny t~~ quis~lons or c~ee~s h ~elz~s ~o ~he ·
~omtion off~de ~lease do not hellotats to contact ~h/s off~ce.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
S~ST&Fr-11"~23372VTM.CC I 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
lg' Relic idle
i
lo S&^ 0,094o
·
VICINITY MAP
N.T~
(v.'l:'r~. 2-~-'5i 2-
CASE
EXHIBIT NO.
~P.C. DATE
TY PARII
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
i3ARITA ~1LLAG!
/"' THE MEADOWS
.. SP_ 21,9 / .'
iI~ik~'CASE
EXHIB: f NO.
~.P,C, DATE tt-~-ql
CITY OF TEMECULA
IIIR
·
· IJ
-./
Illlllll]
~CASE
EXHIBIT .0.
~,P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
~-- $~STAr-fiqPT~3372VTM.CC i 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: 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 APprOval
Condition No. I
Condition No. 15
Condition No. 9
Condition No.3
Condition No. 2
Condition No. 6
Condition No. 5
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future General Plan
YES
YES
ITEM
15
APPROV
CITY ATI'ORNEY ~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER ~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
March 24, 1992
Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No.2
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- upholding the Planning
Commission's denial of Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amended No. 2, based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the staff report.
DISCUSSION
On June 10, 1991, the proposed Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 were
submitted to the City of Temecula. The item was taken before the Planning Commission on
August 5, 1991, December 16, 1991, and again on January 27, 1992. The two
continuances were granted in response to the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association's
(LRHOA) and the Temecula Unified School Districts concern over the Change of Zone, and the
intensity of the uses that would be permitted on the site. At the January 27, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting the project was denied by the Commission by a vote of 4-1, with
Commissioner Ford dissenting.
The proposed project is a request to change the zoning designation on 2.5 acres from R-A 2 ~
(Residential-Agricultural, 2~ acre minimum lot size) to Specific Plan with a commercial
designation. In addition, the applicant proposes to amend Specific Plan No. 219 to include
the subject site as Planning Area No. 36.
Discussion relative to the proposal was primarily in reference to potential uses and future
General Plan consistency.
In response to concerns expressed by the LRHOA and the Temecula Valley Unified School
District (TVUSD), the Planning Commission requested that each of those two entities submit
a list which in their opinion would include acceptable uses. Those groups did so, and the lists
are attached to the Planning Commission report. The School District was mainly concerned
with uses which could become attractive nuisances to students if the potential school site to
the North was developed as such.
S~TAFFRFl~lBCZ~M2.CC
In addition the Planninb Staff rewrote the design guidelines for the proposed specific plan
amendment. Those guidelines were re-written to ensure that future development would be
consistent with the Specific Plan.
The concerns voiced by the majority vote of the Commission related to future General Plan
consistency. The Commissioners were concerned about future General Plan standards and
the appropriate development of the site. Each of the Planning Commissioners specific reasons
for denial or approval are listed in the attached Planning Commission minutes from the
January 27, 1992 meeting. Commissioner's Blair and Hoegland cited potential future General
Plan inconsistency. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated concern over inconsistencies with the
future General Plan and development of the adjacent site. Commissioner Fahey voted to deny
because of potential General Plan conflicts, School District concerns, and a potential conflict
with area C.C.& R.'s. Commissioner Ford voted not to deny the project, because he felt it
would be consistent with the future adopted General Plan.
The other concern over development of the site stemmed from discussion over timing of the
projects, and compatibility. The Commissioners were concerned that development of a small
commercial center on 2.5 acres might conflict with the overall development of Planning Area
1, which is to be built as a large integrated center. Relative to the future General Plan, the
Commission was concerned about how that document might address this potential conflict.
Since that Planning Commission meeting, Staff has reviewed a draft preliminary review copy
of the future General Plan Land Use Map. That plan shows the subject site as commercial.
However, it should be noted this is a draft designation and has not been adopted by the City
Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - page 3
Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 1992 - page 7
Revised Planning Commission Resolution, January 27, 1992 - page 8
Planning Commission packet, January 27, 1992 -!page 9
mSTNq=RPn ~ eCZ-AM2.CC 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-,_
S%STAFFI:F~I 8CZ-AM2.CC 3
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18 AND SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 2 CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM R-A-2 1/2
TO SPECIFIC PLAN AND AMENDING THE BOUNDARY OF
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INCLUDE THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PLANNING AREA NO. 36 FOR THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE PORTOLA ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-012-006.
WHEREAS, Sam McCann filed Change of 'Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 2 in accordance with the Riverside! County Land Use, Zoning, Planning
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment applications
were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Change of Zone and Specific Plan
Amendment on March 24, 1992, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the City Council meeting, the Council denied
said Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general ptan 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:
S~STA~I 8CZ-AM2.CC 4
(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 City Council in denying the proposed Change of Zone and Specific Plan
Amendment, makes the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2 may be inconsistent with the City's future Adopted
General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance
with State law.
There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that
an approval of such a zone change and amendment may be inconsistent with
the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan.
The project may not be compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony
may not create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due
to the fact that the adjoining properties were designed as an overall concept for
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 and the proposed project may not be
consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
The proposal could have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it may represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due
to the fact that the proposed land use may be inconsistent with the overall
concept of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, which proposes an
integrated commercial center.
S%STAFFRPT'%18CZ-AM2.CC 5
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 EIR 235 and in the Conditions of Approval have
been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for
adoption.
SECTION 3.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific
Ran No. 219, Amendment No. 2 changing the zoning desi nation of the subject property from
R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan and amending the boundary of~Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. I to include the subject property as Planning Area Noi 36 (Neighborhood Commercial) for
the subject property located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and De Portola Road
and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-012-006.
PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 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 24th day of March, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
mSTAFFFFn~eCZ-AM2.CC 6
/.--
'ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OF
JANUARY 27, 1992
S%STAF:FRP'~I 8CZ-AM2.CC 7
PT.zLIGIXNG Cn]d'KT'BBTON :N, muz.-B
~7]~I°~ARY ~7, 199
recommendations. Chairman Hoagland stated that he voted
avor of staff's recommendation to provide a
acc this development for emergency v ' s.
COMMZBBZON~ F ted that this a sub-division
tract aap and the siz the , and following what
the Council recommended o vious approvals, was to
lean toward rural sta ey relate to larger
lots. Both the Ci Commission has
agreed that cert uced within
the tract; itioned
to prov' The
10.
CHANGE OF 2ONE NO. 18; AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO 219,
AMENDMENT NO. 2 '
10.1 Proposal to amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol
(formerly the Meadows) Specific Plan to include Planning
Area No. 36. Located on the southeast corner of
Margarita Road and DePortola Road.
MARK RHOADES summarized the !staff report.
CBAIRMANHOAGLANDopened the public hearing at 8:20 P.M.
KEITH MCCANN, ~R., 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, made
comments and requested modifications to the following:
Condition No. S requires an archeological study be done
on the property which he stated he felt was redundant.
Mr. McCann referred to the property being in use for many
years·
Condition No. 15 requires the submission of a biological
report; however, areas No. 10and No. 25 are the only two
areas showing evidence of potential K-Rat habitat. Mr.
McCann advised that disking is being done to the property
~n a regular basis for fire mitigation.
Condition No. 16 requested verification of the
requirement for payment to Fish and Game, which he
requested to be put off until Plot Plan submission of
approval.
Staff indicated that they would not be willing to amend
that Condition.
PCMINO1/2V/92 -12- 01/28/92
33NUARY 27, ~992
MR. MCCaNNquestioned what staff considered the meaning
of a "strip center", referring to the memo by Gary
Thornhill to the Planning CoNmission.
MR. MCCaNN reviewed the landscape exhibits with the
Commission.
COMMISBION~RCHINIa~FF asked Mr. McCann if he received a
copy of the letter from the School District and if he had
any problem w~th the letter.
NIt. XCCaNNstatedthat yes he did have a problem with the
letter. Mr. NcCann stated that he felt the School Board
may not have had all the facts relating to the proposed
project and the overall area when preparing their
recommendation.
CHAIRMaN HOAGLANDasked if the applicant would be willing
to amend the Specific Plan to include Area No. 1.
MR. MCCXNNstated that if it would make it more efficient
then he had no problem with it.
CBAIRMANHOAGLAND stated that he was very concerned with
this 2 1/2 acres developing prematurely.
LETTIE BOGGB, representing the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula,
clarified the comments and recommendations made by the
letter from the school district. She stated that the
primaryissue is the health and welfare of the students
and staff at this site. The items that were marked were
reasons of environmental safety, as well as attractive
nuisance issues, unsuitable neighbor issues and traffic
impacts. The way that staff marked the criteria was to
create a buffer area between the school and the
commercial area to the south and east of the area.
COMMISSIONER!FORD stated that he had a problem with the
school district telling the City that you could not have
~ plumbing shop because some trucks will be coming into
it, or you cannot have a fast food business because the
kids would want to go there or a mail order business
because there may be some shipping involved.
NAYREE DAVIS, 28895 Vallejo, Temecula, speaking on behalf
of the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association, stated for
the record they were in opposition to a zone change at
this time. Ms. Davis stated that if the Association
were in favor of this zone change, which they are not, it
-13- ol/2s/92
sT~wU~qy 27, 199
would be the responsibility of the Association to
strongly oppose a possible City sanctioned zone change,
beforethe CC&R issue is resolved first." Ns. Davis added
that in order to build an: ing other than a single
family dwelling, the Assoc~tion would have to provide
the legal consent of SIt of the voters.
CBXlXMaNCrlNXaSFFstatedthat he did not feel it was the
City's obligation to step inlandenforce the CC&Rs. This
property is located at the' intersection of two major
afterisis and surrounded bY another forty acres of
commercial development approVed in the Specific Plan and
this is not the location for a residence.
KEXTBMCCaNNstatedthat he et with Bob Coslens, of the
Temecula Unified School District on December 12, 1991,
and asked what the school district's concerns were and
Mr. Coslens stated that they were only concerned about
beer and wine, therefore in the planning stages, the
school districts concerns were recognized.
GARY THORNHXLLclarifiedthat the City did not represent
anything to the applicant with respect to the school
district's wishes.
COMMISSIONER CBINIAEFF stated again that he did not feel
that this was an appropriate!place for a residence. Mr.
Chiniaeff also stated that he thought that the school
board's l~st is veryprohibitive. Commissioner Chiniaeff
added that he was concerned about the development of this
property in concert with theisurrounding property. Mr.
Chiniaeff stated that he-thought it was premature to zone
this property commercial until the general plan has been
completed.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she also thought is was
premature to re-zone this area prior to the completion o~
the general plan. CommissiOner Fahey stated that she
felt that the commercial would be in conflict with .the
residential as well as the school.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to Deny Change of Zone No. 18;
and Specific Plan Amendment !No. 219, Amendment No. 2
seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. '
COMMIBSIONERFAHEy amended her motion to close the public
hearing as well at 8:55 iP.M., COMMISSIONER BLAIR
concurred. ·
PCMZN01/27/92
-14- 01/28/92 ~(
27, 1992
The Commission
explain their
recommendation.
decided to take a roll call vote and
reasons for voting for staff
The clerk took a roll call vote as follows:
Development could be
inconsistent with
the general plan.
Would prefer that
the Commission wait
and work within the
confines of the
general plan.
COMMIH2IONERCHINIAEFFz YES
COMMISSIONER FAHEYz
YES
Property will
eventually be
commercial; however~
the determination of
how it fits into the
larger scheme is
best determined in
the general plan and
that process is yet
to be completed.
Premature change of
zoning in light of
the absence of a
completed general
plan. While the
residential area is
in conflict and not
appropriately
buffered with plan
commercial ,
commercial would not
be appropriately
buffered next to the
school either so
there is a conflict
there. Also, since
this is a
discretionary
action, that while
the Commission does
not have to vote and
consider the CC&R's,
the Commission has
/~ PCMIN01/27/92 -15- 01/28/92
PT.~MNTNG r,rsN](]:BBTOB. )rrlqUTv. B
COXlLTBBZOMIR FORD:
CKAXRMAX HenGLAND:
PCNIN0~/27/g2
-16-
MO
YES
33NUARy ~7,
the Privilege to do ~
so. Ms. Fahey
concluded that she
was not in favor of
overriding the
COiR, s.
Believes that the
project viII be
consistent with the
future general plan
because of the
nature of the
residential being
surrounded by other
commercial. Due to
the fact that the
roads are major
arterial roads and
will carry large
volumes of traffic,
it creates a natural
separation. The
CC&R's which are
existing on it are a
function of the
homeowner,s, that
will have to be
worked out with the
applicant, and the
Commission is not to
be concerned with
the CC&R's. Also,
this Project could
be brought into a
consistency level
with the Specific
Plan commercial wit~
what is Proposed
there if Properly
conditioned.
Believes that this
is a Premature sons
change. There is a
Possibility that it
may be commercial at
sometime; however,
it may not be and
what the ultimate
0Z/28/92 ~(
PT-~NNING C0)fi(ZBBTON :MTNT~eB
~AHUARY 27, 1992
solution in the
general plan is, is
not clear now. Zt
would be tragic to
~tmp into a decision
at this time, with a
better solution in
the near future.
LI. OUTDOOR ADVERTIBING DZBPLXYB ORDINMICE
I Interim Ordinance establishing regulations for
.ng Displays city wide.
CONXl.
BlaIR moved to continue
:e to February
FAHEY.
Advertising
seconded by
AYES: 5 :
Blair, Fahey,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
Ford,
NOES: None
AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 90-19
Proposal bythe City of Temecula to amend Ordinance
tablishing decision making authority for sub-.
land use applications, City of
'.es.
on
City
GARY
Ordinance.
amendments
reviewed the revised
Commission
:ommended:
Authority
the following
No. 3
No. 8
No. 11
No. 18
No. 20
No. 21
No. 2
No.
27
Approval
Planning Approval
Plannj sion Approval
,n Approval
Commiss.
~ceeding six arming Commission
Approval
Planning Commission
Planning Commission Approva.
Planning Commission Approval
Planning Commission Approval
-- ~ 'CMIN01/27/g2 -17- 01/28/g2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
OF
JANUARY 27, '1992
S~TAFRIDT%18CZ'AM2'CC 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE
NO. 18 AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 2
CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FROM R-A-2 1/2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN AND AMEND
THE BOUNDARY OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT
NO. I TO INCLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PLANNING
AREA NO. 36 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST COI~NER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE
PORTOLA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
926-012-006.
WHEREAS, Sam McCann filed Change Of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 2 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment applications
were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone and
Specific Plan Amendment on August 5, 1991, December 16, 1991, and January 27, 1992
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended denial of said Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
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:
S~STAFFRPT~I 8-CZ.AM2
4
(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 s Jbstantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general }lan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action Complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter 'SWAP') was adopted prior tO the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwest portion of River4side 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 Planning Commission in recommending denial of the proposed Change of Zone and
Specific Plan Amendment, makes the following !findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2 may be incon istent with the City's future General
Plan, which will be completed in a reas~4nable time and in accordance with
State law.
There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that
an approval of such a zone change and amendment may be inconsistent with
the goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan.
The project may not be compatible with Surrounding land uses. The harmony
may not create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due
to the fact that the adjoining properties were designed as an overall concept for
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 and the proposed project may not be
consistent with Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
The proposal could have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it ,may represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area, due
to the fact that the proposed land use may be inconsistent with the overall
concept of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1, which proposes an
integrated commercial center.
The Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment are compatible with the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
S%STA~I 8-CZ.AM2 5
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 EIR 235 and in the Conditions of Approval have
been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for
adoption.
SECTION 3.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of Change of Zone
No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 changing the zoning designation of the
subject property from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan and amending the boundary of Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1 to include the subject property as Planning Area No. 36
(Neighborhood Commercial) for the subject property located on the southeast corner of
Margarita Road and De Portola Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-012-006.
PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 1992.
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 27th day of
January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 4
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S%STAFFRPI'%18-(~AM2 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET
OF
JANUARY 27, 1992
S%STAFFNa~18CZ'AM2'CC 9
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning CommisSion
FROM:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
DATE:
January 27, 1992
SUBJECT: Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2.
This project was continued from the December 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. At
that meeting the Planning Commission heard public comment from the members of the Los
Ranchitos Homeowners Association (LRHOA). The LRHOA expressed concern relative to the
proximity of commercial development to Los Ranchitos and the potential impacts of some of
the proposed permitted uses. The Planning Commission reiterated those concerns to Staff,
with additional consideration for the proposed future elementary school site. The Temecula
Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) informed Staff that they have concerns with many of
the permitted uses. The direction from the Planning Commission was to give the LRHOA and
the TVUSD another opportunity to generate a specific list of uses that the respective groups
would find acceptable: The LRHOA recommendation contains two uses that they consider
acceptable, however they remain opposed to the proposed change of zone. The school
district has also submitted a list of uses. Their primary concerns are with any uses that could
sell beer or wine, or produce heavy truck traffic. The Planning Commission also directed Staff
to review the development standards of the Specific Plan Area 36, relative to buffering from
the adjacent residential areas.
In response to the Planning Commission's request, comments relative to uses are attached.
The lists of uses are ordered as follows:
Planning Staff
TVUSD
LRHOA
Attachment No. 7/Exhibit 'A"
Attachment No. 8
Attachment No. 8
Attachment No., 7 includes the development standards and permitted uses for Planning Area
36. The development standards of Specific Plan No. 219 Amd. No. I were completely
revised for Planning Area No. 36 to reflect the design criteria of Planning Areas No. 1 and No.
27 (Commercial Area). These standards eliminate the possibility of "strip center"
development. The exhibits for Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 have also been revised to
reflect the required perimeter landscaping.
S~STAFFRF~I 8-CZ.AM2
The revised development standards and permitted uses will provide for orderly and nuisance-
free commercial development of the site. Staff is recommending approval of Change of Zone
No. 18, Specific Plan No, 219 Amd, No, 2 subject tO attachment No, 7/Exhibits "A" of the
Staff Report.
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
RFCOMMFND AI;;)NpTION of Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone, o. 18 and Specific Plan No, 219,
Amendment No. 2;
ADOPT Resolution. No. 92- recommending approval of
Change of Zone iNo. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
RFnOMMFNn AdOption of Ordinance No. 92- , entitled
"An Ordinance Of the City Council of the City of
Temecula, California, Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 92-
13 Pertaining to Ordinance No. 348,2919 (Specific Plan
No. 219) as it Relates to Zoning,"
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
Resolution 92-_- page 3
Draft Ordinance - page 7
Exhibit "B", Conditions of Approval - page 10
Planning Commission Staff Reports; - page 16
a. August 5, 1991
b. December 16, 1991
Planning Commission Minutes - page 19
Mapping, Revision to Specific Plan (Exhibit "C~) - page 20
Exhibit "A", Descriptive Summary and Development Standards - page 21
Responses from TVUSD and LRHOA for permitted uses - page 34
S%ST~I 8-CZ~M2 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_,
S%STAFFRPT~ 11-CZ.AM2 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FIESOLUTION NO. 92-_,
· A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 18 AND SPECIRC PLAN NO, 219, AMENDMENT NO.
2 CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FROM R-A-2 1/2 TO SPECiRC PLAN AND AMEND
THE BOUNDARY OF SPECIFIC PLAN ~10. 219, AMENDMENT
NO. I TO INCLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PLANNING
AREA NO. 36 FOR THE SUBJECT PROI~..RTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE
PORTOLA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
926-012-006.
WHEREAS, Sam McCann filed Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No.
219, Amendment No. 2 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning
and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment applications
were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone and
Specific Plan Amendment on August 5, 1991, December 16, 1991, and January 27, 1992
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
Pursuant~to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt
a general plan within thirty (30) months followin~r incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requ ement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of state law that its decisior~s be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
Ae
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
Be
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
S~STAFFIFT% 1 I-CZ.AIR2 4
(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 Ran, 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 boundsdes ofi 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 Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Change of Zone
and Specific Plan Amendment, makes the following findings, to wit:
Am
There is a reasonable probability that Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2 will be consistent with the City's future General
Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law, due to the fact that the subject request is consistent with the SWAP
Designation of Specific Plan and is consistent with SP 219, Amendment No. 1.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 2 19,
Amendment No. 2 are ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that
an approval of such a zone change and amendment may be consistent with the
goals and/or policies of the City's future General Plan.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The har. mony creates a
compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that
the adjoining properties were designed as an overall concept for Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1 and the proposed project is consistent with
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
T_he proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area,
due to the fact that the proposed land use is consistent with the overall
concept of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1.
The Change of Zone and Specific Plan Amendment are compatible with the health,
safety and welfare of the community,
S%STAFI:F4q~I 8-CZ.AM2 5
SECTION 2. Enviroltmental Comltanoe.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could --~
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in EIR 235 and in the Conditions of Approval have
been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby recommended for
adoption.
SECTION 3.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Change of
Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment~ No. 2 changing the zoning designation
of the subject property from R-A-2 112 to Specific PIen and amending the boundary of Specific
Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1 to include the subject property as Planning Area No. 36
Margarita Road and De Portola Road Parcel No. 926-012-006.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 1992.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolutioni was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 27th day of'
January, 1992 by the following vote of the CommisSion:
AYES:
NOES:.
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S~STAr-~cNml e-CZJ~M2 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 92-_
S%STAFFFIPT~I 8-CZ.AM2 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 92-,._
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 91-13
PERTAINING TO ORDINANCE NO. 348.2919 (SPECIFIC PLAN
NO, 219) AS IT RELATES TO ZONING,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HERESY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain Non-Codified Riverside
County Ordinances, including Ordinance No, 348, Article X, Section 10;4,b of Ordinance No,
348.
SECTION 2, Article XVIla of Ordinance No. 348 is amended by adding thereto a new Section
17,36 to read as follows:
Section 17,36. SP ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219,
Amd No. 2.
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHMENT NO. 7
SECTION 3. SeverabiliW. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court Of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be posted as required by law.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of
the City Council Members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and
circulated in said City.
S~STAFFRFT',18-CZ.AM2 8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall
Mayor
June S. Greek
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 92-__ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,1992, and that thereafter,
said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
day of , 1992, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
,,,__ S%STAFFRPT%18-CZ.AM2 9
/'
//' EXHIBIT "B"
ATTACHMENT N0. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
NT&FFe'~e-CZ.aaZ 10
EXHIBIT 'B'
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SPECIFICS PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 2
(An Amendment to include Planning Area 36)
Planning Department
1. Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 shall consist of the following:
A. Exhibit "A": SpeCific Plan Development Standards and descriptive summary
B. Exhibit "B": Specific Plan Amd. No. 2 Conditions of Approval
C. Exhibit "C': Specific Plan Map Amendment
e
If any of the following Conditions of approval differ from the specific plan text or
exhibits, the conditions enumerated her.in shall take precedence.
The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory
requirements of all City of Temecula ordinances including Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460
and state laws; and shalli conform substantially with adopted Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 as filed in the office of the Planning Department, unless otherwise
amended.
No portion of the specific plan which purports or proposes to change, waive or modify
any ordinance or other legal requirement for the development shall be considered to
be part of the adopted specific plan.
e
The project shall comply with the conditions set forth in Specific Plan No. 219. In
addition to the requirements of the attached letters:
A. Fire Department; January 21, 1992
B. Department of Health July 1.1991
Common areas identified in the specific plan shall be owned and maintained as follows:
A permanent master maintenance organization shall be established for the
specific plan area,.to assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for all
common recreation, open space, circulation systems and landscaped areas.
The organization may be public or private. Merger with an area-wide or regional
organization shall satisfy this condition provided that such organization is legally
and financially capable of assuming the responsibilities for ownership and
maintenance.
Unless otherwise provided for in these conditions of approval, common areas
shall be conveyed to the maintenance organization as implementing
development is approved or any subdivision is recorded.
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
The maintenance organization shall be established prior to or concurrent with
the recordation of the first land division, or issuance of any building permits for
any approved development permit (use. permit, plot plan, etc.)
Development applications which incorporate Common areas shall be accompanied by
design plans for the common area. Such plans shall specify the location and extent
of landscaping, irrigation systems, structureS, end circulation (vehicular, pedestrian
and/or equestrian). ~
The following special studieskeports shall accompany implementing development
applications in the planning areas listed below:
Studv/Reoort
Archeological Report
Mitigation for Stephen's
Kangaroo Rat (See
Condition No. 15)
Plannina ~reas
As per the ICounty Historian's requirements
I through 36
A land division filed for the purposes of phasing or financing shall not be considered
an implementing development application; !provided that if the maintenance
organization is a property owners association, !the legal documentation necessary to
establish the association shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the
final map.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the }construction of any use contemplated
by this approval, the applicant shall first Obtain clearance from the Planning
Department that all pertinent specific plan conditions of approval have been satisfied
for the phase of development in question.
An environmental assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of zone, plot
plan, specific plan amendment, or any other disciretionary permit required to implement
the specific plan. The environmental assessment shall utilize the evaluation of impacts
addressed in the EIR prepared for Specific Plan No. 219 Amendment No. 1, and in
addition, shall incorporate project specific considerations.
Prior to the recordation of a final map, the land divider shall submit to the Planning
Department an agreement with the appropriate parks and recreation district which
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the
payment_of fees and/or offer of dedication of larlds in accordance with Section 10.35
(Parks and Recreation Fees and Dedications) of Land Division Ordinance No. 460.
Prior to the recordation of any final subdivision map or issuance of building permits in
the case of use permits and plot plans, the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City that individual appropriate owners associations will be established and will
operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the specific plan.
A. The document to convey title.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded.
S"TAFRV~CZ.AM2 I 2
14.
15.
16.
Management and maintenance agreements to be entered into with the unit/lot
owner of me project.
The master property owners association, commercial property owners association, and
the business park owners association shall be charged with the unqualified right to
assess their own individual owners who own individual units for reasonable
maintenance and management costs which shall be established and continually
maintained. The individual owners association shall have the right to lien the property
of any owner who defaults in payment of their assessment fees. Such lien shall not
be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a deed of trust, provided such deed of
trust is made in good faith and for good value, and is of record prior to the lien of the
individual owners association.
The applicant or its successor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside,
void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal
boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2, which
action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code
Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the applicant or its
successor of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and
will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant or
its successor of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant or its successor shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
Prior to the issuance of any future grading or building permit on any parcel of land or
planning area within Specific Plan No. 219, and Amd. No. 1 and 2, the applicant shall
submit a biology report for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat (SKR) for said parcel or
planning area. This report shall be prepared by one of the State Certified Biologists,
a listing of which is on file in the Planning Department. If occupied habitat is identified
the applicant shall comply with the City's guidelines for an application of take of the
SKR. In addition: Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading or building
permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying
the appropriate fees set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be
superseded by the provisions for 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.
Within fgrty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
(81,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
(81,250.00) fee in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (,~25.00) County administrative fee to enable
the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code
Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48)
hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by
reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
S%STAFFFFI~I 6-CZ.AiP,2 13
17.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/Or building permit, the developer or his
successor's 'interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program to the Planning
Department for approval, which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation
measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation.
S.TAFF.~ e-cZ.~,M; 14
FIRE AND HEALTH LETTERS
S~STAFr-e~ e-CZ.,,MZ 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
(714) 6.~3113
JqR] CH/BF Jmnuai~ 21, 1992
TOi CZTY OF TEP~CUL. A
A'~'TN: PL,.ANN Z ktG DEPT
~Em 9PECIFZC PLAN 219 ANENDED #2 THE HERDOMe
With respect to t~e review and/or approval of the above refer-
enceG ~ocumentp the project will have a cumula~ive adverse impact
on t~e Department'm ab&*ltty to provide an accoW~eble Level
generate~ ~y aa~Ltional taulZglinge mnd human
of trim impacts aasoc~atecl with one time goe+-S IUGI~ as bu&.ld&nge
an= equ~pment~ can be mitigated by dwveZgptr eark&cLpation
F~FI Protect&on Impact mitigation program, Hoeverp the annual
cost necessary for &ncrwatl~ Mrvicm ~ld hsve ~o N provided
by an increase in the Flre Deplrtment'i DOereSin9 budget,
recommends approval OT t~ 8pecl?lc Plln~ subject to the feltow-
l. A11 water malnm and fire hy~rmn~l providing re~uLrm~
flowm mnmlZ bm conmtru=tmd in mcCoremncm with thm
~tm mmm~ons of RLvmrmi~m County Drainahem
mubJmct to the lpprovml of t~m RlvmirmSem ~unty FIrm Dmpart-
2. The project proponents shall p~rtlc&pate in the fire
protection impact mitiiation program as adopted Uy the City
of Temecula.
~. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant
roofing material as eescribed in Se!ction 3203 of the Uniform
Bu~ldimg Code. Any ,=~d shingles or shales shall have a
Class "B" rating and shall be approve~ ~y the Fire Depart-
ment prior to installation.
QII4310OFllCl '
,,!1~ Cweff Cmee Ddes, leie 12l, Temmb, CA IZIN)
llPiC~Zl::C: PI, P~I 2J.9 MENDED 4t2 THE MERDOW8
the verl~uB pZanning areas, the Wire,Department. may require
edditionml conditions or mit~gatZQns at the time maps are
rev&awedo
All questions rqarding t~e memning of CDn~ltionl Shall be re-
ferred to the Planning anO Engineering Staff.
RAYPIONI) H. REiIB
Chief FAre Department Planner
by
Michael E. Bray,
Fire Captain Specialist
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TI: CITY OF TEMECULA IITE:
ATTN: Oliver Mu~ica
· -~L.:- ;c.'~
[]e.~.R. LUCHS, Land Use Supervisor Environmental Health Svcs.
PALOMA DEE, SOL - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 2
WATr-R/S~Tw~rR
(Johq 8ilv-. St.. [s--klic He.-ILh .~'hqineer)
WAT~lq SUPPLY - The total daily demand needs to be specified
and how Rancho California Water District will
provide this water through new storaqe facilities,
etc..
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM AND TIRFa~TM~ - Total volume of waste
flow aenerated and Eastern Municipal Water District's
ability to properly treat this wastewater needs to be
stated.
WATER l RECLAMATION - Use of reclaimed water from Eastern
Municipal Water District needs to be addressed on how
it may be used within this proposed pro~ect.
SOLIn WASTF-:. (Mike K,~inoh,,. k'nvirora~ent-I He-lth
8RlCi-list III
No Comment.
If you should have any further questions reqardin9 this
Paloma Del Sol - Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment #2, please
do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 275-8980.
HRL:dr
~ (R[¥. 11,~1
Spectftc Plmn No.
4 t '
ON)ITIBIS OF APPleVAL
1. 'Sledtic Plu No. 2~g s1~11 consist of 1M following:
m. Edllbft *Am: SItKtftc Plan Text
b. Exhfbft el*: Spectftc Plan Co~dlttons o~ Approval
the foll
xf ~.y of exhtbt~.oq,,tt.~e
plan text or
comltttoes Qf approval dfffer frgn the spectrlc
coed~Z~ons e~Umerated heretn shall Take preceo
3re4~u led 460 mad ge lm~s; and ,~11 Confore substantially t adopted
4. llo porttoe Of the sl)lctftc plan which rporU or prol~ses to change,
waive or rodtry amy erdaMace or otJer l~alierequlrement for the develol>-
Bent shall be considered to be NrC of the adopted speclflc plan.
S. The Ir~ect shall :cmpl.v vif~h the conditions set. forth tn the ~ollavlng
letters and/or tin reWiremats sit forth by then th
agencies it ·
m. Road Departamnt: ~y: ~ 1988
b. ~ood Con 1: Z "1968
C, re IMplr~nt: I 8, 1988
d. Farks: lly 25, 1 88
e. Coue~r klmlntstrlthe Office: __J~:rt1 :. S, 1968
'f. imtor _AOenCy: Iky fi, 1988
Seer J~enc, y: Iqa,y 24, Zg88
gh; Treefile School Otst.: damarJ 26, 1968
6. impacts to the Tmecuh Unton khool I)tstrlct sire11 be mtZlgized
the DIstricT, pollCes
ede fee] ' n mp 11cat on stage tn accordance
COnditions of Approve1
$pectfic Plan NO. ZXg
ramart areas 1denttried te the $pectftC ;l'ee shell
felleve:
be od~ed aed maintained
the sl~c_lfle plan are, tm assme.
btl lty fe~ all caneme ~eCretlOe, space, circulation Syst;wns and
1medicipal armas. The orgeetZlttam~lme~y be lablie or pr4vata. liarget
canaltitan preytried fJmt sue ofFatilt¶an ts legally aml financially
calmble e~ esswntq the responsibilities fop Oldflet*Sh~p and rotate-
hence. Zf the nlzetton Is · ~rtvate association then etgh~orhood
Issec(ltlons ~he~°T~lbe established ace each residential developneat.
ere requ4red. and $ech assoct/tim W aSs,me ewnerSh4p and
mintcanoe respoeatb111t~ for netghbodmod coxanon areas.
'imp1 e-
mntteS develolment ts lplroved or aey subd~v4stofi ts recorded.
c. The mteteemn~e qantzetlon shell be established prior to or concur-
~ Issuance of
refit wttJl ~ recOrdit:ton l~r the ;f~rst land dtvle on, or
an~ butldtng Impairs far any approval development Walt (use ~mtt,
ple pl., e~.).
circulation (vehicular, pedestrian and/or equestrian).
9. The fol 1 ovte9 ' iliaeta1 studies/reports lie11 roeWay tap1 ement~ng
development applications tn the planntng area lts~ed hale:
Placate4 Area, l;
Arckeel_ellen1 _bimrt As liar the Cotmt~y Niltorrents reqatrenmnts
~ttten No.
20. &Laed division filed far the purposes d Id~stng or finacting shall not
t
be c4el dered en beplenmtt_mJ develolmeut eppltca~oni prev4ded that 4f
Um m4e~enanoe organtartan lsa prOpert~ annors usoc4at4oa, the lqal
Conditions of ADproval
$peclftc Plan No. 219
Page 3
II. Prlor tO tm IISaQCOi Of i tintiding permit 'fgr the constrectto~ of say use.
contmplated W this ' proval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance
phase of dayclaimant In Westton.
pem;t required to tmplenen'c the specific plan. At a ndnimus. ~he
anvJ~s~rta3 aim nt shall ut414xe the evaluation of impacts addressed
the
P~IoF to the rec~-~,et;lon of a fine1 map, the lend dtvider shell subett ~o
the Plenntng Dell~osent an agreement with the appropriate larks and
recreation dtstrtct which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Country
that t!~ land dtvtder' his Irovtded for the peJment of fees end/or offer of
dac!tcett~ of lands 4e accordance wtth Section ~0.35 (Parks and ;leernation
Fees and Oedtcettons) of Lend Otviston Ordinance Ms, 460.
14.
Prtor to the r~.ordetton of s~y fins1 sobdhtsion mp r askance of
Wt1~ng pem!Ls ~n the case of use peaits end lot plans, the applicsn~
sial1 selxntt to the Planning Depmrlzmnt the fo?/~ev~ng do~umen~ which
she11 denons~e tO the Mtisfection of the County the~ tndhtduel
approFaTe ochers assocleglons ,111 he established and ell1 operate tn
acCordJanet with the Intent: anti pjrpose of the f
spect h p~ an.
s. The ant to convey tttle;
b, Counsels, Condtttonss and alesfrictions to be recorded;
c. usntne~iot seer of the project.
He emeu~ end Salutehence agreements to he entered Into
The mute- p or~.ky eve·r· Usoct·~ioe, coamrclsl propert7 meets
aSSociation, end the bust hess perk steers association shall be charged
with tie ~nqva1414ed right to assess hIP M Individual owners who own
tadhides1 unlto for reasonable mainmace and menegemen~ costs vhlch
shall be established and co~ttnuelly elateteed. The Individual owners
es tattm shell hve the right to 1ten the property of any owner ~ho
dse~lts In n
layman t :~ l~etr usesmet fees. SUch lain shsll s=f, Ix
sulardtaate to an7 encumbrance other than · deed of trust, preytried such
~ n
prtor to Um tten of ~he ovaera asset erie ·
~5. The epllcant or its successor she13 defend, tndeanif.v. d held hamless
the Cama~y of RivePards. Its agefits. offlcerz, aM Mlplulc~ free any
clatm, action. or Iretending against the County of Itlverstde or Its
Conditions of Approve1
SPeCIfiC Plan No. 2~9
Page 4
agemils, officerS. or emplNFees to it;Sack, set aside, vOId Or Inca1 an
spitova1 or tee County er IUversJde, Its advlsor3r mg4mcles, appeml Imams
or 11slitlye bo4y camerural_rag lflc Plan lio. Z:Lg. The County of
!~ ~lrlrl~lde v111 Ilrelptl; motliar ~:a~11cant or 1Is successor of any Such
c)aim, Or proceeding agatest 9m Count~ af liverSlee end vtll cooperate
fully 111 gle defense, Zf the OOUn',.y fells 10 'gl,.v nOt:lfy tile
I ~11Cllit Of iJ~ SuCh C1III. ICl;IO~e Or jloclldlng or fa~s tO cooperire
~ff~1 ~a the defense, the NmpItcBnt s1~11 not themfar. Im responsible
to alefeed. tmlemtf.y, m' Imld ImmleSs In Coosty o1r RIverside.
TrapptNj staales hive tadtcae,.ll the presence ot' exlsttng MI;I~ (occuplecl
$te_~_ees Ks too ;tat for Planetrig Areas t0 end 25. Prior to Issuance
olo~g ielleg pearm~ts for ~ts planning era.. the applicant sha~l provlcle
mitigation for removal of tim SICR Mblta*. iS ~ollmmS:
a) Plemorandum of OnderS,.andleg t~t;~eet~ the developer and ~he Cml tforf118
DelaPUmeN: of FIsh and Gallam _~_
b) Compl lloce Vlth an Idopted COUngy Progrin ~or the ad~,19atton of reeoval
an:mob:rap
OFFICE OF ROAD CO211~SIONER & COUNTY $URVS YOR
~ ~Z~ DZVIBJ~
TOt ~ger itrelkeri ~larminO DirectOr
ATTNs Ron Boldmac, ~pervising Planner-Specific Plans
RE t Specific Pla~ Ha. ~lq - Vail tleaao=~s
Tile Goad Department hal reviewed the above referenced
,prODDial, Arid hal hag: several meettqs wi~h the applicant anO his
traffic ~o~su]tan:. AS irritated t~ our prior letter dated Marc~
Z?, 1~18 there are conCerns ~l~h regard to ~ut~re traffic
coattides bo~ en the local streets end on the free~ay system.
~aeve-, t~ ages a;~ea~ ~het with the ierOvements indicated by
t,e traffic cansultanS that t~e facilities will operate at
acceptable levels Of service ("D"t o~ better). In aOdition, ~
We ~o~ believe that the extent of trlffic impacts associateg
~i~ f~e ;ro~ect have ~ee~ ~easo~ably i~e~ti~ied a~d are
adequa~ely addressed.
BaRd upen Gut fur=her revie, of this proQosal, Roaa
Department recommln~ts the foZloNir~ conditions of oR;revel.
All road improvemental unless otherNile no~ed, shall be
comstruc~ed :o ultimate County Standards in accordance
Mtth ClrdinarN:e N~. t, iO and ~1 IS I requirement of the
~lmn=tnO i~diviliOnS for ~hl Specific Plan,
s~}~t to approval by the ROe= ~ommissl=ner. The
propo~ "~e~ey Road' ts lOproved, in concept,
sub~Kt to the submittal a~d revieN of eesig~ de~lils.
The pFO~Kt ;PoOO~nt snell participate in the Traffi~
Signal MttiOltion Program as aD~roved by ~he Board of
~Oervtsors.
Ito~er Itreetor. PlSrmtr~ Director
ATTN; Ran ~01clman
Page il
require a~DrOvS3 ~Y the Mood Commissioner one assurance
plan ere e~ ln~rOpristew g~ven the projected
traffic vOt~s on these facilities. All reference ~o
ClB~s Z~ =~ke lanes on kch m~ree~m ~ou~e be stricken
· FM the 91mn enO r.eSke~ mm Clmm~ Z b~ke~ys
5. The Rs~Cho Villages J~sueuusent is an integral cosponen~
Of the ~l·nnlng for this area. Pr~or to the racerSateen
of tract maps within this ua~eciftc p~on or any other
fL~l ic~ionl ~ce~slry for formation of the
~st be completed, ShauZ~ the Otstrict fat1,
project propo~n~ ~all9 prior the retardation
for ross S~rovemen~ in accordance with Table XV-
I~l~en~a~on ~ne~uZe for On-Site Roadway
ZsDrove~ts a~ Ts~Io XVl-ZsDlesen~aZ~an Sche~ute
Off-Site ROI~NIy lsprov~en~6~ as attached.
i- ~ co~ur wl~h ~e reCo~e~ circuiSt~On amendments
~ ~he ~re~nstvl ~riZ Plan. A Gear/1PZan
k~nt ~oulG be proces~ concurreally wit~
~rvtg~ El~en~a :
Santiago Re·d: RedMce to sacornery between
Pie Pica Roads Delete ·s · Baconairy ~etween
from ~srgarita Road ~o the B LOOp,
Roger Btree~ers Planning DIrector
3une Es Stab
Road.
De Por~oZa Road tO
De PerSold Roadl ReduCe to secondary
developed in aCCordance dtth ~e proposed
Road' eeC~lO~-
· o cumulative ImPaCts ~na~ca~ng ~e need to im~leme~
0emand managemenZ ssra~egtes end/or provide
developmen: gf aoal:lonal highway torridgrim ~e
coy~Juc~eO under the direCtion. Of the Road Departmeet so
prescribed oy GaitTans, The study is curre~tty
progresS.
5uDGlvlSto~s NlChln Prancing Area No. 31 sRall minim~:e
access so PauDa Road. NO rood connectlea ~rOm Planni~9 Aree
~ane, Out snell De offset aS leest 320 ~eet.
Tre~mpertatio~ ;le~,er
Cil Coltr&~s
Poe, I01 lelt
RIVERBIDE; C~UNTY li'L,CX~O CO~ AND
WATER GONIE:RVATION DIITRIGT.
I/hi '~1' ~F*t I1~ "llt el
Hay 26, 1988
]tlvere~de Coua~,y '
Planntnl Department '
County Administrative Center
liveraide, California
i~tentton: Specific Plan Section
Ron Goldman
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re:: Specific Plan No. 214
Yell Headers
Zn our April 6, 1988 letter ~o expreJsed concern over deficien-
cies in the apecarlo-Plan document. These roblems have been
largely corrected by the appl~oant t~rough ~he revgs~on of a por-
tion of the ~ex~ ~ha~ desls .t~h draghale along Pauba Road and
through ~he revga$on of Figure 57.
The ahsnges on FLUare 57 ~nolude Zbe ;eztens$on of ~o proposed
s~orm drains southerly ~o ~emocuZa Ceeks the addition of a large
s~orm dragn along Pauba Road sad a n~ly proposed fatality along
Butterfield Stage Road st the southeast corner of ~he project.
Zhls last ~ralnage structure has beens proposed as a result of cur
comments on r~be earlier draft. It iS needed to intercept a large
amoun~ of errslie S~Orm runoff that approaches the project from
~he east. Z~s representation on FllUre 5? should be considered
conceptual w~th regard ~o location and design and the design flo~
rates and s~zes should be regarded as estimates.
Thls facility should be constructed as a permanen~ facl!i~y
e~ther onsite or o~fsite before development of the downstream
area it is meant to protect.
as long as ~he text and figure changes and these commen~s are
made a part of the final document we do noC obJec~ to the approv-
al of this project.
Robert 2eta, Ntlliam Fros~
& Associates
Very trul~ yours,
KEINETH L- EDWARD$
:el Eng;ne
~nl::o.~XASHUB~~A
~ ~ Civil Engineer
JHX:Djp
SPBCIFXC PlAN
iieh. reSpec~ ~o ~ae review and/or approve/of ~ above ~fezene~ ~~,
~~n. k ~nt~ of ~ ~s u~tet~vi~ o~t~ ~sts, ~h u
~or in~m~ se~i~ ~d hve ~ ~ ~ided by an i~me ~ ~e ~re
,-"ire pz~zc~on 2zpt~ce ~n be m~g&ted by t~.e ~pac'~ mi~ge~ion program m~
n bgdge~ ~nczeese. ~bere~oze, ~he r~re Depermen~ recamenda q~zova~ o~ r~e
Spec~E~c Pla~, eub~e~ r~ ~be fo~]~ving ~on~e~onm end/or m~4ge~ons~
water aaAns and fire hydxL~ts providing re~uizwi fire Z~I ehalA be
~nstz~Ac~ed in ac~rdanee vi~h the al~zo~zAate sections of Riverside
Conre:3/O~di.~A~e 460 ami/or 546 s~bje~ to ~e alTpzov~ b~ ~he RAversida
CaroL7 r~:e DaparmerA.
2. The proJec~ proponents shall pa,~cicipete ~n ~he fire p~t~on ~
~t~gat~on p~ as ~opted by ~ R~vers~de Co~y ~d c~ $u~~s,
All b~tldings shall be consVA-~c~ed wi~ fire zest z~f~ uter~l
as ~scbd ~ ~ion' 3203 of ~ Uni~m ~ild~ ~e. ~y w~
~ingles o: s~es shaft have a ~s ~' rating ~ ~11 be a~rov~ by
~ Fire D~m~ ~zioZ ~ ~s~a~ion,
Due ~ ~he lack of in~Avidual trac~ maps being shown fur ~he v~ic~
p~ni~ arm, ~ Fire Depu~= ny r~e a~ral condicio~
oz ~t~a~i~n a~ the :~ ape ~e :~i~ed.
MXC29a~ t.. GRAY, Planning OffAl. at
INTBIIwBIIBAIITMBNTAL LITTIN
C3OIJNTY OF FIIVBFISIDg
,---
fiedr ~S, 1906
Jess Ikvtm, !sluRtel lisp·riseS.
barge Bslterteod~ief Park Plato·re Perks Deplrtlent
Vat1 Me·dross SP ~'lt/EXR ~
The following ere this depart·eat Its on,the Vat1 fisl.d0ws Specific Plan.
1. Recreation Trefis
A. sat ssconSsr7 trill planned along Peboe Itoki as files·rated on Fig. 15
B8 end Ft9 14 is adequate and in onn'ormnce vith our needs along this
alignment. Howavers · trait aloes the north side of De Porto1· is
required and not designated erJthin th's pro,Sect,
B. The Perks Department request that t~e De Porgoh ~rstl alignment be
IWovtded in aNtetrance el th Standards ( end
411eatration, Fig. 24). This r111 ~C°~v~de · needed
through this proWl·ca. The s t~.~c ellensent lace·ten can
de·mined bY the developer end ~eCounty Perks Departmeet.
HtstOrlc l~ ,
Vlsual fnspectlmi of tie 1,3e9 acre, site revonlm several htstortc
resources tmludnd tn the 1;apegraphic41 8urve~r irepss'ed for KACOPJRincho
California Property EZR, 1979, under :f~ lurkan Road section. However,
these-resources ere stearns finn the dls~usstoe under the Historic and
Prebisl:ortc Resources section, page 34It. in the Vat1 Meadows EZR #23S.
In addition, University oF California RiVersial·'· Archaeological Research
Un t confirm that the mitigation f~' RZY-17Z6 included in Veil Meadows
has not been set, Don 14cCarthy e'c University Of CIlifornt· R~verstcle~s
ItZV-17B , which ts absent
from the Vat1 Needoe FIR. This site ts known to have been a habitation
site and t4 cont44n pottery frog·ants and fleck·tone te. ols,
Larry kales, in 1979, Feared the 'Archaeological Assessment of Tract
lZ787' for ~ Reality. In August end Dec·abe- o~ 1979, he surveyed
Z40 acT·s, In arm one-half Erie north of Highwe7 7l and one erie 4n
length'paralleling Highwe7 79, which Don McCarthy thought would be
tap·clad by this specific pl·n ~219.
The proposed mitigation should address Zhe resource concerns of the
History O~v4sion of ~e Perks Department:
· complete end, ,~h-ecre prospect sloe of sT1 ~ehtshr~c and
~ i~ ~~d s~ve~ (to 1~1~ photographs)
h18hrtc site;
l~clude subsurface tatlng in the form of excavation untts;
that the His~orJr Divts19fi of l~e Perks Department receive coptes of
e11 phot, Fephs; and
that the HlstorJ~ Dtvlston be Informal of a,q~ plans concerning the
~lsposltlon of e~y of the prehtsWtc aml hfstortc resource sties
contained In the 1,389 acres knoim as Vat1 lisadoe.
C:
Paul llomero, DIrector, Pirks Depsrtamt
Sam Ford, DIrector, Parks Deartaint,
DISas Settier, Parks Department
km'~l S, 1~&8
Fir. Ron 601clmin, SuRerriSing Pltm~er
RIverside County Pllnnlng Del)arta~nt
4~0 Lean Street, Ntnth Floor
Riverside, California 9Z501
Subject: Vz$1 14eadws-*Speciftc Plan 219
Dear Mr. ~o 1 dean:
The following smmrizes our flndlngs re ardlng the flscal lmpac: analysis
for the project denttiled above. The abpe~dtx attached sugmrlzes the baste
assumptions used in analysts. Please note thst these rlsults reflec~ the
current levels of service provlded Dy the County Dased on Flscal Year
1986-1987 actual costs (pe~ capita factors) and Departmental and
Auditor-ContrOller review of oHratlons and faclllty costs for services
reviewed using case study analysis, $taff to the 6rOwth Flscal Impac$ Task
Force and Departments are currently revlevlng servqce levels provlde~ and the
ned to increase the levels of service, -Current flndlng$ are that existing
levels of service are not adequate in most cases. Should the deslred level of
service be utilized In the fiscal analysis performed, it ~oulo sl.qntficantly
increase the COSTS associated with this devmhpment,
COUNTY FUND
C0Nrations and Maintenance)
FISCAL z~Acr
AFTER BUIlDOUT
CUIqULATZVE FZSCAL
ZMPACT AT BUILDOUT
CounlLy General ($ Z8,866)
Structural Fire ($ ZZ4,544)
Free Library ($ 9,660)
$1,105,608
($1,1Z8,404)
16,987)
($ Z83,170) [$ 39,783)
ROad Fund
($ 141,80~)
($ 939,539}
61rAND TOTAL
($ 404,975)
The foilrating CAPITAL FACILITV lIEEl:IS Mere identified:
FACXLXTY
FUllDIll SOUSE
t. Library
See Note3
The folioring spectal ctrc~Jstances apply to this pro~ect:
1. Flood Control Itaff has indicated that flood control facilities
constructed krlthtn ZOne 7 are unlikely to be sgfftctently funded for
maintenance and operations costs. Current estimates indtclte that funding
ShOrf~leeS should occur for the next ten years. Suggested mitigation
assures t~clude a cash deposit by the pr~ect developer or use of an
assessment mechanism. The amount of deposit ~ould H determined by a
I~esent value analysts and prodoct timing.
The cost of maintaining flied control facilities vtll not be known untql
item1 design phases.' when factllty needs have been fully Identified.
Flood Go, are1 staff vt11. therefore, condition project approvals to
identify a means of financing factllty maintenance and oDortalon (if
necessary) prior to re~ordatton of subdivisions. or prior to tSsuance of
building Hrm~ts for cmanmrctal or inclustrtal PlOt Olin approvals.
2. Fire protection olafsting costs ere allocated on the basis of S.16 Der
square foot of ceee~ctal developsent and S100 per d~e111ng untt. The
ceme~c~al development cost is factored into the dwelling untt fire cost
on a ~e~ghted basis (please refer to the legend on the coemuter print-out).
Ustng Ltbrary staff estimates of the costs of providing the current qevel
of service. the ~ncrease tn population from this Oro~ect Should result tn
a one-t~me cap~tal facility cost of $663,827 [ltbPar~ space. volumes), a~
current sarvt~e levels. Ltb~ary stiff his indicated Chat a preferred
level ef service vodld result ~n a one-tie capital cost of $1,508,467 and
in annual on-go~ng cost of $274.674. The attached letter from Library
staff contains suggested mitigation measures.
The fqscal analysts prepared tnclodes revenue from 42 acres of Comereta1
proHrty developed into 196.000 Seluare feet of retail sales ares at
buildout. Other specific Dlim ~rOposals In the' vlcintty also contain
significant commercial components. mlicat~ng the ability of the local
population to SMDDO~C significant COnmarcia1 facilities and generate
revenue to the County. RDA's sales tax analysts Paltea on the appltcant's
build-out schedule. utilizing ~etghted per-capita and coemePdal square
footage sales tax valueS.
ji
l
,
.i,.,
way 33, 1985
" idAY ,f 1 88
RIVEI~IDE CC~jN'?'Y
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Itancho California Watar District b~ms revteve~ t.he
ilia plan tot Vail Meadows. The proJ
the ~un~-rJss ot ~e Dls~i~,
~ aval~le to ~e ~J e~ ~on me~ing
Zn reviewfiN the Spe~itlu Plan and the Water
S~tem laster Plan for this project, ~he District
lm~ id~rr~ified mev~rel disc~epmncimm between the ~w~
The District is currently workin~ vl~h the
develcper°s engineers to address these concerns.
Specific pipe llsing, and system configuration, will
be addressed through the tenUattve map stage.
ItANCHO CALIFORNIA WATEI~ DISTRIC
9S~81 DI)~Z RQAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TE)(ECtrLA. CA 9989(~01T4 - ~14) ~TI-410I
~y Z3# ~988
V,z'y ~,n~y y~uza,
Nr-T: dp~12 ~9
cc: S~mn~lls
~res~on eUmon
1920 E. ,
SanTa AUa.,
wayne kind
Z~ine, ~ito~s
::E:m.m M..k ,l 'W., .. Dim
I~",
Riversloll ~ Plalml Oll)lrtlenZ
408Q I.elmxl Street, gth floor
RlverSfcl, CIltfornl~ IZ501
SUIJIL'T: VAZL IEADQIdS SPECIIrZC PUUI ZIg, EZlt ;35
Dear kin:
The DIsTrlCZ ls clarifying 1is general comefiT ?eprdlng use .of reclaimed
· i reclalmd
,afar for ~he su~3ect proJecz. lz is the llszrfcz's posl~ on chaz
vaZer be used for landsClpe 1rrlglZlon 11 coamon ireis. Novever, the Vall
lleidM pFo3oCZ 1l loC. Bte(J In tl~ Pigbe. Ville~ Of Rancho CallfornlL The
Paula Ville~ his ZOT41 dlssolved Iollds (TD$) requireants which ere lower
ribart t~e treated e~uenZ. The TX)$ rklullelnt 1l contained In the Kegloan1
Hater QuaTfi:y Control B~ard's Basin lal. Therefore, un~l a basln plan
8mendBent lS 0bgalne~ t)y ENID 1:0 a~lov ~lgher TDS levels~ Zhe Yell Meadows
pro3ecZ TS not requlred ~o use reclaimed khUter.
Should you hie any questions regisling T. hlS sul}3ecz, please call m.
Very Trvly Yours,
Wllllm E. Plkmner
Assistant Chief Englneer
vzp:Js
TEMECULA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
JAN Z 5 1988
RIVE~St::h uuuNT¥
ROgl.~d2.ng: SIM~Z~C lZan 2ZS, va.l.Z Hoa~ows
and t~e ctUfo~ta state Departhour oz Sduca~on ave
a
p3ro3ect to house t, he anticipated student en.co3.3,ment.
sln~erelyo
D1FeCtOr 0S FaclZ~v, tes
r~:x k z~9 ,. M, i ~.~ · TeiqduxM (/14) 676-266J
ATTACHMENT N0. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FOR
AUGUST 5, 1991
AND
DECEMBER 16. 1991
,T, ae~,-CZ.AM; 16
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
December 16, 1991
Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
RECOMMENDATION:
5
RFCOMMFND ADOPTION of Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2;
ArtOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
Rr-COMM;:ND Adoption of Ordinance No. 91- , entitled
"An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Temecula, California, Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 91 -
13 Pertaining to Ordinance No. 348.2919 (Specific Plan
No. 219) as it Relates to Zoning."
PROPOSAL
Change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan; and,
Amend the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. I to include Planning Area
No. 36, for the property located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and De Portola
Road.
BACKGROUND
On August 5, f991, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposal. During
the public hearing, the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (LRHA) expressed its
opposition regarding the rezoning of the subject property due to its inconsistency with the
Association's C,C & R's. In rebuttal to the Association's opposition, the applicant indicated
that he is willing to negotiate with the LRHA to remove his property from the Los Ranchitos
Homeowners Association boundary.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued this item, for a
period not to exceed 90 days, in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to resolve this
issue with the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association. In addition, the Commission also
required that this item be renoticed.
s~sTAr-r-.m~ .-CZ.Am 17
DISCUSSION
Since the Planning Commission meeting of August 5, 1991, the applicant has discussed this
issue with the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association.. Based on the epplicant's and LRHA'
representative's indication, it is anticipated that this isSue will be readred at the Association's
meeting of December 12, 1991. However, since the staff report needed to be finalized prior
to the Association meeting, Staff will make an oral presentation at the public hearing.
In addition, some of the surrounding property owners have expressed a concern over the
potential commercial uses permitted within the subject property (Planning Area No. 36), if the
change of zone is approved. Therefore, Staff will also make an oral presentation regarding
recommended uses to be permitted within Planning Area No. 36.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning CommisSion:
Rr-COMMFND ADOPTION of Negative Declaration for
Change of Zone !No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91 ~ recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 18 end Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2; and
5
RFCOMMEND AdOption of Ordinance No. 91- , entitled
'An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Tsmeculs, California, Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 91 -
13 Pertaining to Ordinance No. 348.2919 (Specific Plan
No. 219) as it Relates to Zoning.'
S~STN=F.P~ .-CZ.AM~ I 8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1991
Case No.: Change of Zone No. 18: and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
Prepared By: Oilvet Mujica
Recommendation: 1.
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of
Negative Declaration for Change
of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 2;
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
recommending approval of
Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219.
Amendment No. 2; 'and
RECOMMEND Adoption of
Ordinance No. 91- , entitled
"An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Temecula,
California, Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 91-13 Pertaining
to Ordinance No. 3~8.2919
(Specific Plan No. 219) as it
Relates to Zoning ."
· APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPL! CANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
J_OCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Sam McCann
Turrini S Brink
Change the zoning designation of the subject
property from R-A-2 1/2 to Specific Plan; and,
Amend the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219.
Amendment No. 1 to include Planning Area No. 36.
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and De Portola
Road.
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
A:SP219-A
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
BACKGROUND:
North: R-A-2/12 ( Residential Agricultural,
2 1/2 acre minimum lot size)
South: Planning Area No. 1 ( C o m m u n i t y /
Neighborhood
Commercial)
East: Planning Area No. 1 ( C o m m u n i t y /
Neighborhood
Commercial )
West: R-A-2 1/2 (Residential Agricultural,
2 1/2 acre minimum lot size)
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2
Vacant
On September 6, 1988, the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 88-~70
approving Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma Del Sol.
formerly the Meadows). In addition, the Board of
Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
No. 235, for Specific Plan No. 219, as an accurate
and objective Statement that complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA).
Furthermore. a Statement of overriding findings was
made for the Air Quality Impacts.
On April 9, 1991, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 91-36 approvin9 Change of Zone No.
5621 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 1
mending the boundaries and !and use designations
of Planning Areas 1.2, 5 and 6 of Specific Plan No.
219. Subsequently, on April 23, 1991, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-13 amending
Zoning Ordinance No. 90-04 pertaining to Ordinance
No. 3~8.2919 (Specific Plan No. 219) as it relates to
zoning.
On June 10, 1991, the applicant filed Change of
Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 2.
On June 20, 1991, Change of Zone No. 18; and'
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2 was
reviewed by the Formal Development Review
Committee; and, it was determined that the Specific
Plan document was acceptable to proceed with the
Public Hearing process and that the project, as
designed, can be adequately ~onditioned to mitigate
the DRC's concerns. The DRC has forwarded a
recommendation of approval subject to conditions.
A:SP219-A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
ANALYSIS:
A:SP219-A
As noted above, Change of Zone No. 18; and
Specific Plan No, 219, Amendment No. 2 proposes to
change the zoning designation of the subject 2.5
acre site from R-A-2 112 to Specific Plan; and amend
the boundary of Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. I to include the subject property as Planning.
Area No. 36.
Land Use Modifications
Specific Plan No, 2i9, Amendment No. 2 proposes to
modify the Land Use Plan {see Figure 3 - Approved
and Amended - pages 17 and 18) by increasing the
total commercial acreage from 51 acres to 53.5 acres.
Circulation Plan Modifications
As illustrated on Figures ~ and 15kk (pages 20-1
and 162-3 respectively), Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2, proposes to provide access to
Planning Area No. 36 from both Margarita and De
Portola Roads. However, it should be noted that
these access points have been identified as
'~potential" access points only; and that the exact
number and location of driveways for Planning Area
No. 36 will be determined during the review of a
plot plan application.
Road ImDrovements
Margarita Road will be constructed by the project
developer from east of the centerline to the curb,
between Pauba Road and Highway 79.
Traffic impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed
this project; and has determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the traffic mitigation
measures of EI R 235 adopted for Specific Plan No.
219 and there will be no additional adverse
unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting
from the development of this proposed project.
Development Standards
Pursuant tot he request of the Planning Department
Staff, the applicant has prepared detailed
Development Standards for Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2, as opposed to referencing Zoning
Ordinance No. 3~8. These standards have been
tailored to s:pecifically address development within
SPECIFIC PLAN,
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
A:SP219-A
the Meadows by taking into consideration the lot
sizes and adjacent land uses, within and
surrounding the Specific Plan Area.
The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP
Land Use Designation of Specific Plan; and is
consistent with the overall concept of Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No. 1, in that the total number
of commercial acreage has increased by only 2.5
acres and the adjacent Planning Area I No. 1 ) is also
Neighborhood COmmercial. I n addition, Staff finds
it probable that this project will be consistent with
the new General Plan when it is adopted.
An Initial Study was performed for this project
which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the
environment, no significant impact would result to
the natural or built environment in the City because
the mitigation measures described in EIR 235 and in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the
project, and a Negative Declaration has been
recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Change
of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No. 2 will be consistent with the
Cityts future General Plan, which will be
completed in a reasonable time and in
accordance with State law, due to the fact
that the subject request is consistent with
the SWAP Designation of Specific Plan and is
consistent with SP 219. Amendment No. 1.
T~ere is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future Conoral Plan, if Change of Zone
No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment
No. 2 are ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that an approval of such
a zone change and amendment may be
consistent with the goals and/or policies of
the City~s future General Plan.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses· The harmony creates a compatible
physical relationship with adjoining
properties, due to the fact that the adjoining
properties were designed as an overall
concept for Specific Plan No. 219. Amendment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
OM: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
L~.
5.
No. 1 and the proposed project is consistent
with Specific Plan No. 219.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the planned
land use of the area, due to the fact that the
proposed land use is consistent with the
overall concept of Specific Plan No. 219,
Amendment No, 1.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND ADOPTION of Negative
Declaration for Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Change of Z'~e No. 18 and
Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2; and
RECOMMEND Adoption of Ordinance No. 91-
· entitled "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Temecula, California,
Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 91-13
Pertaining to Ordinance No. 3~8.2919
(Specific Plan No. 219) as it Relates to
Zoning."
Resoliution
Draft Ordinance
Conditions of Approgal
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Specific Land Use Map
C. Planning Area No. 36 Map
D. Planning Area No. 36 Standards
Specific Plan Text
A:SP219-A
5
. BackQround
1.
2.
CITY OF TEMECtjLA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Agency Requirin9
Assessment:
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Location of Proposal:
Sam McCann
~3121 Margarita Road
Temecula, CA 92390
(71~) 676-7~8~
Juilv 1, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Change of Zone No. 18 and
Specific Plan No.219. Amendment No.2
SoUtheast corner of Marclarita Road and
De Portola Road.
il.
Project Description
Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan NO. 219, Amendment No. 2 proposes
112 to Specific Plan and Amend the
Amendment No. 1 to include the subject prtoperty as Planning Area No. 36.
A:SP219-A 16
II!. Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
The following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
insignificant in that the design of the project includes the necessary mitigation
measures which have been adapted within EIR 235:
'D.
Water and Sewer:
Utilities:
Enerqy Resources:
Parks and Recreation:
The project will have an average daily consumption
of domestic water of 1,683,300 gallons at 300
gallons/d.u,/day, The project will generation
between 1.81 and 3.08 million gallons per day of
sewage flow, Onsite wastewater collection facilities
will be constructed to tie into Eastern Municipal
Water District~s master planned facilities being
constructed through the Rancho Villages
Assessment District. Construction of all structures
-within the project' will conform to state laws
requiring water efficient plumbing fixtures.
Gas, electricity, and telephone service will be
provided by respective purveyors of the service.
Lines for electrical and telephone services, and
mains for natural gas are located along the project
boundaries.
The project will increase consumption of energy for
motor vehicle movement, space and water heating,
air conditioning, use of home appliances, and
operation of construction equipment. The project
will adhere to State Code Title 2L; energy
conservation standards and will employ site design,
when possible, for additional energy conservation.
Non vehicular pathways are included within, and
adjacent to, the project site. Commercial and
employment centers are in proximity to the project
site.
Project residents will create a demand for parks and
recreation facilities, and for open space. The
project design provides 2~2+/- acres of recreation
areas, parkway greenbelts, and paseo open space.
Ti~e following environmental impacts associated with Specific Plan No. 219 are
potentially significant, but will be avoided or substantially lessened by the identified
mitigation meas. ures which have been adopted within EI R 235:
A. Seismic Safety
1. ImDact:
A:SPZ39-A
Although faults have been previously mapped on-
Site, they have been deterrriined to be inactive and
the risk of' ground rupture due to faulting on the
project is considered nil. Liquefaction potential
exists along the entire flat ailuviated area of
Temecula Creek within the southern site boundary.
17
2. Mitic}ation:
During site development, additional geologic
evaluation shall be continued in order to verify the
extent and relative age of fault activity. Mitigation
of the liquefaction potential within the southern
portion of the site will occur as a result of project
development, which will lower artificially high
groundwater levels by removal of recharge ponds,
as well as increase overburden as a result of site
grading.
B. Slopes and Erosion
1. I miDact:
The Meadows SpeCific Plan will unavoidably alter
some of the existing landforms. Owing to the
general granular nature of graded slopes, a
moderate to severe erosion potential exists if slopes
are unprotected. Removal and recompaction of
portions of alluviSl/colluviai soils within fill areas
and shallow cut areas will be necessary.
2. Mltlclation:
Temporary groundcover shall be provided to
prevent erosion during the construction phase.
Permanent vegetation shall be planted as soon as
possible after grading. Specific requirements for
alluviallcolluvial Soils removal shall be developed
during tentative map studies and incorporated into
project grading. The three small possible landslide
areas shall be investigated during design level
studies and all mitigation measures identified as a
result of that inveStigation will be incorporated into
future development approvals. Remedial grading
recommendations to provide for the long term
stability will be provided based upon a finalized
grading design.
C. Fioodinc~
!mDact:
Development of the Meadows Specific Plan will alter
the existing drainage patterns and will increase
runoff to Temecula Creek and, to a lesser extent,
Murrieta Creek.
Miticlation:
A master drainage plan has been developed to
respond to the hydrological constraints of the site·
A more in-depth assessment of the Temecula
floodplain shall be conducted during the final
design and preparation of the tentative tract maps,
and all mitigation measures identified as a result of
that assessment will be incorporated into future
development approvals. Erosion cont~-ol devices
shall be utilized in hillside development areas to
mitigate the effect of increased runoff at points of
discharge· If required, the project applicant will
contribute Drainage Improvement Fees as
appropriate.
A:SPZlg-A 18 ~
Noise
1.
! roDact:
2. Miticlation:
Noise generated from the project will derive from
two sources, construction and vehicular traffic, but
is not anticipated to result in unacceptable noise
levels to existing or proposed off-site uses. Oneire
areas adjacent to high volume roadways may be
subject to noise impacts.
A noise analysis shall be required in planning areas
adjacent to high volume perimeter roads. If
indicated, noise attenuation will be incorporated
into project design.
Water Quality
1. I mloact:
2. Miticlation:
Implementation of the project will alter the
composition of surface runoff by grading the site
surfaces; by construction of impervious streets,
roofs and parking facilities; and by the irrigation of
landscaped areas. Runoff conveyed to Temecula
and Murrieta Creeks will contain minor amounts of
pollutants.
The project will employ erosion control devices
during grading, such as temporary barins,
culverts, send bagging or desilting basins. Urban
runoff will be mitigated through implementation of a
street cleaning program.
Wild life/Vecletation
1. I mDact:
2. ~Vliticlation:
As a consequence of grassland and coastal sage
scrub vegbtation removal, existing wildlife will
either be destroyed or displaced. Impacts upon
habitat containing a population of the Stephents
Kangaroo Rat will result.
The project applicant will participate in any in-place
County program which provides for off-site
mitigation of impacts to the Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat,
or enter into a Memorandum of Understanding wit
the California Department of Fish and Game.
G. Historic and Prehistoric Sites
1. I mDact:
Without proper mitigation, implementation of the
Meadows Specific Plan could potentially destroy
~archaeological/historicai sites on the property.
A:SPZ19-A
19
2. Mitic~ation:
Circulation
1. Iml~act:
2. Miticlation:
Fire Protection
1. Impact:
2. Mitic3ation:
Sheriff
1. Iml~act:
2. Mitic3ation:
Schools
1. linDact:
2. Miticlation:
Prior to the approval of any additional implementing
processes, the applicant/developer will meet with
the County Historical Commission to determine
appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts
to archaeological/historical sites; all mitigation
measures identified as a result of the meeting{ s ) will
be incorporated into future development approvals.
The Meadows Specific Plan is anticipated to generate
~7,600 vehicle trips per day at project completion·
Approximately qO,000 of these trips would be
external to the site,
Construction of the proposed circulation network
will adequately service future on-site traffic
volumes. Off-site improvements will be constructed
as required by the County Road Department and
CelTtans.
The project site would be subject to Category II
urban development requirements with regard to fire
protection services.
The project site will be served by a proposed fire
station, to be constructed near Highway 79. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
Project residents will impose increased demands on
law enforcement and sheriff services.
Project design will incorporate appropriate li9htin9 ,
site design, security hardware and such design
features as will promote optimal security. The
developer will pay mitigation fees as required by the
Board of Supervisors.
The project will generate an estimated 3,109
students in grades K-8 and 1,187 students in
grades 9-12, impacting the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
The project has designated four elementary school
sites and one junior high school site. The developer
will pay school mitigation fees as required.
A:SP219-A 20 ~'~
Solid Waste
1. linDact:
2. Miticlation:
Project residents, estimated at 1~,587, will generate
approximately 58 tons per day of solid waste,
incrementally shortening the life of County landfill
sites.
The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes
programs for reducing the quantity of wastes being
landfilled, including source reduction and business
and residential separation of recoverables. These
programs may be implemented by project residents
and businesses.
Libraries
1. I miDact:
2. Miticlation:
The project's population will increase demand for
library facilities and services.
The developer will pay library mitigation fees as
required by the Board of Supervisors.
The following environmental impact associated with Specific Plan No. 219 cannot be
fully mitigated and a statement of overriding findings has been adopted within EIR
235:
Air Quality
1. I mDact:
At project build-out, daily motor vehicle emissions
for the project will total approximately 7,75~
Ibs/day. Power plant emissions for electrical
energy consumed on-site will total 175 Ibs/day.
Natural gas emissions for project consumption will
total 163.6 Ibs per day. Approximately 100 Ibs of
dust per acre will be generated each day of
construction in addition to an undetermined amount
of motor emissions during site preparation an
construction.
2. Miticlatlon:
Because most of the project-related air pollution
emissions are generated by automobiles, effective
mitigation is limited. On-site provisions for
schools, shopping, and recreation has been
incorporated into project design. Sufficient acreage
has been zoned for industrial use in the Rancho
California/Temecula area to provide employment
opportunities. project design includes a circulation
plan designed for efficient and direct traffic flows
and alterna~iye transit modes including pedestrian,
bicycle, and equestrian trails. The Rancho Villages
Policy Plan, to which this project is subject,
requires pedestrian and bus stop facilities for
A:SP2~9-A 2 1
commercial areas. These requirements will be
implemented at the development application stage.
Particulate matter and other pollutants generated
during grading and construction will be reduced
through compliance with County Ordinance No, 457
which specifies watering during construction, and
planting of ground cover,
I V. Conclusion
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
( EIR ) No. 235 in conjunction with the approval of' Specific Plan No. 219 and Change
of Zone No. 51L~0. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental
impacts to levels of insignificance, The Board of Supervisors also adopted
statements of overriding considerations for the air quality impacts, Specific Plan
No. 219, Amendment No, 2 has increased the neighborhood commercial acreage by
only 2.5 acres and proposes to modify the boundaries of Specific Plan No, 219,
Amendment No. 1 to include Planning Area No. 36; and will not result in additional
impacts to the environment. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate
any potential significant impacts to levels of insignificance,
Pursuant to Section 1516~ of the California Environmental Quality Act and Condition
of Approval No. 12 of Specific Plan No. 219, this Initial Study has been prepared to
demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment
will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have
~=een no changes in the circumstances surroundihg the project that would require
important revisions to the EI R due to new significant impacts, and that no new
information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant
effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation
measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant
impacts.
A:SPZlg-A. 22 ~
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect-on the environment, and a NECATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets, which were adopted for El R 235,
and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED..
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA ,T REPORT
required. ' ~--=1 ~
/
Date Oiiver M~:,~//Senior ?lanner
For OF TEMECULA
X
ATTACHMENT N0. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FOR
AUGUST 5. 1991
AND
DECEMBER 16. 1991
S~STAFFe'~ ,-U.AMa 19
~ ~2WNTJleTOV I~wS
which Is a special circumstance
vas an
staff
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
The motion
AYES:
stated that she
finding to add to
eomasszONs~
that thls
tngs in the
SSIONERS
COMMI:
Fahey, Ford,
Chintaeff, Hoagland
None
Blair
as follows:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Chtntae
None
land
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair
eElkNOB OF BOltS N0. 117 AWD SPECIFIC PLaN NO, 219, aMENDMENT
NO. 2
Proposal to ~amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol
Specific plan to include Planning Area #36, located on
the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola
Road.
MXitEX!!OADES Summarized the staff report. He advised the
Commission of an error on the agenda referencing Bedford
Properties as the applicant. Mr. Rhoades also advised
that the LosRanchitos Homeowner,s Association submitted
a letter reqUesting a continuance to February.
CNAIRNAWEOAGLaNDopened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M.
EBZTN MCCANN, ~it., 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, read
verbatim from the attached Exhibit to the Planning
Commission.
The following individuals Spoke in opposition to the
Change of Zone:
TERI GASLEN, 44501 Verde Drive, Los Ranchitos,
representing the Los RanchitOs Homeowner,s Association,
addressed the, Commission with the concern that if this
PCMIN12/16/91 -5- DECEMBER 18, 1991
~e ~socia~ion is va~ ic~~ed vi~ what t~ of
conercial is going to ~ 'at ~is location. ~. Gaslen
stated ~at ~e ~s~iati :n was re~esting a postponing
of any decision ~o all~ ~ C~e ~o study the proposed
proJe~ and ~rk vi~ ~- Mc~.
C~aXRMaNNOA~AND stated ~hat he was concerned with the
Association's request for a continuance, due to the cost
implecations to the developer.
DON DO~IAB&CI~ZR, 44281 F1Ores Drive, Temecula, opposed
the zone change and stated that in order for Mr. McCann
to change his zoning, it must be approved by a 51%
majority vote from the members. Mr. Rohrabacher stated
change then
~EBECCA WEROING, 41775 Yorba Avenue, Temecula, opposed
approvingthe zone change without getting 51% of the vote
of the Association memberS.
FaIT~ HCCaNN advised that in his correspondence to the
Board he suggest that he Only needs one of anyone of the
following anchors: mini market, gas station or fast food,
to satisfy the lenders, and he would be willing to sit~
down and discuss with ~he Board which one of these the~
would feel most comfortable with. Mr. McCann added that
he would be willing to postpone submitting a plot plan
for the parcel until FebrUaz7 or March.
COMMIBBIONER CHINIAEFF Stated that the Commission's role
is to make the best planning decision, and keeping the
properties on the east side of the street residential,
surrounded by commercial is not reasonable planning
decision; however, he did express a concern for the
premature planning of that parcel. Mr. Chiniaeff stated
that he felt the zone change was appropriate; however,
the list of uses should b e reviewed and decided on which
are good and which are bad for this parcel.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated[that she has expressed concern
in the past about going against CC&R's~ however, Mr.
McCann has made some significant effort to work with the
Association. The general plan will be determining what
the specific boundaries of Los Ranchitos will be and it
would oppose the zone change at this particular time.
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he was not looking at this
from the stand point of taking away the authority of the
PCMIN12/le/gl
-6-
DECEMBER 18, 199~
P..Ld~mTIfG ~"ll~t'eeTON B['i~NUTnE
CC&R's; however, this property was cut-off and separate
from Los Ranchitos.
2XlY T~OPaSZLL stated that wAth resepect 'to the useage
issue, staff had been contemplating that. Mr. Thornhill
suggested that staff come beck with a list cf uses that
staff feels are appropriate for this location.
C~mXISIZONSRFOaD suggested providing the Los Ranchires
Homeowner,s Association with the list and getting their
input as vei!.
COMMISSIONER C~INIa~FF moved to continue Change of Zone
No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2, to the
second meeting in January, and direct staff to look at
the permitted uses in the existing specific plan and come
back with a-recommendation as to the type of uses that
would be most appropriate, as veil as provide that list
to the Los Ranchires Homeowner,s Association so that they
can make comments as far as what they would like to see,
and continue the public hearing until that date seconded
by COMXZSBIONER FORD. '
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Ford, Chiniaeff
Hoagland
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 7:55 P.M.
reconvened at 8:05 P.M.
The meeting
FItHEY asked to be excused due to medical
e
T~NTATZVE
7.1 Proposal for a
acres located on
-terminus of Front
MAPNO. 22515,
~e lot
ION OF TIMB
subdivision of 3.86
side of the southerly
NARK RHOADES summa
COMMISSIONER asked
dedicatio uired for re-el
the are the project.
!f report.
there
were any
Street in
PCM
RIGHETTI stated that there is some work
Front Street with the possible alignment
done
the
91 -7- DECEMBER 18,
It 'was move by Commissioner Blair, sbconded by
8 resolution entitled:
to:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION
CITY OF TEMECULA
3 TO PERMIT OPEF
USES 41743
SUITES A102.
The motion
COMMISSION OF THE
IBUC USE PERMIT NO.
]RCH AND RELATED
NORTH,
carried by the following vote:
5 COMMISSIONERSi Blair, Ford, Fahey,
gland
10, CHANGE OF ZONE NO, 18; AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219,
AMENDMENT NO. 2
Proposal is to amend the boundary of the Palores Del Sol (formerly the
Oliver MuJica provided staff report and reported it was consistent with the
Meadow Specific Plan and felt'it would maintain the continuity of the specific
plan.
Chairman Hoegland opened the public comment at 8:00
Keith L. McCenn, Jr., 8gent for owner gave a summary of reasons he felt-that
this I~roperty should be zoned commercial, he stated that 35 acres around it
were commercial and this home backs' up to that commercial. He stated that
the_ owner received 8 letter from Lea Ranchitos Homeowner's Association
several years ago stating this property was not in the Association.
Mr. Donald Rohrobscker, 44281 Flowers Drive, President Los Ranchitos
Homeowner's Association. Mr. Roh~obacker stated that this property was in
the association and that they were !very opposed to any zone change. He
stated that they do not want to set precedent. He also wanted the
Homeowner'a Association notified of all hearings. He gave the address of the
Homeowner's Association as: P. O.'Box 471, Temecula, California 92593.
Commbdoner Chlnlaeff was concerned about amount of Commercial in that
area.
Commissioner Biak was concerned about type of business that would be
allowed,
Chairman Hoegland asked if owner opposed Specific Plan 219, Mr. McCann
answered no,
Harmon Thome, 30851 I)ePortola Rd., Temocul8 mated that this property is on
lot 25, ha lives on lot 32 felt CC&R's. governed and that they should be
followed as 2-112 acres single family residence, An approval of a
change would require by 51% of owners to approve. He felt that there was
enough commercial in neighborhood.
Rebecca Weereing, 41775 Yorba Avenue, Los Ranchitos, opposed to violation
of CC&R's, should be kept rural.
Gary Thornhill stated that the Specific Plan designation rules apply to any
development on that property and the City can extend boundaries.
Chairmen Hoeglandi asked City attorney if CC&R's vehicle atta{;h to the land? '
Terry Kaufmenn, representative, city attorney, stated that CC&R's are with
property owners. Any problem is not problem with the City, but between
homeowners and should not affect commission decisions.
Commissioner Fshey made a metion to continue item until homeowner's issue
is researched and dOcuments produced if property is in association or not.
Commissioner Blair seconded the motion. Commissioner Ford wanted record
To reflect homeowner's conflict.
Commissioner Chinlaeff felt issue should be reviewed by land use designation
and if it was appropriate zoning, commission should not be concerned with civil
matters.
Commissioner Hoegland restated motion to continue item ~ff calendar to
renotice item, notify Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association and have staff
research if property was in Los Ranchitos Homeowner's association.
9
The n~tion was PArried by the folloWing vote:
AYES
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoegland, Ford
NOES I COMMISSIONER:! ChinScarf
k
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24172
is to subdivide 5 acres into 8 residential lots on the Eastside
Paubs Road and Santiago Road.
Oliver
it was
gave an overview of the project and recomrne~
with SWAP.
Commissioner
raised concerns= about drainage.
approval 8s
Commissioner
The area and if
ind Ford railed concern
done.
an earthquake fault in
Doug Stewart Mid
report prior to recordarSon of
Bob RigheTTi answered ~1~
St. informing it would be
TCSD.
could
to ask for a Geologist
right of way on No. side of "A" ·
~fter original planting by developer by
Chairman Hoegland opened Pa
Mike Lanni, 1907 Yachttrue:
been trenching for
County Geologist,
no fault.
fau~;
after he
at 8:25.
applicant stated that there had
that it was cleared by the
the trenches and found
Chairman Hoe
seeing none the
if anyone else wanted to
~lic comment was closed at 8:30.
asked staff TO ac~dress drainage and
on this item and
lights.
BobRi
compl
Col
said that there was not drainage across
and There was no substantial increase. Street li
with Ord. 460.
er Chinlseff would like staff to look at Geo. Report.
was surface
would be in
Thornhill said · condition would be added to have 8 Geo. Re
before final map recordarSon.
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
MAPPING, REVISION TO SPECIFIC PLAN
(EXHIBIT "C")
S%STAFFFFT~I 6-CZ.AM2
20
CITY OF TEMECULA
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
ROADWi AY LANDSCAPE TREATMENT
MINOR PROJECT ENTRY STATEMENT
~ ., ,.
TENTIAL ACCESS POINT
I
NEIGHaORHOOD
COM,~IERCIAL
2.5 AC.
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE:
Change of Zone No. 18, Specific Ran No. 21 9, Amended No. 2
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Januan/27, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Change of Zone No. 18, Specific Plan No. 219, Amended No. 2
EXHIBIT: D VICINITY MAP
P.c. DATE: January 27, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
THE ~IIpE2AiDii3WS .x/'
/- "' '/,, I 4
" VAI~'~ANCH
CASE NO.:Change of Zone No. 18, Specific Plan No. 219, Amended No. 2
EXHIBIT: E SWAP MAP
P.C. DATE: January 27, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Change of Zone No: 18, Specific Plan No. 219, Amended No. 2
EXHIBIT: F SPECIFIC PLAN REVISION MAP
P.C._DATE: _January 27, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
J~K3UEMI~TOIO'-e*UA,V,.
IqlOMFA~IO~CURI
INFORMAL ITREET
TOll HOUPINOI
11JII PARKWAY
YAIM)
I .... : I~faC~k ~, ::
CO~"'~U~.l(r/114EME COMBINATION
IOIJO WAll, AIdO 'TIJII&AR ITIEI. FINOf
r lE'IIAGK TO TOE OF
I:1 ILlliE
I~E TYPIGAL COMMUNITY
STREET ICE,HE TRANSITION
ILOPE eL.All
FIGURE
EXHIBIT: G
P.C. DATE: January 27, 1992 ;
CITY OF TEMECULA
12'-~' GOIINATI~ Olqr.-
ITIEET ICYGLE AND PEDIITIMI
IllWALK MEANDER8 FROM i'MEL TO
IT-.0' MAX. FROM FACE OIc CUR1
INFORMAL ITRIET
TRIg OROUPIO8
PARKWAY
IIlIETRQHTGFWAy
#
E'b, ,'. d IACKOIIOt. WD
~ 1lIE WffH DECIDUOUI
AGOglIT TRIll
TNIMI GOM~NATK)N lOLl} WALL
AND 111ULAR ITIEL FENCE
CASE NO.: Change of Zone N0. 18, Specific Plan No. 219, Amended No. 2
EXHIBIT:. H STREET GUIDELINES DE PORTOLA ROAD
P.C. DATE: January 27, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
MINOR
FIOURE 3S
CASE NO.:Change of Zone No. 18, Specific Plan No. 219, Amended No. 2
EXHIBIT: I ENTRY MC: NUMENT GUIDELINES
P.C. DATE: January 27, 1992 ~
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARy
AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR
PLANNING AREA 38
S~STAFFFIrI~I 8-C,Z.Ai,42 2 1
ATTACHMENT N0. 7
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Area 36, as depicted on Figure 15kk, provides for development of 2.5 acres with
Neighborhood Commercial use.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SECTION 9.1 Uses Permitted.
The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200
square feet of outside storage or display of materials appurtenant to such use,
provided a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30
of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (1991 ).
1. Ambulance services.
2. Antique shops.
3. Appliance stores, household.
4. Art supply shops and studios.
5. Auditoriums and conference rooms.
6. Bakery shops, including baking only When incidental to retail sales on the
premises.
7. Banks and financial institutions.
8. Barber and beauty shops.
9. Blueprint and duplicating services.
10. Book stores and binders.
11. Catering services.
12. Cleaning and dyeing shops.
13. Clothing stores.
14. Confectionery or candy stores.
15. Costume design studios.
16. Delicatessens.
17. Drug stores.
18. Dry goods stores.
19. Employment agencies.
20. Feed and grain sales.
21. Rorists shops.
22. Food markets and frozen food lockers..
23. Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption.
24. Gift shops.
25. Household goods sales, including but not limited to, new and used appliances,
furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios and television sets, including repair
thereof.
26. Hobby shops.
27. Ice cream shops.
28. Ice sales, not including ice plants.
S~TAFF~n~e~Z.,~. 22
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35;
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
Interior decorating shops.
Jewelry store, inCluding incidental repairs.
Laboratories, films, dental, medical, research or testing.
Laundries and laundromats.
Leather goods stores.
Mail order businesses.
Manufacturer's agent.
Market, food, whalesale or jobber.
Mimeographing and addressograph services.
Music stores.
News stores. ,
Notions or novelty stores.
Offices, including business, law, medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural,
engineering, community planning and real estate.
One on-site operator's residence, which may be located in a commercial
building.
Paint and wallpaper stores, not including paint contractors.
Pet shops and pet supply shops.
Photography shops and studios and photo engraving.
Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors.
Printers or publishers..
Produce markets.
Radio and television broadcasting studios.
Recording studios..
Refreshment standS,
Restaurants and other eating establishments,
Schools, business and professional, includi,ng art, barber, beauty, dance, drama,
music and swimming.
Shoe stores and repair shops.
Shoeshine stands.
Sporting goods stores,
Stained glass assembly.
Stationer stores,
Tailor shops,
Telephone exchanges.
Tobacco shops.
Tourist information center.
Toy shops.
Travel agencies.
Typewriter sales and rental, including incidental repairs.
Watch repair shops.
Wholesale businesses; with samples on the premises but not including storage.
Convenience store, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.
Day care center.
The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant
to City Ordinance.
S~T,mSm~CZ.~M~ 23
1. Convenience store, including the sales of motor vehicle fuel.
Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsectionsi A and B may be considered a permitted
or conditionally permitted use provided that the Planning Director finds that the proposed use
is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated
subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the category in which
it falls.
SnCTION 9.;~ Planned-Commatrill nevdo~erent~
Planned Commercial Developments are permitted provided a land division is approved pursuant
to the provision of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 (1991 ).
SECTION 9.3
(Deleted)
SECTION 9.4 Develonment Standards
The following standards of development are required in the Commercial/Neighborhood
Commercial Zones: ,
There is no minimum lot area requirement~ unless specifically required by zone
classification for a particular area. :
There are no yard requirements for buildings ~which do not exceed 35 feet in height
except as required for specific plan. Any poffion of a building which exceeds 35 feet
in height shall be setback from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for
each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured
from the existing public right-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted
in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback
shall 'be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or
easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the
same as required for a front setback.- Each side setback shall be measured from the
side lot line, or from an existing adjacent public right-of-way street line unless a
specific plan has been adopted, in which case it will be measured from the specific
plan street line.
C. All buildings and structures shall not exceed 50 feet in height.
D. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
E. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall~be screened from the ground elevation
view to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet.
PLANNING STANDARDS
Access to the Planning Area will be provided from Margarita Road to the west, DePortola
Road to the north, and internal circulation in conjunction with Planning Area No. 1, as shown
on Exhibit 'D" of the attached staff report.
S.TAFF.rn~O~Z.AM2 24
A. A minor project entry statement will be provide at the intersection of Margarita Road
and DePortola Road at the northwest boundary of the Planning Area. (See Figures 35
and 36 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amd. No. 1).
B. Roadway landscape treatments, such as those depicted on Figure 23 of Specific Plan
No. 219, Amd. No. 1, shall be provided along Margarita Road and DePortola Road.
C. A bicycle trail will be located on Deportola Road to the north of Planning Area 36 as
shown on Figure 6 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amd. No.1.
D. In addition to Planning Areas I and 27 totaling 51.4 acres, all references to
neighborhood commercial and commercial development standards contained within
Specific Plan No. 219 Amd. No. I shall include Planning Area 36, 2.5 acres, hereby
incorporated by reference; and as shown on the attached exhibits.
E. Please refer to Section III.A. 1 through III.A.8 of Specific Plan No. 219, Amd. No. 1 for
the Development Plans and Standards that apply site-wide.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Neighborhood Commerdat
Obiectives
To provide a Variety of services; including general merchandising, cultural and
entertainment oPportunitie; and general office uses.
To provide the oPportunityi for a broad spectrum of uses such as food and produce
markets, general retail, specialty shops, small restaurants and cafes, theaters,
exercise/dance studios, medical and Professional offices, community-oriented activities
and out door vendors.
To create an attractive commercial development, sympathetic in scale and aesthetics
to adjacent residential development.
To integrate these various activities into a well-designed commercial center which fits
into the community.
Siting and Odentation
ADDrODrjate
Buildings arranged to create end enclose a variety of outdoor spaces; plazas, squares,
eating areas, usable open si0ace, etc.
Open areas large enough to be usable, and not so large as to appear "empty"; 15 to
20 feet in width is generally, appropriate.
Commercial units varied in orientation and clustered .to create zones of similar
activities. Such "clusters" should be dispersed throughout the site to reduce the
impact of development on neighboring residential areas.
Parking located in close proximity to shopping clusters.
S~STAFFIU~/~I 8-CZ.AM2 25
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes well separated and defined by landscape
and site design elements.
Common site design elements such as lighting and signage, enriched paving, and
landscape treatments should be used to unify the site.
Variations in elevation and finished grade.
Consideration for solar access; continually s'~aded areas should be avoided.
smallest building masses located at the peripl'ery of the site, with the largest building
masses concentrated in the central portion o' the site.
InaoDrooriate
Shopping mall or "strip center" site planning.:
Massive concentration of buildings in any single area of the site, surrounded by an
uninterrupted expanse of parking.
Form Scale and Massing
S~STAm~m~-CZ.Am 26
ADoroDriate
· Commercial units should vary in size. However, units which are directly adjacent may
not differ in horizontal or vertical frontage by more than 50 percent.
* Individual facades should be offset or otherwiSe articulated by Projections, recesses,
angled or curved surfaces, etc.
* Combination of one and two-story volumes, with second story volumes concentrated
at center of building composite.
* Two-story vdumes should be stepped or sloped.
* A wide diversity of storefronts is encouraged within the parameters of the designated
architectural style.
· Facades should be designed to provide a variety of display and viewing opportunities,
as opposed to continuous "storefront' glazing.
· Architectural Proportions and details must be sympathetic to a residential scale.
Inaoorooriate
· Massive building elements; timbers, beams, columns, etc.
Exterior Materials and Colors
ADDroDriate
The commercial aspect of this development is an integral part of the community. The
materials and colors should relate directly to the motif, palette and scale of the
surrounding commercial end residential development.
Somewhat brighter accent colors may be used but must be harmonious with adjacent
neighborhoods and generally residential in character.
Inaoorooriate
Too-bright, garish colors on buildings and/or signage.
High-tech, industrial grade finishes and fixtures.
Roof Forms and Materials
ADDrODriate
Varied roofline and ridgeline heights.
Details to add visual interest to the roofscape; dormers, cupolas, skylights, lightwells,
theme towers, stair towers, etc.
Window tops which beak the roof line at the eave.
Incorporate two-story volumes into stepped or sloped roof areas as per General
Guidelines.
Steep roof pitches (greater than 6:12).
Flat roof area is limited to 50 Percent of total roof area for any single unit or group of
contiguous units.
Eave and fascia details should be sympathetic to a residential scala.
S~STAFFRFr~; e-CZ.AM2 27
Fenestration
ADDrODriOT8
A variety of window and door treatments in elevation.
All building openings should be "human scaleP.
Building openings which are deeply recessed ~r bold projections to create shadow and
visual interest. ~
Divided rite windows, character windows, bey windows, etc.
A wide variety of display and merchandising Windows.
Windows and door should be selected to be compatible with a residential scale
architecture.
Inappropriate
Large expanses of conventional "storefront' glazing and large plate glass windows.
Walls and Fences
Appropriate
Walls and fences are an integral part of the architecture of the commercial
development and help to visually link it to the rest of the community.
Walls should be designed to provide adequate security and visual screening, as well
as to define pedestrian and vehicular circulatiOn.
Materials, colors and proportions should be consistent with the architecture of
surrounding residential neighborhoods. ;
Variation in vertical and horizontal continuity is encouraged.
Landscape treatments should be used to soften walls and integrate them with their
environment.
InaDorooriete
Heavy duty fixture and finishes such as used in high traffic shopping malls and strip
centers.
Architectural Features and Details
ADDrODrjate
· It is imlzortant that architectural detailing is consistent with the generally residential
treatment of the commercial site.
· Proportions, materials and finishes should not appear to be high-tech, heavy duty or
industrial grade.
* Fixtures and finishes should be selected for their contribution to the overall theme of
the development,
IneDDrODriat8
Heavy duty fixtures and finishes such as used in high traffic shopping malls and strip
centers.
S%STAFFRFT%le-CZ.AM2 28
Accessory Structures and Service Areas
ADDrODri,~te
Structures which are used for storage or trash collection must not be visible from
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Such structures must be located or screened so that the noise impact from delivery
trucks and trash pick up is negligible.
Service areas and loading docks must not be visible from surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
Inaoorooriate
Open trash enclosures.
Chain link enclosures.
Lighting
APpropriate
· A lower level of general illumination is encouraged, including site lighting, interiors and
exteriors of buildings. '
· Low, shielded walkway li{ihting.
· Screen site lighting from direct view by adjacent residential neighborhoods.
· Low voltage spot lighting iof display areas, signs and directional aids.
· Conform with applicable NIt. Palomar lighting restricted zone requirements.
Inaoorooriate
* High level of site and parking lot illumination.
· Flood lighting of building facades, signs or landscaping.
Mechanical Equipment
AooroDriate
The neighborhood commercial areas are likely to be prominently visible from nearby
residential neighborhoods. 'It is, therefore, necessary for all mechanical equipment to
be screened from view.
Equipment must also be shielded from sound transmission. Noise levels from such
source~ must be negligible in residential neighborhoods.
Screening must be incorporated into the architecture with similar materials and
finishes.
Inaoorooriate
Screen walls must not appear as an after-thought; such as a rooftop wooden fence
or chain link enclosure.
S~STA-~";'~'n~e-<:Z~A,; 29
Aoorooriate i
A single thematic sign program for the entire development, which dictates the design
of signage for the commercial center as well as for individual units.
Generally small, low key signage program. ,
Banners and awnings are signage opportunitieS.
Eye-level sign, window and door signs.
Luminous signs are discouraged but may be! permitted if controlled by a timer or
otherwise conform to Mt. Palomar lighting restricted zone requirements.
InaooroDriate
Fascia mounted signs.
Large signs or signs mounted high up on building facades.
Suggested Architectural Styles - Description and Application
Note: The guidelines outlined in $ection'3.a., General Criteria, of Specific Plan No. 219, Amd.
No. 1, apply to all development within the Meadows at Rancho California (Paloma del Sol) and
are reauired criteria. Following are detailed examples jof specific architectural styles that are
intended to represent only the general character of the project. Within this theme, there are
numerous interpretations and sub-styles which are acceptable.
These descriptions are not intended to limit creativity and designers are encouraged to be
innovative in the application of architectural styling. ~
southern french spanish
chimneys
roof
forma
windows
balconies
doora
S~STAFFRFT~t 8-CZ.AM2 30
French Eclectic
APPropriate
· Tall, vertically emphasized building elements and openings.
· Pediments above windows and doors.
· Slightly overhanging second stories.
* Massive brick, stone or stucco chimneys.
* Tall chimneys.
· Round tower element at Stair enclosure or entry foyer.
· Projecting finwalls as extensions of main building walls.
* Tall, steeply pitched roofS, which may contain second-story floor areas.
· Predominately hipped roofs with occasional side gables.
· Roof flared at saves.:
-- ~-~ ~..~ · ..
Rat roof tile, slate or shake.
· Clipped saves or short overhangs.
· Soffitted saves.
* Decorative save brackets, half round brackets.
· Multi-colored roof palette.
· Clay tile as ridgeline cap only.
· Smooth stucco as primary wall material.
· Brick or stone cladding as secondary wall material, may be used as a half-high wall
material.
· Rusticated stone as decorative material, quoines at building corners and buildin(~
openings.
· Decorative half-timbering.
· French doors, paired doors and windows, decorative raised and glass panel doors.
· Divided rite, diamond lite windows.
· Various dormers; arched, circular, hipDed, gabled.
· Through the cornice dormers and window tops.
· Proiment lintels above and below windows.
· Decorative shutters.
· Regular, formal window placement.
· Decorative panel garage doors.
· Balustraded porches and balconies,
· Cylindrical clay chimney potS,
· Decorative vents at gables.
· ' Decorative bracket supports at balconies.
$'~STAFFRP~I O-CZ.AM2 3 1
Inaoorooriat8
· Round columns.
· Spanish tile except as noted above.
Spanish Eclectic
AODr0DriSte
· Asymmetrical facades and plans.
· Prominent arches above principal building openings.
· Arcaded walkways, entry porches, .
· Covered porches, balconies as extension of main roof form.
· Entries accented by columns, pilasters or decorative tile work.
· 'Low-pitched roofs. '
· Small overhangs or clipped eaves. '
· Roof form may be side-gabled, cross-gabled, ~ipped, combination, flat (limited).
* All roof forms may be combined with parapets.
· Exclusive use of terra cotta tile; mission or barrel tile, Spanish or S tile.
· Small round or square roof towers, cupolas, ~
. · -;.:;,o:;.Jz;: .
· Carved or heavy panel doors, glazed doors, paired doors,
''~:~.-.'=~,..:... ,__._,i=.;i!! --.-~r~ r'
, .'. : ..
One or more large focal windows.
Divided lite windows.
Windows may be arched, multiple-arched or parabolic.
Decorative wood or iron window grilles.
Exposed or raised lintels above window and door openings.
Decorative wood or iron balustrades on cantilevered balconies.
Decorative wood bracket supports at balconies.
Elaborated tile roofed chimney caps. :
Brick, stucco or tile attic vents.
Italian Eclectic
ADoroDriate
Generally symmetrical facades, regular placement of building openings.
Arched building openings. ;
Arched openings at porches and balconies, usually recessed into main building mass.
S\STAFFRPI~lB-CZ.AM2 32
Entrance porches accented by columns or pilasters.
Low-pitched roofs.
Simple hipled roof or side-gabled.
Widely overhanging saves, supported by decorative brackets.
Use of clay roof tiles, flat or barrel.
Boxed or soffitted saves.
Rusticated stone cladding, may be used on first story to plate height.
Smooth stucco as primary wall material.
Rusticated stone or plaster Quoines at building corners and openings.
Full-length first-story windows, smaller windows on second story.
.~',,, .'~. : : .~ ~.::...:..:.-.
· . :... mint~ : .
. ; ,~.:.~ ~.. : · .~/,,.. · .; :: . ; . ~ _ · ,~_
'~' ~ II!1
Divided rite and fan light windows.
Pedimented windows.
Balustraded balconies and' windows.
Built-up cornice moldings and banding.
Masonry belt courses and ~relief work as decorative detail.
InaDDrooriate
Fw
Front facing gables or roof forms other than "appropriate".
Shake or shingle roof materials.
Exposed rafters or beams at roof wall junction.
A Plot Plan will be required for definition form and uses of each commercial area.
Waster disposal containers will be limited to designated, confined areas set aside for
solid waste collection.
$'~STAFFRPI~ 18-C:Z ,AIVI2 3 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESPONSES FROM:
LOS RANCHITOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIRED SCHOOL DISTRICT
S~STAFFe'~,e-CZ.A~ 34
Chairman Hoagland
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43180 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: List of uses by LRHA in regard to Zone Change #18.
January 14, 1992
Dear Chairman Hoegland:
Once again, we are fully opposed to · zone change at this
time.
Our reasons against a zone change now are as follows:
1. Unknown comm'itment by Bedford for completion of
Specific Plan 219.
2. Lack of appropriate roads and traffic controls with
regard tc ~dj~cent residences, school and intersection safety.
3. Adjacent properties viII have commercial precedent
established. (Domino effect)
~. As stated by Commissioner Fahey at the October 7th
hearing, overriding CC&Rs would be setting a precedent.
5. As. stated by Commissioner Blair at the October 7th
hearing, this zone change may not be in accordance with the new
Temecula General Plan.
6. Due to the declinin~ economic climate, another
commercial/retail center is net within City's best interest.
T. Trash generated-- We already bear the brunt of
Carl's Jr.'s trash on our properties to the nGrth'of here.
8. Noise and Neon pollution in a quiet. residential
and schoGl neighborhood. (Even with the projected increased
traffic on Margarita. it's still a residential throuEhway.)
9. Property was purchased with complete and full
awareness of homeowner opposition and knowledge of CC&R
procedures for withdrawl.
lO. Developer could have sought homeowner approval
before taking up so much time in this procedure, including city's
and ours.
.ll. Pace of development should be determined by
economic need and conditions, not personal need.
Assuming for a moment that the Association is placed on the
defensive, and forced to -oblige a zone chan~e, (also assuming
that 51% of homeowners would be willing to. approve the proposed
re-write of our CO&Re to avoid a lawsuit,) we can conceive of two
uses from the list we received at the December 16th hearing.
These are: #11- Banks and financial institutions; and #58-
Offices.
These are ~he only ~wo commercial usel we can see as
befitting of a quie~ country neiihbOrhood on one side, a school
on another, and who now knows what behind l~?! Even if the
Bedford Plan #219 follows i~s suggested course, these two uses
are a step down of other typical commercial and could buffer our
proposed new neighborhood boundaries from %he heavier commercial
activ~ies ~hat would ~hen be behind.this 1o~,
~ost Sincerely,
Naytee Davis.
cc: Gary Thornhill, Director Planning
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School Di;trict
SUPERINTENDENT
Patricie B, Novotney. Ed.D.
BOARD Oir EDUCATION
Walt Sw:Ck|a
Joan F. SDlrkrfian
Dr. Dared Etar:Ch
Mlry JO HelmeKe
Rosee Vander~aak
January 13, 1992
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske;
Senior Planner
City of Temecula :
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Subject: Change of Zone 18; and Specific Plan 219
Amendment number 2
Dear Ms. Ubnoske,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments for the above
referenced change of zone. This parcel, located at the intersection of Margarita
and De Portola Roads, will be subject to the Commercial/Neighborhood
Commercial regulations of uses permitted by the Bedford Specific Plan 219.
Please find attached a copy of the permitted uses list issued for this specific
plan. There are two (2) columns located to the left of the uses permitted. Any
business identified in column number I is unacceptable. We have consulted
with Ms. Betty Hansen of the State Department of Education in Sacramento in
order to obtain their comments. This agency responded to this list under the
provision that if we were in the process of purchasing a school site where the
Sparkman school is currently located, it would not be deemed a suitable site if
located within close proximity to the businesses identified in this column. -
This would be due to either the noise or air emission problems associated with
such businesses, or the traffic impact that would be created due to large trucks
servici.ng such businesses.
For the establishments identified in column number 2, we would like to take
this opportunity to describe the conditions where such businesses would not
be acceptable:
Item No. 21 - Confectionery or candy stores. If such a store is an established
candy store such as "See's Candy," then we have no objection. We do object
to other types of candy stores that will sell the type of candy that would be an
31350 Rancho Vista Roacl / Temecula, CA 92592 / (714) 676-2661
attraction to young students.
Item No. 24 - We would oppose any Delicatessen That would be involved with
the sale of alcoholic beverages. If no alcoholic beverages are To be sold, then
we have no objection to this type of business.
Item No. 25 - We would oppose any Lil[g~l department store, due to a concern
with the necessity of large trucks being =required for deliveries. This would
cause a traffic impact, especially during the hours of students walking To
school.
Item No. 36 - As with item number 25 above, our concern is with the traffic
impact of truck deliveries.
Item No. 48 - If a mail order business involves significant shipping, we would
be opposed to this type of business due to Traffic impacts. If only incidental
shipping is required, Than we would not Oppose such an establishment.
Item No. 49 - As with item number 48 above, we would only oppose such a
business if significant shipping is involved.
Item No. 63 - If a photography shop is engaged in sales or portrait settings, we
have no objections. However, if such a business is involved in the developing
of film, we would oppose this business, due to the possible' air emissions
problems associated with film developing.
Item No. 64 - We would oppose plumbing shops if they involved a significant
amount of truck Traffic. '
Item N{~. 71 - We would oppose any eating establishment which was involved
in the sales of alcoholic beverages. We also oppose any "fast food"
establishment at this site.
Item No. 75 - We would only oppose a sign business if it involved the display
of billboards.
Any establishment not'identified in either of the two (2) columns on this list are
deemed appropriate for the location of this development. We do reserve the
right To review any future applications for businesses not on this list in order to
:~...,,..,. ~,..,..~ ,..,, ~o,,,,,....,,.~,,. -..,. ,.. ,,,o,,,.~,,,, o, ,,.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and please feel free
to contact our office should you have any questions regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Lettie Boggs
Coordinator, Facilities Planning Department
cc: Dr. Patricia Novotney
Superintendent
LB/bk
Commercial/Neighborhood ~ommercial
Planning Arm 1, 27 and 36
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zont
X
X
X
x'
X
X
X
X
The following rqulaxions shall apply in all C'o. ....4:,c. lal/Nelghborhood Commercial Zones:
SECTION 9.1.
USES PERMTrTED.
a.
2-
x
×
The following uses ar~ permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200
squaz~ feet of outside storage or display of ~mszm-ials .appurtenant m such use, provided
· plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside
Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
Ambulance services.
Anriqu~ Shops.
Appliance stores, household.
Art supply shops and studios.
Auction houses.
County
(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6')
(7)
(8)
(9)
(to)
(12)
(14)
(xT)
(2o)
(22)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
Auditoriums and conferenc~ room.
Automobile t~pair garages, not including y and fender shops spray paind.ng,.,
Automobile parts and supply stores.
Bakery goods distributors.
Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the
premises.
Bazls and finand institutions.
Barber ~ beauty shops.
Ban and cock*nil lounges.
Billjan1 and pool halls.
Blueprint and duplicating services.
Book stor~s and binders.
Bowling alleys.
Carving sayices.
Cl¢aninS and dyeinS shops.
Clothing stores.
Confectionery or candy stores.
Cosmm~ design studios.
Dance halls.
Delicatessens.
Deparuzznt stores.
Drug stores.
Dry goods stores.
-9-
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
(28)
(29)
(~0)
(31)
Employ~nt agencies.
Escort bumus.
(32) Food msslmts~ssi fms~ food locimrs
(33) Gasoline servios ~tations, not including ths concun~nt sale Of beer and wine for
o~-~ consumption.
(34) O~ shops.
X (36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(4O)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(53)
(58)
(6O)
(61)
(62)
(63)
(65)
(66)
(67)
Hotels, mson hotels ssl motels.
Household goods sales, including but not limited to, new and used appfiances,
furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios asl telcvision sets, including repair
thereof. '
Hobby shops.
Ice cream shops.
Ice sties, not including ice plants.
Interior decorating shops.
Jewelry stores,g including .incidental zepairs.
hlxsr m~aplu~
L~undrir. s snd hundromats.
Liquor stores.
Msil order businesses.
Msnufgmmr's a~nt.
Ms.,~t, food, wholeule or jobber.
Msssagt psrlors, mrldsh baths, health c~nzn stud sh~ilar per~nsl service
establishments.
Meat marlzts, not including slaughtering.
Rimeognphing and add~ssograph services.
Mortuaries.
Music suzes.
News sum~s.
Notions or novelty stores.
Offices, including business, hw, mcdical, dental chiroprzctic, architectural,
'~-ngineering. community planning and real estate.
One m-site operator's residence, which may be located in a cornmcrcial bujJding.
Paint and wallpaper stores, not including paint contnctors.
Pawn shops.
Pet shops and pet supply shops.
Photography shops ~ studios and photo engnving.
Plumbing shops. not including plumbing contractors.
Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or five sales.
Printers or publishers.
X
)c
X
X
X
(68)
C70)
(72)
(73)
(76)
C77)
(78)
(79)
(80)
(81)
(82)
(83)
(84)
(86)
(87)
(88)
(89)
(9O)
(92)
(93)
(94)
(~5)
be
Rk_. ,rid television bmadcasdnl studios.
Rccordinl stud~os.
Refrrshm,.qt searids.
Restam-ann and other eating es*,~bUshmenu.
musk tad swbnmin8.
Sh~ stores and rgpalr shops.
Shoeshine stands.
Sips. on-site siverdsing.
Sporting leeds notes,
Stained I/us assembly. '*
Stationer sra~s.
St·dons, bus. railroad and taxi.
Taxiderm~
Tailor shops.
Tclephotz exchanges.
Theaters. not*including .drive-ins.
T*tm sales and service, not including recapping,
Tobacco shops.
Touzist information centen,
Toy shops.
Tnvel agencies.
Typewriter sa/es and rear·l, inclutling incidents/rapairs.
Watch repair shops.
Wholesale busirscsses with samples on the premises but not including
Car washes.
Fortune etling, spiritualism, or similu activity.
Recycling coUccdon facilides.
Convcnicnc~ snares, not including the site of motor vehicle fuel
Day cam centns,
The following uses am permitted provided · conditions/use permit has been granted
pursuant to City Ordinance.
(1)
(2)
(3)_
Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel
Gasoline service stadons with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-
'premises consumpdon.
Liquid petroleum service st·donS with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption, provided the total capacity of nil tanks shall not cxcectl
10,000 IllIons.
Any use that is not specific~y listed 'in Subsections a. and b. may be considered ·
permitted or conditionally pertained use !lmmvided that the Planning Director finds that the
proposed use is substantially the san~ lh character and intensity as those listed in the
designated subsections. Such · use is Subject to the permit process which governs the
c,,tcgory in which it falls.
-11-
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified Schoel District
SUPERINTENDENT
Petricia B, Novotney, Ed.D.
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Dr. Davicl Eurich
Pres~clen~
Rosie Vanclerhaak
Clerk
Joan F. Sparkman
Mernl:)er
Wall Swickla
MemDer
Barbara Tooker
MernDer
March 16, 1992
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
Senior Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Dirve
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Subject: Change of Zone 18; and Specific Plan 219
Amendment number 2
Dear Ms. Ubnoske,
We would like to take this opportunity to comment on the above referenced Change
of Zone. This parcel, located at the intersection of Margarita and De Portola Roads,
will be subject to the use regulations as permitted by the Bedford Specific Plan 219.
Subsequent to the Temecula Planning Commission's comments concerning this
proposed change of zone, we have consulted with the California State Department of
Eductaion concerning appropriate businesses located within close proximity of an
elementary school. We arranged for Mr. Bruce Lowrey with the Department of
Education to come to Temecula and perform an on-site review of the location of this
site. Due to his review, we have revised the tennant list which we deem incompatible
with the Sparkman Elementary School site. This list is attached for your reference.
We would appreciate your serious consideration concerning this list, as these
businesses may adversly affect the above referenced school site.
Thank yoj~ for this opportunity to comment on the Change of Zone Number 18, and
please feel free to contact our office should you have any questions regarding this
matter.
Veru truly yours,
Temecula Valley Untied School District
Lettie Boggs
Coordinator, Facilities Planning Department
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (714) 676-2661
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Comments Regarding Bedford Specific Plan 219
(Any business not listed below that appears on the Bedford Specific Plan 219
"Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial" list are deemed appropriate for this site)
Unacceotable Uses
Ambulance Services
Automobile Repair Garages
Bars & Cocktail Lounges
Billiard & Pool Halls
Blueprint/Duplicating Services
Bowling Alleys
Convenience Stores
Dance Halls
Escort Bureaus
Gasoline Service Stations
Hotels and Motels
Labor Temples
Laboratories, Films, Dental, Medical
Liquor Stores
Massage Palors, Turkish Baths, etc.
Pawn Shops
Printers o~ Publishers
Radio/Television Broadcasting Stations
Stained Glass Assembly
Bus, Railroad & Taxi Stations
Theaters
Tire Sales & Service
Tobacco Shops
Car Washes
Fortune Telling, Spirtualism, etc.
Recycling Centers
Permitted Conditional Uses
Delicatessens are acceptable if no
alcholic beverages are sold.
Photography Shops are acceptable ~,
film processing is not performed L
site.
Restaurants are acceptable if no
alcoholic beverages are sold.
Commercial/Nei ,hborhood Commercial
Planning Areas 1, 27 and 36
Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial Zone
The following regulations shah apply in all CommetciaYNeighborhood Commercial Zones:
SECTION 9.1.
USES PERNIITTED.
as
The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not more than 200
square feet of outside storage or display of materials .appurtenant to such use, provided
a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to provisions of Section 18.30 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(I2)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(2O)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
Ambulance services.
Antique Shops.
Appliance stores, household.
Art supply shops and studios.
Auction houses.
Auditoriums and conference rooms.
Automobile xtpair garages, not including body and fender shops or spray paindug.
Automobile parts and supply stores.
Bakery goods disu'ibutors.
Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the
premises.
Banks and financial institutionS.
Barber and beauty shops.
Bars and cocktail lounges.
Billlard and pool halls.
Blueprint and duplicating services.
Book stor~s and binders.
Bowling alleys.
Catering services.
-Cleaning and dyei_ng shops.
Clothing stores.
Confectionery or candy stores.
Costume design studios.
Dance halls.
Delicatessens.
Department stores.
Drug stores.
Dry goods stores.
-9-
(28)
(29)
(30)
(32)
(33)
C34)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(4O)
(42)
(43)
(~)
(45)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
(55)
(56)
(57)
(58)
(59)
(60)
(61)
(63)
(C~)
(65)
(66)
(67)
Employment a~nci~s.
Escort buxuns,
F~ ~u ~ ~n f~ 1~
Ga~ ~ mGons, not ~clu~l
off-p~s c~sump~on.
G~t shops.
Hou~hold S~ ~cs, ~lu~ but no~ ~ ~, new ud u~ app~uccs,
~c~f.
Hobby shops.
kc ~ shops.
I~ ~ ~ ~clu~n~ ice
~z~ k~ shops.
La~cs, ~, ~n~, ~c~, ~h ~ ~s~S-
Laun~cs ud ~u~om.
~a~ ~ ~o~s.
Liqu~
~~t shops.
M~ ~ bus~es~s.
Musa~c p~lon, ~h ba~s, fic~ ~n~
csubBsfimcnu.
Mca~ mcu, not ~clu~S slau~S.
~o~p~ ud ,~ms~ph ~ccs.
Mo~cs.
Music ~s.
News sto~s.
~o~ons ~ novcl~ sto~s.
O[ficcs, ~lu~g bu~css, hw, m~c~, ~n~ c~p~c, ~c~t~,
~n~nc~:, comm~ pl~g ~d ~ csm~.
One on-site operator's residence, which may be located in a commercial building.
Paint and wallpaper stores, not including paint contractors.
Pawn shops.
Pet shops and.pet supply shops.
Photography shops and studios and photo engraving.
Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contactors.
Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales.
Printers or publishers.
Produce markets.
-10-
(7o)
(71)
(?2)
(73)
(74)
(7s)
(70)
(77)
(78)
(79)
(80)
(82)
(84)
(SS)
(S7)
(88)
(89)
(9O)
(9t)
(92)
(93)
(94)
(95)
(96)
Ran;. ,rod television broadcuring studios.
Recording studios.
Refreshment stands.
Restaurants tnd other ucing establishmenu.
Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, d~nce, dran~
music and swimming.
Shos stores ~.d rcpzir shops.
Shoeshine stands.
Signs, on-site advertising.
Sporting goods stores.
Stained glass assembly.
Stationer stores.
Stations, bus, '.railroad and taxi.
Taxidsrmist.
Tzilor shops.
Telephone exchanges.
Theaters, not including drive-ins.
Tire sales and service, not including recapping.
Tobacco shops.
Tourist infornnfion centen.
Toy shops.
Travel agencies.
Typewriter s~des and rental, including incidental repairs.
Watch repair shops.
Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises but not including storage.
Car washes.
Fortune telling, spiritualism, or slm!ln,' activitT.
Recycling collection facilkies.
Convenience Stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel
Day care centers.
The following uses arc permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted
pursuant to City Ordinance.
(1) Convenience stores, incIuding the sale of motor vchiclc fuel
(2) Gasoline service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-
'premises consumption.
(3) _ Liquid petroleum service stations with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for
off-premises consumption, prodded the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed
10,000 gallons.
Any use that is not spec~caLly listed in Subsections a. and b. may be considered a
permitted or conditionally permkted use proviticct that the Planning Director Finds that the
proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the
designated subsections. Such a use is subject to the pertnit process which governs the
category in which it falls.
-11-
SECTION 9.2. PLANNED COM~iERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Planned Commercial
Deve opmenu ar~ permiuai provided · land division is approved pursuant m zhe provision of
Riverslide Count7 ~ No. 460 (1991).
SECTION $3° ~DELETED.)
SECTION9.4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following stan,~:-~ls of
development ar~ requiz~d in the Commacial/NeiShborhood Commercial Zones:
a.
Ther~ is no minimnm lot area requirement, unless specifically required by zone
classification for a particular area.
he
There are no yard requiremenu for buildings which do not exceed 35 fret in height
except as required for specific plans. Any pot'don of a building which exceeds 35 fret
in height shall be setback from the fzont, rear and side lot lines not less than 2 fret for
each foot by which the height exceeds 35 fret. The front setback shall be measured from
the existing public fight-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in
which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall
be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; ff the
rear Line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same. as required for
a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured ~'om the side lot line, or from an
existing adjacent public fight-of-way street line unless a specific plan has been adopted,
in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line.
c. All buildings and su'uctures shall not excred 50 fret in hcight.
Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Secdon 18.12 of Riverside
County Ordinance No. 348 (1991).
All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view
to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feel
-12-
ITEM
16
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICE~__
CITY MANAGEI~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
March 24, 1992
Appeal No. 22 Pertaining to Conditions of Approval 37, 38, 79 and 80 for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration Tentative
Tract Map No. 26521; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- upholding the
Planning Commission decision based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report,
and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
DISCUSSION
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 was originally heard by the Planning Commission on
December 16, 1991. The item was continued from the December 16, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting. The Commission requested staff to review the Conditions of Approval
relative to providing improved access from the Tentative Tract to the nearest paved public
right of way. In addition, the Commission directed the Public Works Department staff to meet
with the applicant to discuss possible alternatives regarding access.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting December 16, 1991, the Public Works
Department staff had an on-site meeting with the project engineer to discuss alternate access
to the site. No resolution was arrived at during this meeting. Staff recommended the project
be approved subject to the original Conditions of Approval. Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
was approved 5-0 by the Planning Commission at the January 27, 1992 meeting.
The applicant is appealing Conditions of Approval 37, 38/79, and 80 which pertain to street
improvements, requesting modification of these conditions relative to the width of paving, as
well as the timing of the improvements.
S~$TAFFRFT~22-APPEALCC
Fi~,al Imo-ct
None
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Resolution - page 3
Conditions of Approval - page 7
Planning Commission Minutes, December 16, 1991 - page 8
Planning Commission Minutes, January 27, 1992 - page 9
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 10
Fee Checklist - page 11
Initial Study - page 13
Correspondence/Petitions - page 14
Exhibits - page 15
S~TAFFRP~22~PPEALCC 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-.
S\STAFFI~2'API:tr"ALCC 3
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26521 TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.80
ACRE TRACT INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
AND DENY APPEAL NO. 22 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON
RANCHO VISTA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 946-009-007.
WHEREAS, Guido M. and Ruth Fascia filed Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on
January 27, 1992, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the
Commission recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map subject to the conditions set
forth in Attachment 2;
WHEREAS, Appeal No. 22 was filed in the time and manner prescribed by state
and local law pertaining to the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No.
26521; specifically relating to conditions numbers 37, 38, 79 and 80 involving road
improvements;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said
Appeal No. 22 on March 24, 1992 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; and
Appeal;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings.
That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:
1, The City Council in recommending denial of Appeal 22 for Tentative Tract Map No.
26521, makes the following findings, to wit:
S~STAFFtI:q'~2-APPf. ALCC 4
There is a reasonable probability that Appeal No. 22 will be inconsistent with
the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the Appeal,
if upheld, would result in road improvements that are inconsistent with
improvements currently existing for other similar developments in the area.
There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the
future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan, due to the fact that the project is inconsistent with surrounding
development.
The proposed appeal does not comply with State planning and zoning law, due
to the fact that the request pursuant to the appeal does not conform to
Ordinance No. 460..
The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed
necessary to protect. the public health, safety and general welfare.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby granted.
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 for
the subdivision of a 10.80 acre parcel into 10 single family residential lots located on Green
Tree Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 946-009-007 and subject to the following
conditions:
Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
S~STA~2-APP~AL. CC 5
SECTION IV.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
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 24th day of
March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
S~STAFFRFT~2-APPEALCC 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S~STAFFRPT%22-APPEAL. CC 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Tract Map No.: 26521
Project Description: 10 lot residential subdivision on 10.80 acres
Assessor's Parcel No.: 946-009-007
Planning Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule "B", unless modified by the
conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the
State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the
expiration date.
e
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date,
unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is December 16,
1993.
3. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map
boundary to a City maintained road.
All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in
force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall
be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall
be subject to approval of the City Engineer.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall
be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All
offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by
the City Engineer.
e
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review an~ approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height
of thirty (30) feet· Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum
of one-half the slope height.
B. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours.
C. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
$'~STAFFRPT~8521 .TTM I 2
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to
the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by
a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review
and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined
in the County Health Department's transmittal dated March 12, 1991, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the
County Fire Department's letter dated December 10, 1991, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho Water
District's transmittal datediAugust 12, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology,
Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated March 21, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development
standards of the Rural Residential zone.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and
shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion
control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety, and the
Department of Public Works.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the
responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall
be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental
concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy
of the ECS-shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the
Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This
property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All
proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations of Ordinance 655.
S~ST~r+P, PT~eS~ .rrM I 3
18,
19.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by
the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to
potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high
for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and
the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the
paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect
or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within
the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-interest provides
evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of
one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as
mitigation for public library development.
Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety
an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish
appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units
within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn.
C$
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements
from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County
Fire Marshal.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation
plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall
address all areas and aspects of the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation
to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope
planting, and individual front yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and
constructed with fire retardant (Class A) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall
be permitted with Planning Department approval.
Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less
than ten (10) feet.
H. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet.
$~TAFFRF'r~652 '1 .TTM 14
20.
Prior to the iss~jance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved'
plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not
permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be
utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and
Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved
plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
21.
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.
22.
The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the Temecula
Community Services District (TCSD) which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
TCSD Board of Directors, and the City that upon the request of BUILDING PERMIT for
construction of RESIDENTIAL structures on one or more of the parcels WITHIN FOUR
YEARS following approval of a tentative map, parcel map, or planned development,
real estate development, stock cooperative community apartment project and
condominium for which a tentative map or parcel map is filed, a predetermined Quimby
Act fee in the amount equal to the fair market value of required acreage (Plus 20% for
offsite improvements) shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel(s) as a condition
to the issuance of such permit as authorized by City of Temecula Ordinance No.
460.93.
23.
The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative
body concerning Tentative Tract Map No. 26521, which action is brought within the
time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City
of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the
City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or
fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be
responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
24.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days
prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete
the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the
City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
S\STAFFRPT~?.8521 .TTM 15
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire
the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of
a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in
an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser
shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
25.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
26. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
27.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps.
28.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right
to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or
interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development,
such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with
authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of
the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include
compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded
CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as
Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This
condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes.
29.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling
unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as
share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common
areas and facilities.
30.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of this project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of Eight Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($875.00)
which includes the Eight Hundred, Fifty Dollar (~850.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Twenty-Five
Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code
of Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required
above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of
condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
S\$TAFFRPT~6521 .TTM 16
31.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
(91,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
(91,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (925.00) County administrative fee
to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources
Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations15075. If within such forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
32.
Prior to issuance of grading permits that applicant shall submit a slope stability report
to the Riverside County Engineering Geologist. All proposed grading shall conform
with the conditions and recommendations sat forth by said geologist.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Community Services Department staff has reviewed the Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 and conditions this map as follows:
33.
The subdivider shall provide for the dedication of park land and/or in-lieu fees to the
satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) Board of Directors
PRIOR TO RECORDATION of the final map, as authorized by City of Temecula
Ordinance No. 460.93.
The park land dedication requirement shall be a predetermined amount based on the
use and number of units proposed. If the park land requirement cannot be met, the
applicant shall be required to the fair market value of the required park land acreage
(Plus 20% for offsite improvements).
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
34.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality;
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
S\STAFFRFT~26521 .TTM 17
35.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All
dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
36.
Rancho Vista Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way
in accordance with City Standard No. 102, (88'/64')-.
37.
The private street within the subdivision shall be improved with 36 feet of asphalt
concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a
private easement in accordance with City Standard No. 105, Section B (60'/36').
Gated entry shall be located a minimum of 80' from the centerline of Green Tree Road.
38.
Green Tree Road shall be improved with 20 feet of half street improvement plus one
8' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 60' dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104, Section B (60'/40').
39.
The private street shall terminate in a cul-de-sac turn-around to comply with City
Standard No. 600.
40.
Green Tree Road east of Grape Vine shall be vacated as directed by the Department
of Public Works. Developer shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred.
41.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions,
such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required
to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the
developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such
easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5,
which shall be at no cost to the City.
42.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Rancho Vista Road and so noted on the final
map with the exception of one 24' minimum width entry point as approved by the
Department of Public Works. This entry point shall not be a gated access.
43.
Dedicate a 60 foot easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles access for all
private streets and drives.
44.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated'or noticed on the final map.
45.
An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided for access to Lots 1,2 and 3
prior to approval of the Final Map.
46.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the
land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted
and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works.
S~STAFFRPT~6521.TTIVl I 8 "~
47.
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by
the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City
Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any
record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party
thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and
approved by the City and. recorded· The CC&R's shall be subject to the following
Engineering conditions:
A. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense.
The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of
Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions
as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect
the interest of the City and its residents·
The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association
are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the
City Attorney· They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A
recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall. provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and
related facilities, and private streets·
The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and
maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition
required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving
reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole
expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City
ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure
any such expense not promptly reimbursed.
The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of
any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots.
All parkways, private streets, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City.
Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the
Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits·
Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring
access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking
areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded
concurrent with the map, or prior .to the issuance of building permit
where no map is involved.
S\STAFFRPT'~eS21.TTM 19
48.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter,
sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic
control devices as appropriate.
B. Drainage facilities.
C. Landscaping (street).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
49.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with
adjoining developments.
50.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance
with the requirements of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
51.
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.
52. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Building and Safety Department.
53.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
54.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of
300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
55.
56.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required
for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.
57.
All driveways within public right-of-way shall conform to the applicable City standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with City Standard
207 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
58. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the side property line.
s~sTAFmmz.~ .rr~ 20
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
PRIOR
69.
The subdivider ~hall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval.
The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
as directed by the Department of Public Works at the time of application for grading
plan check.
The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public
Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site.
A drainage analysis shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public
Works. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained
within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final
map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
If necessary, a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners
for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A
copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior
to the recordation of the final map.
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
Drainage culverts will be required to provide all-weather access at all crossings.
The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street
improvements.
TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
S%STAFFRPT~28521 .TTM 2 1
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
PRIOR
76.
77.
78.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid
and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to'
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters have been obtained, and approval of the
grading plan has been granted by the Department of Public works.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control and runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with
appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works
All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any
other lot, unless otherwise 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.
TO BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall
be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
S\STAFFRPT~6521 .TTM 22 ""',
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
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
79.
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.
80.
A 28' wide secondary access road to the nearest paved road via Green Tree Road shall
be provided within a recorded road easement as approved by the Department of Public
Works. A turn-around bulb with a 38' minimum radius shall be provided at the
intersection of Green Tree Road and Grape Vine.
81.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Traffic control plans shall be provided as
directed by the Department of Public Works, and may be required to be prepared by
a registered Civil Engineer.
82.
Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days following
placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per
square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 94 of the
State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Engineering
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
83.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Rancho Vista Road and shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
84.
PRIOR
85.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
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 Department of Public Works.
S~STAFFRPT'~6521 .TTM 2 3
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
86. All signing and striping shall be installed per the epproved signing and striping plan.
87. All landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance.
S~TAFFRPl'~6521 .TTM 24 ""
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 16, 1991
S~TAFFRF'r'~2'APPrt'ALCC 8
based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff
report, including those presented at the public hearing,
with the following modifications, that prior to
recordation of the final map, said agreement shall
require construction and completion of the recreation
center and private park prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy on the 250th unit in Specific
Plan No. 180 or by July 1, 1993, whichever comes first;
a bond in an amount set by the Public Works Department
shall be provided; prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy of any unit in either tract, Ynez Road shall
be improved with A/C paving, seconded by COMMISSION FORD.
AYES: 3
COMMISSIONERS:
Ford, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26521
10.1 10 Lot residential subdivision on 11 acres, located on
the northeast corner of Green Tree Road and Grapevine.
MARK'ItHOADES summarized the staff report.
CMAIRMANHOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:55 P.M.
KEN WINCH, 2440 South Hacienda Boulevard, Hacienda
Heights, representing the applicant, provided a brief
summary of the project. Mr. Winch indicated the
applicant's- concurrence with the staff report and
Conditions of Approval; however, requests that the
condition requiring 36' street width, street lights and
sidewalks be deleted to maintain therural environment on
the private streets and Green Tree Road. -'
BOB PIPHER, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecula, stated that
although he would like to see the development approved
there were some issues he would like clarified. Mr.
Pipher advised that he had submitted a petition to staff
from the Association requesting that the area retain it's
rural qualities. He also requested that if Green Tree
was not going to be maintained by the City, that the
maintenance of..'-the road be addressed within the CC&R's,
so that the Homeowner's Association is required to pay
their fair share of the maintenance costs.
CHz 12/16/91
-11- DECEMBER 18, 1991
P~ING COle, fiSSION M~NUTE8 DECEMBER 16, 1991
COMMISSlONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for emergency
vehicle access into the project and drainage as it
relates to Pauba Road.
JOHN TELESIO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, supported the
development however, requested that the area retain it's
rural standard.
ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that the City standard for Rancho
Vista Road requires 32' of asphalt concrete, with curb
and gutter and sidewalk, and street lights. The City
standard for the private street requires A/C pavement
with an A/C burm, no sidewalk, curb, gutter, or street
light. This is the requirement for Green Tree Road as
well.
COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that the turn-around bulb be
enlarged near the gated entrance rather than the
intersection.
ROBERT RIGHETTI suggested amending Condition 37 by adding
the following sentence, "A turn-around bulb with a
minimum 38' radius shall be provided outside the gated
entrance."; and amending Condition 80 by deleting the
requirement for the turn-around bulb in the intersection.
KEN WINCH stated that the applicant concurred with the
amendment proposed; however, indicated that they were
unaware that they were being required to provide paving
to Pauba. He stated that through all their meetings they
understood that they would be required to pave to Calle
Cedro.
ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that the Ordinace required paving
to the nearest maintained road.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that the applicant
pursue the an easement to Pauba Road from the property
owner on Grapevine.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Tentative Tract Map
No. 26521 to the second meeting in January to allow the
applicant time to address the issues raised pertaining to
access, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey
~ PCMIN12/16/91 -12- DECEMBER 18, 1991
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINtJTES, JANUARY 27, 1992
S'~.STAFFRPT~2-A~L CC 9
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992
COMMIBBZONER
Revised No.
FAHEY.
FORD moved
1 off calendar,
Continue Plot Plan 233,
seconded by COMMISSIONER
AYES:"' 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair,'Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
None
8. THIRD TIME IXTENBION PARCEL MAP NO. 22629
Proposal for third extension of time for a four lot
residential subdivision on 4.8 acres. Located on the
west side of Green Tree Lane, 300 feet North of Pauba
Road.
MATTHEW FAG~N summarized the staff report.
CMAXRMANCHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M.
ROBERT VAN HOUGHTON, Centennial Engineering, 28480
Highway 74, Suite E, Romoland, questioned the Quimby Fee
Requirement and stated that he concurred with the staff
report.
GARY.THORNHILL advised that the requirement for Quimby
Fees was in the original conditions, this was just a
rewording of the requirement which would replace the
previous condition.
BOB PIPHER,~41825 Green TreeRoad, Temecula, stated that
he thought. that both this development and the next
proposed development should be brought together somehow.
KENNETH WILCH, 2440 S. Hacienda Heights, Hacienda
Heights, California, representing the applicant on the
next project, questioned why this developer was not
required to do road improvements to obtain access off of
Green Tree Road.
CBAIRMANHOAGLAND suggested that Mr. Wilch discuss this
with staff.
JOHN TELESIO,.31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, indicated that
he has- been ...supportive of this project since it's
inception. He stated that the developer had agreed that
the centerline of Via Telesio'would be offset to have the
road width placed within the easement favoring the south
PCMIN01/27/92
-7- 0~/28/92
pT. xwrrNg CONILTBBTON !(TNUTRB
3AN~ARy 27, 1992
side and asked that staff reaffirm that understanding.
ROBERT RIGH~TTI indicated that staff concurred with Mr.
Telesio's understanding and the project has been
conditioned to reflect that understanding. Also,
Condition 11, Item A, notes that staff reduced the street
section to 24' even though a typical street section is
36'.
COMMISSlON~RCHINIa~FFmoved to close the public hearing
at 7:20 P.M. and Reaf[~rmthe previously adopted Negative
Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22629 and
Approve the Third Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel
Map No. 22629, seconded by CO~fi~ISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
TENTATI~FE ~CT MAP NO, 26521
Proposal for a 10 Lot Residential Subdivision on 11
acres. Located on the northeast corner of Green Tree
Road and Grapevine.
MARK !tHOADEB summarized the staff report. Mark Rhoades
modified the following Conditions of Approval:
No. 33 - "Prior to recordation of the final map the
applicant or his assignee shall conform to Ordinance No.
460.93 Quimby by paying in full to the City of Temecula
TCSD the fair market value of .13 acres of land as
determined by the TCSD.
The following item is a point of clarification from the
Public Works Department and reads as follows "In order to
relieve any ambiguity of Condition of Approval No. 80,
staff recommends that the condition be revised to read as
Xollows:
No. 80 - A 28' wide paved access road to Pauba Road via
Green Tree Road shall be provided within a recorded road
easement as approved by the Department of Public Works.
A turn-around...bulb with a 38' minimum radius shall be
provided at the intersection of Green Tree Road and Grape
Vine.
PCMIN01/27/92 -8- 01/28/92
PLANNING COMMISSION M=NUTES JANUARY 27, 1992
CBAIItMANCHINIAEFF asked if staff met with the applicant
to discuss alternative access routes.
ROBERT RI~HETTI stated that staff did meet with the
applicant and the engineer and looked at Green Tree from
Pauba, driving that area in the rain. No decisions were
made at that time as to other alternatives.
CBAIRMANHOAGLANDopened the public hearing at 7:25 P.M.
KENNETH WlLCH, 2440 S. Hacienda Boulevard, Hacienda
Heights, representing the applicant, stated that the
outstanding issue at the last two hearings was the off-
site improvements and the width of those improvements.
He added that they did not discuss the extension of
Grapevine out to Pauba. Mr. Wilch added that they had
been trying to work with the homeowners but they were
strongly opposed to that. The way the conditions were
written it still gave the applicant the option to do
that; however, the rewording of the conditions reads that
the only option is to take Green Tree to Pauba. Mr.
Wilch stated that the understanding that they had during
discussions in the field was that they would be required
to provide a 24' width road and Condition No. 80 now
reads 28' wide paved secondary access.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed confusion regarding the
applicant's:concern regarding the width of the private
road, which she understood as a requirement for the
turnaround bulb.
MR. WlLCH s~ated that he did not have a problem with the
turnaround bulb, but with the width requirement for the
36' streets he felt was excessive for the rural
environment.
ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that staff considered this as the
primary access to the subdivision which was why they
planned the roadway as proposed. The County is
considering a new policy, which states the larger type
parcels will provide for a 28' road. Mr. Righetti stated
_that many private street residents are asking the City to
take over maintenance of their roads and in order for the
City to do that, they have to be brought up to City
standards, which can be very costly. This road does
serve as a residential collector road.
BOB PIPER, 41~25 Green Tree Road, Temecula, advised that
97% of the residents in this-area have requested that the
area remain rural, which would be a 24' road without
PCMIN01/2V/92 -9- 01/28/92
pT.31q)IZNQ COIRqTBBZO~ MTIqU~RB ;ANUA~Y 27, 1992
curb, gutter, street light and sidewalk. He also asked '.
that the developer's CC&R's be mixed with the existing ~
CC&R's.
30~NT~LBSlO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, stated that he
concurred with the applicant's points regarding the rural
environment of this area.
DONALD GURMaN, 41728 Calls Cedro, Temecula, stated that
he was against the City's requirement that the applicant
install curb, gutter, sidewalks and street lights.
TONY BaRRY, 41837 Calls Cedro, Temecula, stated that he
was opposed to curbs, gutters, street lights and
sidewalks. Mr. Batty also expressed a concern that Calle
Cedro could be damaged during construction and requested
provisions be'written to ensure the road is returned to
its present condition if such damage occurs.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked
Condition 80 were in conflict.
if Condition 38 and
ROBERT RZGHETTI stated that Green Tree Road for the area
along the front of this project, would be designed to
City standard No. 104, Section B, but this is where the
actual improvements would fall in the actual centerline
of the street. He clarified that the curb and gutter was
to be on Rancho Vista, not Green Tree or the private
street.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he thought there was
a shorter route to get out of this development and the
Commission has indicated in the past that they are
looking for some sort of paved route for emergency
vehicles.
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he was concerned that
improvements are being done; however, the roads still do
not meet City standards.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that the City did not know if
=here is going to be a rural standard in the future. He
added that he felt that the development had to have a
paved access.
ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that on Page 17, just after
Department of Public Works it should say "Prior to
recordation of the Final Map". Additionally, Mr.
Righetti stated that two paragraphs were not added and
read them as follows:
PCMZNOZ/27/92
-10-
01/28/92
27, 2992
The following are the Public Works Department's
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 Condition
shall be referred to thePublic Works Department. It is
understood that the developer correctly shows all
existing easements, traveled ways and drainage courses,
and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Sub-division Map Act
any sub-division which is part of an existing assessment
district must comply with said section.
MARK RHOADES clarified that Conditions 22 and 33 would be
deleted and the Condition he read during the staff-report
would be adde~.
MARK RHOADES asked if Conditions 48 and 50 applied solely
to Rancho Vista Road.
DOUG STEWART stated that the only street that gets full
street improvements is Rancho Vista Road. He modified
Condition No. 50 to read "Street lights, curb and gutter,
sidewalks shall be provided only along Rancho Vista Road
adjoining the subject site, etc". All other street
standards will be referred back to Conditions No. 36 -
40.
COMMISSIONER FAREY moved to close the public hearing at
8:00 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) Adopting the
Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
and Adopt Resolution'No. 92-(next] approving Tentative
Tract Map No. 26521, and delete Condition No. 22, delete
No. 33 and replace with Quimby Act Condition as read,
modify Public Works Section, Modify and amend Condition
80 as read, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD.
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
COMMISSIONERS: None
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 8:00 P.M.
reconvened at 8:10 P.M.
The meeting
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he would like to clarify
why the Commission voted in favor of staff's
PCMIN01/27/92 -11- 01/28/92
p:[,3NNT~g CO)n(IBBXO~ X~u~-"
27, 1992
recommendations. Chairman Hoagland stated that he voted
in favor of staff's recommendation to provide a paved
access back this development for emergency vehicles..
COMMISSIONER FORD stated that this was a sub-division
tract map and the sizing of the lots, and following what
the Council recommended on previous approvals, was to
lean toward rural standards as they relate to larger
lots. Both the City staff and Planning Commission has
agreed that certain improvements have been reduced within
the tract; however, offsite, they have been conditioned
to provide a paved access which is Green Tree. The
improvements that have been reduced are street lights,
curb and gutter and sewer.
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 187 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 219,
AMENDMENT NO. 2.
10.1 Proposal to amend the boundary of the Paloma De1 Sol
(formerly the Meadows) Specific Plan to include Planning
Area No. 36. Located on the southeast corner of
Margarita Road and DePortola Road.
MARK ItHOADES summarized the staff report.
CHAIRMAN IIOAGLAXID opened the public hearing at 8:20 P.M.
KEITHMCCANN, JR., 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, made
comments and requested modifications to the following:
Condition No. 8 requires an archeological study be done
on the property which he stated he felt was redundant.
Mr. McCann referred to the property being in use for many
years.
Condition No. 15 requires the submission of a biological
report; however, areas No. 10 and No. 25 are the only two
areas showing evidence of potential K-Rat habitat. Mr.
McCannadvised that disking is being done to the property
on a regular basis for fire mitigation.
Condition No. 16 requested verification of the
requirement for payment to Fish and Game, which he
requested to be put off until Plot Plan submission of
approval.
Staff indicated that they would not be willing to amend
that Condition.
PCMIN01/27/92
-12- 01/28/92
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
$LSTAFFRFI'~2'AR:tr'AL'CC 1
MEMORANDUM
TO-'
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
January 27, 1992
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
This item was continued from the December 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The
issue the Commission requested ~taff to review was the Condition of Approval relative to
providing improved access from the Tentative Tract to the nearest paved public right of way.
In addition, the Commission directed the Public Works Department staff to meet with the
applicant to discuss possible alternatives regarding access.
Standard road conditions for this schedule of map would typically include concrete curb,
gutter and sidewalks, street lights, and drainage facilities. However, due to the semi-rural
nature of the Green Tree Estates area, staff required simply asphalt paving with Class II base
and asphalt concrete berm.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting December 16, 1991, the Public Works
Department staff had an on-site meeting with the project engineer to discuss alternate access
to the site. No resolution was arrived at during this meeting. As of this writing, the applicant
has not contacted staff relative to the possibility of an alternate access. Therefore, staff
recommends the project be approved subject to the original Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 92- Adopting the
Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No.
26521; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-
Tract Map No. 26521.
Approving Tentative
vgw
s~s~rm-~es~ .rrM I ~
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 16, 1991
Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- adopting the Negative
Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26521; and
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Tract
Map No. 26521.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
Guido M. and Ruth Fascia
Kenneth A. Wilch and Associates
Proposed 10 lot residential subdivision on 10.8 gross acres.
North side of the intersection of Green Tree Road and Grapevine
Road.
R-R (Rural Residential)
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential, 10,000
square foot lot size minimum) S.P. 199
R-R (Rural Residential, ~ acre minimum lot size)
R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential, 10,000
square foot lot size minimum) S.P. 199
R-R (Rural Residential, ~ acre minimum lot size)
Not Requested
Single Family Residence
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Single Family Residential, I + acre lot sizes
Vacant
Single Family Residential, 3 + acre lot sizes
S~,STAFFRFT~.6521 .TTI~ 2
PROJECT STATISTICS
Gross Acres:
Number of Proposed Lots:
Minimum Net Lot Size:
Average. Lot Size:
Total Earthwork:
10.80
10
.78 Acres
I Acre
20,000 Cubic Yards (Balance)
BACKGROUND
The proposed Tentative Tract was submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department
in February of 1991. The project was heard at the March 14 preliminary Development Review
Committee where it was deemed incomplete. In July, the project was again taken to the
Development Review Committee where some outstanding issues remained. The applicant
resubmitted the current map in November, where it was subsequently scheduled for public
hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project's bounded on the north and east by Specific Plan No. 199. To the south and
west are large lot residential homes.
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 proposes to subdivide the subject 10.80 acre parcel into 10
single family residential lots, with three of the proposed lots fronting on Rancho Vista Road,
while the remainder will take access from the proposed private street of Green Tree Road.
The proposed subdivision has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-R
Rural Residential zone, as well as Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460.
ANALYSIS
Slopes
Previous on-site grading has resulted in some substantial 2:1 slopes. However, the existing
and proposed slopes are not a typical of single family lot development in the area. As a result
of the impending rainy season, erosion control for the existing conditions will be mitigated to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Prior to the issuance of any future grading
permits, erosion control plans must be approved by the City's Public Works Department. The
future permanent planting and irrigation of all 2:1 slopes will be required as a condition for
single-family residential development.
Traffic Impacts _
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed this project; and has determined that the
proposed project will have a minimal impact to the existing road system and there will be no
adverse unmitiable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed
project.
S%STAFFRIrI~6521 .TTM 3
Land Use and Zoning
The subject site currently has a single-family home in the northwest corner of the site.
Surrounding includes single family residential to the north and east (10,000 sq.ft. minimum
lot size). and south and west of the site are single-family homes with lots ranging in size from.
1 to 3 + acres. The properties to the south and west of the subject site are zoned R-R. The
proposed Tentative Tract is in conformance with the development standards of the R-R zone,
which requires 20,000 square foot lot sizes.
Access and Circulation
Rancho Vista Road will be improved along the north boundary of the site. One access point
will be provided for lots 1,2, and 3 with a reciprocal access agreement. Lots 4 through 10
will take access via a private gated road off of Green Tree Road. The project has been
conditioned to provide paved access to the lower portion of the tract.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The project is consistent with the-current SWAP designation of 1-2 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed map will likely be consistent with the future General Plan because it provides
a buffer between the 10,000 square foot lots to the north and east, and I to 3 + acre lots
to the south and west.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was performed for~ this project which determined that although the proposed
project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result
to the natural or built environment: in the City because the mitigation measures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has
been recommended for adoption·
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is in conformance with Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460 of the City of
Temecula. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will be required to provide CC&R's for the
maintenance of all common access ways private roads, and shared facilities. Individual slope
maintenance will be the responsibility of individual property owners.
FINDINGS
The proposed Tract Map will not have a significant negative impact on the
environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General
Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the
surrounding current residential development·
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the
future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan, due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding development.
S~.STAFFRPT~6521 .TTM 4
e
The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law, due to the fact that
the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configurations, access, and density, due to the fact that the project
has access to public roads.
e
The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat as determined in the initial study.
The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future
passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to
provide sufficient southern exposure.
All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which
are open to, and are us.able by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Rancho Vista
and Green Tree Road·
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with
any easements·
10.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed
necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.
11. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference·
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Departmtbnt Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
Map No. 26521; and
adopting the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26521.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution (Tentative Tract Map No. 26521) - page 6
Conditions of Approval-Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 -page I 1
Environmental Assessment - page 25
Exhibits - page 39
a. Vicinity Map
b. SWAP Map
c. Zoning Map
d. Surrounding Uses
e. Site Plan
S%STAFFRPT~6521 .TTM 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
S%STAFFRPl"~e521,TTM 6
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 92-O07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
26521 TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.80 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON RANCHO VISTA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-009-
007.
WHEREAS, Guido M. and Ruth Fascia filed Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and Io~:al law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on
January 27, 1992, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE 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.
Be
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.
S%STAFFRFr'~26521 .TTM 7
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan,
(3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP"} was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now
within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed 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 Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this
title, each of the following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
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:
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.
S%STAFFRPT~e521 .TTM 8
That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
F~
That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems.
That the deign 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 usa of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be
approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be
provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record
or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract
Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
e
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby granted.
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No.
26521 for the subdivision of a 10.80 acre parcel into 10 single family residential lots located
on Green Tree Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 946-009-007 and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Exhibit 2, attached hereto.
$~.~TAFFRPT'~6521 .TTM 9 ~
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 1992.
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 27th day of
January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S%STAFFRPT%26521 .TTM 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Appeal No. 22
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
(Traffic Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 21
Condition No, 22
Condition No. 78
Condition No. 51
Condition No. 19
Condition No. 10
Condition No. 75
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future General Plan
N/A
YES
S%STAFFII='I'~2-APPEALCC I 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
INITIAL STUDY
S~STA':"WT~-N'F,N_CC 13
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent;
2. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
P-uido and RVth M. Fascia
860 Mvrtle Ave. Monrovia
(818) 358-1885
CA 91016
3. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
November .~5. 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
5. Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Tentative Tract No. 26521
e
Location of Proposal:
North side of the intersection of GraDe Vine and
Green Tree Roads.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe N__o
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
be
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Ce
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features7
S~$TAFF~P1~28521 .I'TM 2 6
Yes Maybe No
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
f$
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bey, inlet or lake?
ge
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in.'
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~STAFFIqPT'~8521 .TIM 27
YeS Maybe No
fm
Discltarge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Subsl~antial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S%STAFFRPl"~26521 .TTM 2 8
Yes Maybe N¢
10.
Animal Ufe. Will the proposal result
in:
ee
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Ce
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~STAFFRPT~6521 .TTM
29
11.
12.
13.
14.
Possiible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the Iocation~ distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Cm
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
fm
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Yq~ Mavbq NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~TAFFRPT~e521 .TTM 30
15.
16.
17.
18.
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will ~he proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Yes Maybe NQ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~,STAF'FF~6621 .TTM 3 1
Yq~ Maybe No
19.
20.
21.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opiDortunities7
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future.)
X
_ X
X
X
_ ..X
X
X
S\STAFFRPT~6521 .TTM 32
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the affect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe .N0
_ _ X
$~STAFFRPT%.26521 .'TT'kl 33
III
Eeqh
1.b.
1 .c-d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.
8-C.
Water
3.a,
d-e.
Discussion of tlie Environmental Evaluation
No. The project site will be graded as part of a mass grading effort. There will be
substantial grading for this project. However, a conceptual mass grading plan for the
project was approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with
Temecula's standards-and the Conditions of Approval.
Maybe. The potential development could disrupt the soil profile to some degree and
result in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. This impact is not
considered significant.
No. The grading effort was designed to adhere to the gross natural topography of the
site in its original condition. While substantial grading and recontouring of this site will
occur in the immediate area, the overall plan is intended to promote general
preservation of site topogra. phy.
Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during potential construction
phases and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact
is considered significant but will be mitigated through retention of natural vegetation
whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding of disturbed areas
after grading. After the project is completed, increased water run-off during floods
may occur. Water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate
drainage control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed
in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval.
No. Since the project site is not adjacent to any creek or stream bed, the proposed
project will not cause erosion of or deposition into any creek or stream bed.
No. The subject site is not designated as subject to liquefaction or subsidence by the
Riverside County General Plan.
No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the area's air quality.
No. The proposed project will not impact any marine or fresh water bodies. The
proposed project will incrementally affect the quantity and quality of run-off water in
the City, however, the individual impact is not considered significant.
S%STAFFRPT'~6521 .TTM 34
3.b.
Maybe. The proposed project will inhibit the absorption of water into the ground
through the construction of impermeable surfaces on the site. Run-off will increase
but not substantially. The impact will be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance
through the conditions of approval.
3.c. No. Rood waters will continue to be diverted to the streets and flood channels.
3.f-g. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the flow or quantity of ground
waters.
3.h. No. The proposed project will not significantly impact the public water supply.
3.i.
No. Conditions of Approval are included for this project which require proper design
and installation of drainage conveyance devices.
Vegetation
4.a-c. No. Existing vegetation iS generally limited to non-native grasses. No endangered
species of flora were identified on site.
4.d. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site.
Wildlife
5.a-c. Maybe. A survey for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project identified
no individuals of the species on the subject site. As a result of this projects
incremental impact on potential S.K.R. habitat, fees will be required in accordance with
Ordinance 663 and the Habitat Conservation Plan adopted by the City of Temecula.
Conformance with these procedures will mitigate the impact to a level of non-
significance.
Noise
6.a-b. No. Some noise may occur during potential grading and/or construction. The impact
is not considered significant.
Light and Glare
Maybe. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with applicable lighting
standards,-specifically Ordinance No. 655, Palomar Lighting Standards. The impact
will be mitigated to a level of non-significance.
Land Use
8. No. The project
designations.
is consistent with current zoning and Southwest Area Plan
$~STAFFRPT%26521 .TTM 35 "~
Natural Resources
9.a-b. No. This project in itself will not significantly increase the rate of use of natural
-resources.
Risk of Upset
10.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not promote a risk of explosion or release hazardous
substances. Construction ~materials and petroleum products may be used extensively
to support the project during future potential construction, however this impact is
temporary and not considered significant. It will not interfere with emergency
response plan or an emergency evaluation plan.
Population
11.
Maybe. Although the project proposes to increase the density from one dwelling unit
to a potential of 10 units, the proposed project is consistent with the City Land Use
Designation (according to SWAP), and existing zoning.
HOusinQ
12.
No. Since the proposed project will create housing, the proposed land use will not
create a demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13.
No. Staff has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on vehicle
movement, parking, transportation, circulation, or water, rail, or air traffic.
13.f. Maybe. Potential development could increase traffic hazards, however, street and
sidewalk improvements will mitigate the impact to a level of non-significance.
Public Services
14.
a-f.
Maybe. The proposed project may have an effect on public services, however,
appropriate fees are required as conditioned to mitigate impacts to a level of non-
significance.
EnerQv
15.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand
of fuel or energy.
S%STAFFRPT%26521 .TTM 36
Utilities
16.
a-f.
No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not require
substantial alteration to the existing system.
Human Health
17.
a-b.
No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on human health.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Because the proposed project is consistent with low density and medium density
housing which will surround the site neighborhood, there will be no significant impact
on aesthetics.
Recreation
19.
Maybe. The proposed project will have the potential to increase the population, and
impact City of Temecula recreation opportunities which are currently limited.
However, Quimby fees are required of this project which will provide funds for the
acquisition of future recreational facilities, mitigating the effect of this individual tract
to a level of non-significance.
Cultural Resources
20.
a-d.
No. The project site is not located in an archaeologically sensitive area.
Mandatory Findings of Sioni~cance
21 .a.
No. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on plant or wildlife
species. However, if a project is located within an area designated by the Riverside
County as potential habitat for the endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project
will be subject to mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation
Plan.
21 .b. No. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals.
21.
c-d.
No. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable, nor will they have environmental affects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
S~STAFr-m~eS2~ .rr~ 37 "~
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requires
X
Date
For CITY OF T~MECULA
$\$TAFFRPT~6521 .TTM 38
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
CORRESPONDENCE/PETITIONS
$%.STm2..APPF, ALCC 14
LAND SURVEYORS ~
, .' CIVIL
ENGINEERS
~ 2440 S. HACIENDA BLED., SUITE 124, HACIENDA EIGHTS, CALIF. 91745, (818) 369-6?8? FAX (818) 968°2].85 ,~
February 4, 1992
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA. 92590
Attention: City Council of Temecula
Regarding: Appeal of conditions on Tentative Tract No. 26521
Gentlemen:
On behal£ of Guido M. and Ruth Fascia, the applicants on Tentative
Tract No. 26524, we respectfully request modification of the
following conditions:
Condition No.38 - Paving of Green Tree Road to 28 feet in width.
Condition No.37 - Paving of private street to 36 feet in width.
Condition No.79 - Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy all street improvements must be constructed.
Condition No.80 - Provide 28 foot wide paved secondary access road
from Pauba Road via Green Tree Road.
The Green Tree Community consists of thirty-seven (37) existing and
fifty-one (51) potential one acre homesites which take access from
Green Tree Road with secondary access from Calle Cedral. See attached
plan and proposed development plan.
It is the desire of all the property owners in this community to have
rural improvement standards applied to their area. A petition has
been made to the city requesting that this area be designated as
rural on the general plan.
Presently there is a twenty (20) foot wide rock and oil roadway on
a portion of Green Tree Road. Condition No.80 requires this
development to construct 2000 feet of offsite paved road, It was
expressed by the planning commisssion that a paved road was necessary
to provide emergency services (police and fire) to this area. We
concur with this ocncern but feel it is unreasonable for our develop-
ment of seven (7) lots at the end of this road to bear the entire
· cost when all the property owners in the area benefit. On Conditions
No. 38 and No. 80 we are hereby requesting that the width of this
road be reduced to a twenty-four (24) foot pavement width which is
more than adequate for the emergency purposes desired. The require-
ment on the private street, Condition No.37 should also be twenty-
four (24) feet wide. A thirty-six (36) foot wide paved street is not
consistent with the rural environment desired in this community.
We would also request that Condition No.79 be re-worded to reflect
the following:
A DIVISION OF TERRAIN CONCEPTS INC.
2/4/92
City of Temecula
Appeal of Conditions
Page 2
Street improvements for Rancho Vista Road be completed for occupanc;
on Lots 1, 2, and 3 and the improvements on Green Tree Road out to
Pauba-Road be completed for occupancy on Lots 4 through 10.
We appreciate your consideration of this appeal.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to call our office.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH A. WILCH & ASSOCIATES
~enneth A. Wilch
KAW/plw
encl.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Matthew Fagan, Planning Department
· Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works
February 25, 1992
Letter of Appeal on Tract 26521
Staff has reviewed the appeal received from Kenneth A. Wilch
and Associates to remove Or modify conditions 57, 58, 79 and
80 of the Department of Public Works conditions for Tract
26521 and have the following' comments:
Condition 57 specifically addresses the requirement for
street improvements that will service the seven lots on the
southerly portion of the property ~hich take their access from
Green Tree Road. The applicant has proposed that this street
shall be privately maintained by the homeowners and shall have
controlled access by employing a gated entry.
Per ordinance 460, Section 5.5, private streets may be
permitted for public use and access to residential
subdivisions as long as the following requirements are
provided for (the following is found on pages 15 and 16 of
Ordinance 460):
1) There shall be adequate provision for continued
maintenance to ensure the welfare of the occupants of
the development and that it will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety and general welfare.
2) The street shall be offered for dedication to the
public as a private street. (No offer need be made for
the streets within the boundary of a F'lanned
Residential Development or a Condominium Development.)
3) The street shall meet the width requirements
according to its classification and shall be
constrotted in accordance with City street improvement
standards.
4) Improvement plans, agreements and bonds shall be
required for all dedicated and non-dedicated private
streets.
5) Reduced widths may be allowed with the approval of
the City Engineer, and where the design and topography
permit the taking of access only on one side of the
street and the design does not permit on-street
parking.
Rage 2
Due to the fact that access is taken from both sides of the
street in question, and that the City would be unable to
patrol and enforce on-street parking within a gated community,
staff could not allow a street width less than what is allowed
by the ordinance- Staff did work with the applicant by
requiring only a rural standard (standard drawing no. 1¢)5,
section "B" of the City's Standard Drawings ) which employs
A.C. berms in place of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Per Section 2.5 of Ordinance 460 (page ll), the minimum right-
of-way width for a general local street and a short local
street is 60 feet.
Condition No. 58 is the normal frontage improvement
requirement imposed against all typical subdivisions within
the City. Green Tree Road presently serves as a general local
street which requires forty feet of paved roadway width within
a sixty foot right-of-way per Ordinance 460. Although Green
Tree Road is not presently maintained by the City, it still
must be constructed to typical City standards because it
functions as a primary access to the residents in the area,
especially for Tract 26521.
F'er ordinance 460, section 2.3, access roads must be "An
improved road with a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet,
and which provides a minimum 52-foot wide paved access to a
division of land from an existing, paved and maintained
street or highway." The city's normal policy is to require
half-street improvements (20 feet) plus an 8-foot lane on
streets such as Green Tree Road.
Condition No. 80 is the normal offside condition intended to
bring this subdivision into compliance with ordinance 460 by
continuing the improvements along Green Tree Road TO THE
NEAREST PAVED AND MAINTAINED STREET, which is Pauba Road in
this instance. Although the ordinance, as noted above, does
stipulate 52 feet of paving, staff felt that 28 feet would be
sufficient to-match the improvements being constructed across
the subdivision frontage on Green Tree Road.
Condition No. 79 is also a standard condition of approval for
all subdivisions prior to occupancy- The Department of Public
Works has established a consistent policy allowing the phased
construction of subdivisions as long as the health, safety and
general welfare of the community or the subdivision is not
affected.
Page
In the case of Tract 26521, staff mill evaluate the existing
conditions of the development when a request for phased
construction is received. At that time a determination will
be made and the relevant issues of health, safety and welfare
will be adequately addressed
In summary~ the Department of Publi~ Works recommends that the
conditions be upheld as ~itten~ and that no modifications or
deletions to these requirements be made.
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
EXHIBITS
s~sfN:mm2,-Ae, e._cc 15
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE: January 27, 1992
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
THE MEADOWS ,,3...'
CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE: January 27, 1992
SWAP MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
I!1I!111~
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE:
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
January 27, 1992
ZONING MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE:
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
SURROUNDING LAND USE MAP
January 27, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: E
P.C. DATE:
Tentative Tract Map No. 26521
January 27, 1992
TENTATIVE MAP
L
ITEM
17
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
March 24, 1992
Request to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research for an Extension of
Time to complete the Preparation and Adoption of the City General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND:
S~GENR, AN\GPEXTEN.AR
It is requested that the City Council do the following:
Open the Hearing, review facts, accept comments and
Close the Hearing;
AUTHORIZE City Staff to request a One Year Extension
of Time to complete the General Plan; and,
e
ADOPT the Resolution requesting the One Year Extension
of Time·
Section 65360 of the California Government Code allows newly
incorporated cities 30 months to prepare and adopt a General
Plan. During this thirty-month period the new City is protected
from legal action challenging development entitlement approvals
because of the lack of an adopted general plan. The City of
Temecula was incorporated as a general law city in the State of
CalifOrnia on December 1, 1989. The 30 month period for the
City~s adoption of the General Plan will end on June 1, 1992.
Section 65361 of the California Government Code allows the
legislative body of the City to request, and the Director the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to grant, an extension of
time to complete the preparation and adoption of a General Plan.
For a new general plan or general plan element, the Director of
OPR! must approve, with appropriate conditions, the first request
for a time extension. To request an extension, a city must adopt
a Resolution making the required findings and submit the
appropriate supporting material to OPR. Should a second time
extension be required, the Director of OPR is not required to
DISCUSSION:
RECOMMENDATION:
Attachment:
approve the second request.
The primary benefit to the City of Temecula from obtaining e
Time Extension to complete the General Plan is that the
Extension temporarily waives state laws requiring consistency
between local decisions and the general plan· The Extension
allows local officials to continue acting on zoning, subdivisions,
and related matters in the absence of an adopted general plan.
It is the opinion of City Staff that it is in the best interests of the
City of Temecula to obtain one time extension for the completion
of the City's first General Plan. However, City Staff believes
that we will not need the entire year to adopt the General Plan.
Completion of the public hearing process end adoption of the
General Plan is expected to take between five to seven months
beyond the original thirty-month statutory period after
incorporation.
The reasons to support the required findings are summarized
below and contained in the attached Resolution:
The local review procedures require an extended public
review. Adoption of a first General Plan is a time
consuming process· It is not unusual for a City's first
general plan to require a large number of public hearings
prior to it's adoption by the City Council. This could
delay adoption of the General Plan until after June 1,
1992.
In addition to the reason stated above, the General Ran
contains a large number of optional elements. Beyond the
seven required elements, six optional general plan
elements are due to be completed as part of the General
Plan. These optional elements are as follows: Public
Facilities and Services, Growth Management, Air Quality,
community Design, Economic Development, and Parks
and Recreation. The inclusion of these optional elements
will provide the City with a comprehensive General Plan
to guide and direct the City's future growth and
development and will also delay the final adoption of the
General Plan.
City Staff recommends that the City Council authorize City Staff
to request a Time Extension for the completion of the General
Plan from the Office of Planning and Research and adopt the
attached Resolution.
Resolution Requesting a One-Year Time Extension.
S%GENPLAN~GPEXTEN.AR
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING AN EXTENSION
OF THE THIRTY MONTH TIME PERIOD TO ADOPT A CITY
GENERAL PLAN, PURSUANT TO SECTION 65361 OF THE
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula was incorporated as a general law city in the
State of California on December 1, 1989.
WHEREAS, Section 65360 of the California Government Code allows newly
incorporated cities thirty (30) months to prepare and adopt a General Plan.
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula has hired a consultant and is proceeding in
a timely manner with the development of the General Plan.
WHEREAS, The City and its general plan consultants have determined that it
is not possible to adopt the General Plan within the thirty (30) month period allowed
by State law.
WHEREAS, The thirty (30) month period for the City's adoption of the General
Plan will end on June 1, 1992.
WHEREAS, Section 65361 of the California Government Code allows a city or
county to request, and the Director the Office of Planning and Research to grant an
extension of time, up to one (1) year, to complete the preparation and adoption of a
General Plan.
WHEREAS, On March 24, 1992, the City Council for the City of Temecula
conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to this request for an extension
of time to prepare and adopt the General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVES THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council for the City of Temecula hereby makes
the following findings in support of the City's request for a one (1) year extension of
time to complete the preparation and adoption of the General Plan.
A. In accordance with the provisions of' Section 65361(a)(4) of the
Government Code, the City Council finds that the extended public review process
S%GENPLAN~GENEXTEN.RES
needed to assure ample opportunity for public review and comment will delay
completion and adoption of the General Plan.
B. In accordance with the provisions of Section 65361(a)(6) of the
California Government Code, the City Council finds that comprehensive nature of the
General Plan, including the optional elements: Public Facilities/Services, Growth
Management, Air Quality, Community Deign and Economic Development, will require
additional time and that this will delay completion of the General Plan.
SECTION 2. Re~iuest. Based upon the forementioned information, the City
Council for the City of Temecula hereby approves the request to the Director of the
Office of Planning and Research for a one (1) year extension of time to adopt the City
General Plan.
SECTION 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula City Council
hereby finds that the request for a time extension to adopt a General Plan is exempt
from environmental review pursuant to Section 65351 (f) of the California Government
Code and Section 15266 of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
SECTION 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 24th day of March, 1992.
Pat Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
ITEM NO. 18
APPROVAL~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
DATE:
March 24, 1992
SUBJECT:
Report on Temecula Sister City Project
PREPARED BY:
City Clerk June S. Greek
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive and file report on Sister City Project
Approve funding up to the amount of $2,000 for
organization expenses.
After the corporate formation, assign membership in
the Town Affiliation Association and Sister City
International to the non-profit Sister City Corporation
BACKGROUND: Attached is the report of the Steering Committee which was
formed to explore the possibility of establishing an affiliation with one or more foreign
communities to exchange ideas, cultural and economic, and to establish a multi-
faceted networking of people in business, professional, and personal relationships.
The Steering Committee has been meeting with the Council's Ad Hoc Committee
Members, Mayor Birdsall and Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to outline a plan of action
designed to accomplish the establishment of one or more Sister City relationships.
Their recommendation calls for organization of a non-profit California corporation
which will become the official member of the Town Affiliation Association or any
similar organization involved in developing suitable programs of this nature.
FISCAL IMPACT: Organizational expense in the amount of $2,000, if approved by
the Council will be funded from the City Council Discretionary Fund.
ATTACHMENTS: Report on Sister City Project
JSG
January 21, 1992
FROMz
NAYOR BIRDS~T.v. AND THE TEMECULACITY COUNCIL
THE TEMECULA SISTER CITY COMMITTEE
RE= REPORT ON SISTER CITY PROJECT
At the City Council meeting on July 3, 1990, the Council
appointed Councilmembers Birdsall and Lindemans to serve as an Ad
Hoc Committee to form a Sister City C~ittee. The Committee was
to be composed of representatives of service organizations within
the community who will report to the City Council at a future date.
II. STEERING COMMITTEE FORMATION.
On December 5, 1991, Councilmembers Birdsall and Lindemans met
with MannyDe Dios, President of the Benchmark Group, Jon Lieberg,
a Temecula attorney and Ruth Chesher, a community relations
volunteer for the City, to express the City's desire to establish
a sister city program.
On December 13, 1991, Lieberg, De Dios, and Chesher met with
Rick Battistoni, Manager for Costco Wholesale, Beverly Ashbrooke,
Hospitality Officer of Callaway Wineries, and Bill Perlette,
President of Sky Tracker to discuss formation and direction of the
Project.
On January T, 1992, Lieberg, Chesher, Battistoni, and Perlette
met with Glen England, Principal of Temecula Valley High School,
and Tom Maples, General Manager of K-HI Radio Station. This group
is the Steering Co~{ttee for the Temecula Sister CityProject, and
collectively represent a broad-cross section of businesses, service
organizations, and cultural organizations within the community.
The Steering Committee has appointed Jon H. Lieberg as
temporaryChairman, Rick Battistoni as temporaryVice-Chairman, and
Ruth Chesher as temporary Secretary. Ruth Chesher is the Committee
liaison to the City Council.
III. STEERING COMMITTEE FINDINGS.
The Committee has reviewed the information provided by
Counci]m~m~er Lindemans from the Sister Cities International
Organization, and has adopted the following findingsz
1
A. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of the Temecula Sister
City Committee shall be =o establish an affiliation with one or
more foreign or domestic communities which involves large numbers
of citizens and organizations in beth communities engaging in
exchanges of people, ideas and cultures on a long-term, continuing
basis.
B. Form of Entity. The organization should incorporate as
a nonprofit California corporation and file an Application for Tax
Exempt Status under S 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
C. Community Participation. The Committee shall seek the
broadest possible community representation and participation in the
project.
D. Relationship to Citv. The Committee should not be
officially linked to the Temecula CityCouncil, as such an official
tie might cause the program to be too closely identified with
particular council members, subject the project to local politics
and council turnover, and may discourage the grass roots
participation which is necessary for the success of the Project.
As an independent organization, the Co~.nittee should invite the
Mayor of Temecula to serve as the honorary chairperson for the
Committee, and would request the Council to participate in the
contemplated exchanges and adopt appropriate proclamations.
IV. PLAN OF ACTION.
A. The Co~.~.ittee shall meet with Mayor Birdsall and Karel
Lindemans on January 30, 1992 at 3=00 P.M. to discuss this report.
(Note= Mayor Birdsall has a prior engagement and will discuss this
report with the members of the Committee at a subsequent date).
B. After acceptance of the report by the City Council, the
Committee will prepare a press release and present the Project in
person to local service clubs, social organizations, educational
groups, and other special interest groups within the community.
C. The Committee shall retain the services of a local
accounting firm.
D. The Committee cause the incorporation of the organization
as a non-profit California corporation.
E. Publicize and hold a public meeting to elicit the support
and participation of a broad-cross section of the conuuunity.
F. Form subcommittees to: (1) explore the Voorburg
relationship, measure the level of commitment within both
communities and develop a suitable program of exchange between the
co..~..unities~ (2) establish criteria for the selection of an
additional or primary sister city, and after establishment of the
criteria, obtain ~he assistance of ~he international Town
Affiliation Association to select and negotiate a sister city
relationship with a community meeting ~he selection criteria.
V. ACTION REOUESTED OF CITY COUNCIL.
A. Accept and approve this report.
B." Fund up to $2,000 initial cost of formation of the
corporation.
C. Once the corporation is formed, assign the membership in
the Town AffiliationAssociation and/orany similar organization to
the corporation.
Respectfully suhmitted,
Temecula Sister Steering Committee
BY~~H. L~e~emporary Chairman
3
ITEM
19
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICE~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 24,; 1992
City Manager/City Council
Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager
APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT APPLICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
li
2)
Approve the finance subcommittee recommended projects for Fiscal Year
1992-93 CDBG funding.
It is further recommended that the City Council authorize staff to file the
necessary Community Development Block Grant project applications with
the Economic Development Agency of Riverside County by the filing
deadline.
DISCUSSION:
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Program is a federal grant program
administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
through which projects at the local governmental level may be funded. This program
is administered locally through the Economic DevelOpment Agency of Riverside
County.
APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 92-93
CDBG PROJECT APPLICATION
PAGE 2
Projects are eligible for CDBG funding if one of the following criteria are met:
a)
Low/moderate income persons are primarily benefitted by the activity;
or
b)
the activity aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight;
or
c) the activity meets an urgent community development need.
Projects which have been approved for CDBG funding include parks, roads, water and
sewer lines, flood control facilities, fire equipment, and public services.
Although the County of Riverside is at this time unable to inform the City of Temecula
of the amount of CDBG funds available:, it is believed that approximately $175,000
will be allotted to this City for FY 92-93. (This is the same amount as was available
in FY 1991-92}.
The City has followed the requirements set forth by Riverside County and HUD for
completing project applications and obtaining public input for CDBG funding. Public
notices were published in the newspaper on February 23 and March 13, 1992.
Meetings were held to obtain public input regarding CDBG projects at Temecula City
Hall on February 27, and February 28, 1992.
All proposed projects have been submitted for consideration and the City Council
Finance Subcommittee met on Wednesday, March 18, 1992, to considerthe proposed
projects. The following is the list of projects which the Finance Subcommittee
recommends funding through the CDBG Program.
PROJECT
RECOMMENDED
FUNDING
1)
Senior Center Construction -
Provide funds for the design and
rehabilitation of the 5,000 sq.
foot former school bus barn
facility to serve as a fully
operational City of Temecula
Senior Center.
$70,000
2)
Community Based Policing -
This program is to assign extra
duty status police officers in
$10,000
APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 92-93
CDBG PROJECT APPLICATION
PAGE 3
3)
4)
5)
PROJECT
the Old Town Temecula area for
the provision of community
oriented law enforcement services.
This will be accomplished by police
officers utilizing bicycles as
their means of transportation.
Old Town Temec~la Specific Plan
Study -
This study is to establish land use
design standards and guidelines
for development in Old Town
Temecula. $30,000 was provided
in last year's CDBG submittal for
this project. The cost of this
study is approximately $155,000
and the difference will be provided
through redevelopment tax increment.
Operation School Bell- :
This program is proposed by the
Assistance Guild of Temecula and
is designed to provide clothing
for needy school children. The
Assistance Guild request for this
program was $7,500.
Drug Abuse Program- Prevention,
Education. and Rehabilitation
(DAPPER) -
The Finance SubGommittee has
suggested that a drug abuse
prevention program be initiated
in the CDBG eligible area in
the City of TemeCula to provide
prevention, education and
rehabilitation services for youths.
RECOMMENDED
FUNDING
$30,000
$5,000
$50,000
APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 92-93
CDBG PROJECT APPLICATION
This program could be offered
jointly through the Police
PAGE 4
Department and the Teen Center.
It could be used to provide
drug awareness programs,
counseling for youths through
the City Teen Center and community
services (street cleanup, etc.)
for first time offenders through
the Police Department.
Total
75.000
Programs not recommended for funding are as follows:
PROJECT
REQUESTED
1)
Sam Hicks Park Improvements -
This project provides sidewalks, -.
play area curbing, handicapped
picnic area, and a safe play
surface in the tot lot area in Sam
Hicks Monument Park. These
improvements are required by the
recently adopted American Disability
Act. It is recommended that these
improvements be provided through
Community Services department funding.
$20,000
2)
Senior Outreach Against Rape -
The Riverside area Rape Crisis Center
has requested funds to offset the cost
of providing a program to decrease
$4,000
APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 92-93
CDBG PROJECT APPLICATION
the incidence of sexual assault
against seniors. This program
emphasizes education, counseling,
program publicity, and is offered
throughout Western Riverside County.
PAGE 5
3) Boys and Girls ClUb of Temecula - $59,500
The Boys and Girls Club of Temecula
has requested the use of CDBG funds to
transport a building, erect it on a site
in Old Town, and furnish it with
recreational equipment.
It is important to note that the City's application to the County of Riverside for CDBG
funding must be submitted no later than March 27, 1992.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To the extent that CDBG monies are allocated for City administered orograms or
services. monies will not be required to be allocated from other City funds (i.e.,
Community Services District, Redevelopment Tax Increment). The approval of use of
CDBG monies for outside entities will have no fiscal impact on the City as Community
Development Block Grant monies are received from an external funding source.
ATTACHMENTS: 1 )
2)
3)
18TH Year Community Development
Block Grant Program Letter from
County of Riverside - Economic
Development Agency
Californian Article - 2/23/92
City of Temecula - Public Notice
grTA~ 1
EDA
ECONOA41C
DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
OF I~EI~DE CX)UNTY
February 7, 1992
File: 18th Year
Dear City Manager:
RE: 18TH PROGRAM YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
As we look forward to the 18th Program Year (1992-93) of the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program, now is the time 'to begin the identification of activities that will benefit your city.
Activities funded in the past through the CDBG Program include parks, roads, water and sewer lines,
flood control facilities, f'we equipment and, to a limited extent, public services.
To be eligible for CDBG funding, a project must meet one of the following three primary objectives:
1. Activities primarily benefitti~g low and moderate income persons. ~
2. Activities which aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight.
3. Activities designed to meet community development needs having a particular urgency.
To qualify under the prevention or elimination of slums or blight category, the activity must meet the
State of California definition of slums or blight, or the community must be located in a designated
redevelopment area.
For the 18th Program Year, we estimate that ~n amount in excess of $5,800,000 will be made available
to Riverside Connty and its participating cities.
Federal CDBG regulations require the city to provide for and encourage citizen participation, with
particular emphasis on participation by persons of low and moderate income. It is imperative, therefore,
that public hearings be provided to obtain citizen views and to respond to proposals and questions at aH
stages of your community development program.
Please be reminded that federal CDBG regulations require each City to provide for and encourage citizen
participation with particular emphasis on participation by residents of low and moderate income
neighborhoods. Cities are required to hold at least one public meeting to discuss proposed uses of
Community Development Block Grant funds, and are encouraged to use a variety of methods to gather
input from their citizens regarding potential activities. You are further required to submit copi{
public notices of such meetings to our department as part of the application process.
CDBG Program
18th Program Year
February 7, 1992
Page 2
I strongly recommend that your City Council not act with recommendations at the public meeting level.
This will provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation. Furthermore, it will allow staff time
to review any' potential applications or work with a community group in the development of an
application.
CDBG Program Entitlement Fund Project Application and the 18th Year Citizen Participation Calendar
are enclosed. All applications must be submitted by March 12, 1992.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (714) 788-9770.
Very truly yours,
JOH:SMW:pga
(cpctymgr)
Enclosures:
Susan Manee-Wamsley
Deputy Director-Grants
Entitlement Funds Projec~ Application Form
CDBG Calendar
cc: Contact People
[~FVF, J:EdDE COUNTY o 3499 TENTH STl:~,ET o P.O. BOX 1180 · I~VEJ~SJD~CA B2S02* (714) 788-07700 FAX (7 14) 788-1415
AVIATION, ECONOMIC "~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, I~EDEVELOPME..NT
ATTACHNEIff 2
THE CALIFORNIAN _, 2/23/92
ATTACHHENT 3
Proof Of Publication
This space is for the County ClerWs ~t:ng 5carp
STXFE OF CAL~OP, NiA
County of Riveted·
I am a citizen of the United S~am and · resident of the
County aforerod: I am over the qe of eighteen year~,
and not · party to or interested in the shave-ante:led
ma:~er. I am the prmc~pel clerk of the prmter of
City of Temecula
Proof of Publication of
- Public Notice
THE CALWORNLAN
a newspaper of general circulation, published
C~, ua~ S~d~/ :
in the City of Temecula, California 92390, County of
Riverside, Three Lakes Judicial District, and which
newspaper has been adjud~ed a newspaper of isneral cir-
cula:ion by :he Superior Court of :he County of
Riverside, State of California, under the date of February
25, 1982, Case Number 147342: that the notice, of which
the annexed is · printad copy (sac in type not smaller
than nonpareil), has been published in each reValar and
entire issue of said newspaper and noc in any supplement
thereof on the followrag daras, m-Mr;
March 13
~UHE S. GREEK. C~ CSe~
Z9 92
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dared a: TEME CULA, CALIFORNIk this 13t h
ITEM 2O
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 16, 1992
City Council/City Manager
Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager
UPDATE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT EFFORTS
LOCATION FOR A SCHOOL BUS FACILITY
TO SELECT A
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file report.
DISCUSSION:
Council asked staff to provide a status update on the school district's efforts to select
a site for a permanent school bus maintenance facility and storage yard. The school
district is in the process of negotiating the purchase of a site on the north side of
town.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
a:school.bus
ITEM 2 1
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICE~...
MANAGER
CITY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 16, 1992
City Council/City Manager
Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager
PAVING OF 6TH AND FRONT STREET VACANT LOT
RECOMMENDATION:
a)
b)
It is recommended that 'Council direct staff:
regarding its interest in the temporary paving of the
6th and Front Streets; and
to appropriate funds as necessary.
vacant lot at
DISCUSSION:
The City recently acquired the vacant lot at the northeast corner of 6th and Front
Streets. One member of the City Council has asked staff to explore the feasibility of
providing temporary paving on the vacant lot so that the lot might be used on a
interim basis for the Farmers Market and other similar activities. The lot can be
temporarily paved with three inches of asphalt for approximately $38,850.00 This
temporary improvement would not include landscaping, tire blocks, striping, or any
other improvements that would accompany the development of a permanent parking
lot.
As an alternative, gravel can be placed on the lot to provide a temporary surface at
the cost of $15,000. It should be noted, however, there are maintenance expenses
associated with keeping the gravel in a confined area.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the City Council determines that the lot should be temporarily paved
with asphalt, $38,850 should be appropriated from Redevelopment
Agency Fund Balance Account # 016-301 to 016-199-999-42-5219
Temporary Improvements.
2)
If the City Council determines that a temporary gravel overlay should be
utilized, $15,000 needs to be appropriated from Redevelopment
Agency Fund Balance Account # 016-301 to 01 6-199-999-42-5219
Temporary Improvements.
a:l~ave.agn
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
March 9, 1992
Paving of Vacant Lot on Northeast Corner of Sixth and Front
Streets
Plans have been approved to pave Sixth Street between Mercedes Street and Front
Street to a 40' width with asphalt berm and a 6' asphalt walkway on each side. To
pave the vacant lot on the northeast corner to serve as an interim facility, with no
traffic striping being installed or lighting facilities being constructed, would involve the
following cost:
Grading Plan Design
Field Topo - 2 man crew ~ $125/hr.
Drafting/Design- $80.00/hr.
Construction Staking - 2 man crew ~ $125/hr.
Compaction Tests
Paving (3" over native)
4 hrs.
20 hrs.
4 hrs.
' $500.00
$1,600.00
$500.00
$1,500.00
$34,750.00
TOTAL $38,850.00
The above problem cost does not assume any preliminary soils investigation or use of
base. The paving cost does include application of soil sterilant.
CC:
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
Michael D. Wolff, Sr. Public Works Inspector
pwO2\tds\mem\03Oga
ITEM 22
, CITY OF o 4 992
March 2, 1992
Dear City Manager:
A task force has been appointed to consider the boundaries of the Inland Division of the
League of Cahfornia Cities. The task force has decided to take an advisory vote of the cities
in the district to determine further action. We ask that the issue be placed on your council's
agenda with a response to the task force by March 27, 1992.
The questions for the councils are as follows:
Shall the Inland Empire Division of the League of California Cities retain the existing division
boundaries? Yes or No
If the boundaries are changed, which new district boundaries would you favor?
San Bernardino (except the upper desert) as one division amt Riverside County as the
other; or
Western Riverside County cities (WRCOG) and Western San Bernardino Count), cities
(all cities other than Twenty Nine Palms, Yucca Valley, and Needles) as one division;-
Eastern Riverside County (CVAG cities and Blythe) as the other division with
discussions to consider the possibility of Twenty Nine Palms, Yucca Valley, and
Needles leaving the Desert Mountain Division to join this one.
The study arises from a proposal last year to split the division in haOr with Riverside County
becoming one division, and San Bernardino, except the upper desert (which is in the Desert
Mountain Division) becoming another.
34272 YUCAIPA BLVD., YUCAIPA, CA 92399 * PHONE (714) 797-2489 * FAX (714) 790-9203
Recycled PlDer
The task force consists of three counca members and one city manager from each county, and
a representative of the League (names attached). It has ident~ed the pros and cons of
creating new district boundaries (attatched). There appear to be no overriding advantages or
disadvantages to any of the options and the task force has decided that its recommendation will
be based primarily on the preferences of the individual cities.
If it is determined to split the division, the proposal will go to the State League Boundary
Committee consisting of all 15 division presidents, in July. If approved, it will be presented
as a resolution at the annual conference.
Please contact any of the task force representatives for further information or clarOeication.
Sincerely,
Gary Pitts
League President
Atta~me~s
PROS AND CONS OF LEAGUE DIVISION SPLIT
Advantages Of Division Split AlOng County Lines
1. Would provide greater representation on League Board and on policy committees.
WOuM offer greater opportunities for local officials to hold League leadership
positions.
3. Would provide an opportunity to discuss common county problems.
WouM offer an opportunity to develop a un~/~ed county-wide position on State and
Federal legislation.
Note: Items 3 and 4 can now largely be accomplished through SANBAG in San
Bernardino County. The Mayors' and Counca Members Conference would be the mechanism
in Riverside County.
Disadvantages o/~ Division Solit Along County Lines
1. Would reduce the opportunity to discuss regional (inter-county) issues.
Would reduce the opportunity for officials from adjoining cities in d~ferent counties
to interaa and discuss common problems (e.g., Rialto and Riverside, Calimesa and
Yucaipa, etc.)
Would encourage other'League divisions (esp. Los Angeles County) to split perhaps to
the point that any additional League representation gained would be dilated to the point
of ineffectiveness.
Would leave a remnant of San Bernardino County which would consist of 14 cities
(absent the mountain and desert communities) as a separate League Division.
Would reduce the opportunity for city managers of the two counties to interact (unless
the managers of both counties continue to meet jointly).
Alternatives
1. Riverside County, could attend a bi-monthly Mayors' and Council Members' meeting
to discuss Riverside County issues and use the alternating bi-monthly Inland Empire
League meeting to discuss inter-county issues and issues of statewide concern.
The bi-monthly Inland Empire League meeting could be preceded by separate county
caucuses to discuss topics of interest to only Riverside County or San Bernardino
County.
Rather than split the Division along county lines, split off the lower desert from the rest
of the Division.
INLAND BMPIRE DM SION LR4GUB OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
TASK FORCE COMMIFFEE ROSTER
Council M~nber Gary Pitts
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.
Yucaipa, CA 92399
City Manager Joseph P. Guzzetta
City of Hemet
450 E. Latham Ave.
Hemet, CA 92343
Mayor Byron Matteson
City of Grand Terrace
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace, CA 92324
City Manager Gerald F. Johnson
City of Rialto
150 S. Palm Ave
Rialto, CA 92376
League of California Cities
602 E. Huntington Drive, Suite C
Monrovia, CA 91016
Attention: Ms. Kim Chudoba
Council Member Gary Boyles
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Ave.
Fontana, CA 92335
Council Member Bill Franklin
City of Corona
815 W. Sixth Street
Corona, CA 91720
Mayor Richard S. Kelly
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Council Member William Arestein
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92260
ITEM 23
APPROVAT.
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
March 24, 1992
Maintenance of Streets Not Within the Maintained Road System
PREPARED BY:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and provide Staff direction.
BACKGROUND:
There are several unimproved (dirt) streets within Temecula such as Leifer Road north of
Nicolas Road, Walcott Lane, Calle Girasol, John Warner Road, and Santiago Road, that were
not accepted into the County's maintained road system due to the increased maintenance
costs and liability associated with lack of asphalt pavement and drainage facilities. The land
divisions associated with the streets were typically required to provide an offer of dedication
to the public for street and road purposes, but were not conditioned to install the
infrastructure improvements that would have made them eligible for maintenance by the
County Road Department. The offers of dedication were then either not accepted by the
County Board of Supervisors, or were accepted only for vesting purposes to preserve access
rights.
Under Section 1806 of the Streets and Highways code, the governing agency is not
responsible for maintenance nor liable for failure to maintain until the agency formally accepts
the street into the maintained street system. Additionally, streets that are not within a City
or County's maintained street system are not eligible for Gas Tax Funding and the associated
maintenance cost must be funded by an alternative source.
- 1 - pwO 1 ~agd rpt%92~0324\mai ntnon.mrs 031692
Currently, the Public Works Department will respond to citizens in these areas in times of
emergency with barricades or sand bags, but will not do any routine maintenance of these
streets. The Council may wish to continue this policy or direct Staff to formulate a policy that
would limit the expenditures of public funds to emergency repairs; or possibly accept all the
streets into the maintained system, but maintain only minimally with grading and minor
drainage facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT:
To design and construct to a minimum standard a twenty-four foot paved roadway (using
Leifer Road as an example) with 3" of asphalt over 4" of base, asphalt berms, down-drains
and one minor culvert crossing (2-24" C.M.P.) would cost approximately ~100,000-
$115,000. To only compact and grade the roadway, along with dust control and base
stabilization, would cost approximately $12,000. However, the road would need to be
regraded twice per year at an approximate annual cost of $14,000.
Attachment
-2- pw01\agdrpt\S2%0324%maintnon.mrl 031692
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Brad Buron, Maintenance Supervisor
March 11, 1992
Leifer Road Update
Tim, here is a cost breakdown fo~ projected work to be constructed on Leifer Road.
1. Grade, compact subgrade
106,800 sq. ft. @ $0.05/s.f. --
2. Two 24" arched C.M.P., installed
60 linear feet @ $78.55/I.f. =
SUBTOTAL --
3. Dust control and road base stabilation using
liquid calcium chloride application
3.88 gal. per scl. yd. =
TOTAL COST =
$5,553.60
$4,713.00
$10,268.60
.500.00
,768.60
In response to your request of how many families access their homes off Nicolas Road into
Liefer Road area, there are forty-two (42) different residences that live on the following
streets:
Liefer Road
Greenwood Lane
Kimberly Lane
Pala Vista Drive
Jessie Circle
Gatlin Road
Indian Summer Road
If you have any more requests, or require more information on any of the above, please feel
free to contact me at extension 184.
pwO2\buronb\O3 11 e.mem
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Planning Department
March 24, 1992
Monthly Report
PREPARED BY:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File
Discussion:
T. he following is a summary of the Planning Department's
caseload and project activity for the month of February:
Caseload Activity:
The department received applications for 17 administrative cases, 6
consistency checks, I substantial conformance, 2 certificate of parcel mergers,
I environmental assessment and 4 public hearing cases. The following is a
breakdown of case type for public hearing items:
* Appeal (1)
* Variance (2)
* Plot Plan (1)
Ongoing Projects:
The technical subcommittee meetings are underway and proceeding very
well. A preferred land use plan will be presented to the Council and
Commission at a joint meeting on March 25, 1992.
S~/IONTHLY.RPT~FEB.92
City Manager/City C~uncil
Monthly Report
February 24, 1992
Page 2
Outdoor Advertisiq~g Displav Ordinance: This item will be heard by the
Planning Commission at its March 16, 1992,
* Noise Ordinance: City Staff is currently reviewing the draft ordinance.
Old Town Master Plan: The selection committee has chosen Urban
Design Studio to prepare the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. The
contract will be considered by the Council at its March 24, 1992
meeting.
French Valley Airport: The first background report for the Airport Land
Use Plan {ALUP) will be presented to the French Valley Airport technical
subcommittee at its April 17, 1992 meeting. Staff will continue to
monitor the ALUP's progress.
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Reoort: Staff is continuing to review the Specific Plan and EIR. The
final responses to comments on the draft EIR have been submitted and
are currently being reviewed.
Winchester Hills and CamDos Verdes Specific Plan and Environmental
Impact Report: Staff is continuing to review these Specific Plans
and EIRs.
Murdy Ranch SpeCific Plan and Environmental Impact Report:
This Specific Plan is scheduled for a Planning Commission workshop on
April 6, 1992.
Johnson Ranch Specific Plan: The Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is a mix
of residential land uses and a mixed-use" resort village" core area on
1,765 acres located adjacent to Anza Road and Borel Road, north of
Rancho California Road. This Specific Plan was submitted in early
March.
vgw
S~VlONTHLY.RP'r~FEB.S2 2
APPROVAT.
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
,,~ Department of Public Works
March 24, 1992
Public Works Monthly Activity Report (February)
PREPARED BY: Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Monthly Activity Report for February for
the Department of Public Works.
pwOl~agdrpt%92\O32~noacta~t.feb 031392
~ o o
,~le
000
OOrJ
~ oo~~ ~-~
'r..
:3 o r,i ~ o
-, _u.m d
~ac ~ uw
uo ._ ~. =
'I I,,I, ~ ~
m I--
=)l-
oa. ~ ....
.,.I ~ ..
, ,- , -- ,"- C') C'1 , O0
· ' 3~- ,~ .~ .. u
m ~ ~ ;
m~ ~ c e, i .c E~o u
~ 8 ~ "0'" :=E=:=a..:.=_-!.=_. ~,
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON
MARCH 24, 1992
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
The tenant improvements for the Teen Recreation Center are underway and is
expected to be completed by March 13. All the equipment has been ordered, and part
time staff has been hired for the opening of the facility. The Grand Opening
Ceremony is scheduled for Friday, March 20 at 4:30 p.m. at the Teen Recreation
Center. A combined middle/high school dance is scheduled immediately after the
Grand Opening Ceremony. The Teen Council is actively involved in planning for this
ceremony.
The City is also offering a Magic Mountain Trip for teens scheduled for March 28.
Over 80 teens have signed up for the event, which should be an excellent excursion
for the teens.
Two Project Committee meetings have already been held concerning the design of the
Senior Center. Discussions have included the types of recreation and human service
programs that would be offered by the City and how those programs would affect the
design of the facility. Dean Davidson, a local architect in Temecula, has donated his
services to prepare the schematic design of the facility. Staff is currently negotiating
a final agreement to develop the construction documents for the formal bid process.
The third Project Committee meeting concerning the Community Recreation Center
(CRC) Project was held on March 12. RJM Design Group gave a presentation on the
hydrology of the site; the types of programs identified in the Master Plan telephone
survey; and the proposed layout of the CRC, Community Pool and Amphitheater. A
joint Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council meeting will be scheduled in
April. The joint Commission/City Council meeting will provide Commissioners and City
Council members an opportunity to provide input concerning the CRC Project.
A Sports Council meeting was held on Thursday, February 20, 1992, to discuss the
option of either installing a commercial grill, deep fryer, and ventilation system in the
snack bar; or have the City install a water heater, sink, and cabinets and the Sports
Council equip the facility. After discussing the situation, the Sports Council
unanimously decided to have the City install the water heater, sink, and cabinets for
the snack bar, and Little League and Youth Soccer would share in the cost of
equipping the facility i.e., refrigerator, microwave, ice machine, etc.
The City will use funds donated from the Over-the-Hill Football Committee to improve
the snack bar facility. Rolfe Preisendanz is the Project Manager for these
improvements, which are scheduled to be completed by the opening ceremony for
Little League on March 21, 1992.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD MARCH 10, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:11
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS:
PM.
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz,
Parks
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S.
Greek, City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar
Item No. 1.
1. Minutes
1.1 Approve the minutes of February 25, 1992.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz,
Parks
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
None given.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT
Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson reported that the Grand Opening for the Teen
Center will be held on March 20th.
41Minuteel031092 - 1 - 03/16/92
CSD Minutes March 10.1992
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
DIRI=CTORS REPORTS
Director Muf~oz requested that a report be given on the status of improvements for the Sports
Park.
President Parks asked for an update on Community Services District Master Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Birdsall to adjourn at 8:16 PM. The
motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, TCSD Secretary/City Clerk
Ronald J. Parks, President
4/Minutes/031092 -2- 03/16/92
ITEM NO.
2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER
MARCH 24, 1992
NOTICE OF COMPLETION - RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS
PARK RESTROOM/SNACK BAR PROJECT
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
a
e
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
That the Board of Directors:
Accept Rancho California Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project as 100%
complete.
Authorize final retention payment to Mahr Construction, Contract No. 91-006,
to be released pursuant to section 9-3.1 of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction.
Authorize recordation of the Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND: This project consisted of constructing a 844 square foot facility to
accommodate a restroom, snack bar area, handicap accommodations and site
landscaping located on the Rancho Vista fields.
Final inspection of the project was conducted by the City's Building and Safety
Department on December 31, 1991. The project was found to be 100% complete
and in accordance with plans and specifications. The Finance Department has been
notified of the completion of the project for Financial and Risk Management purposes.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project was funded with TCSD Assessments from Fiscal Year
1991-92. The total construction cost was $ 112,899. This project was completed
within approved budget limits authorized by the Board of Directors.
RECORDING REGUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Busbees Park Drive
Teme~ula, CA 92690
SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR
RECORDER'S USE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described.
2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590.
3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to: Mahr Construction to perform the
following work of improvement: Soorts Park Restroom/Snackbar 91-006 .
4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was
accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on March 24,
1992. That upon said contract the Exolorer Insurance Co. was surety for the bond given by the said
company as required by law.
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: Rancho California
Soorts Park.
92592.
The street address of said property is: 30875 Rancho Vista Wav, Temecula, California
Dated at Temecula, California, this 251;h day of March, 1992.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California do hereby certify under penalty of
pedury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF
COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Riverside by said City Council.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 25th day of MarCh, 1992.
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
Forms/CIP-001 Rev, 12-~-91
FORM
UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT
[Civil Code §3262(d)(4)]
The undersigned has been 'paid in full for all labo~. ' , .... d
located at ~,- :rs ~~' ~"~'~'~; ~-~','/'-' ~ J./~'d~; h~reby wa,~ an~
the job, except for disputed claims for e~ra work in the amount of ~ ~ '; ~ ~,~
/
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT WAIVES RIGHTS UNCONDITIONALLY AND
STATES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PAID FOR GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS.
THIS DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST YOU IF YOU SIGN I
EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID, USE
CONDITIONAL RELEASE FORM.
NOTE: This form of release complies with the requirements of Civil Code Section 3262(d)(4).
USE REVERSE SIDE AS RELEASE FOR INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING LABOR FOR WAGES
§414(b) OF THE CAUFORNIA PENAL COOE PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:
'Any parson who receives money lor the purpose of obtaining or
paying Ior sennces, labor, malerills Or equipmeN and willfully fails Io
apply such money IOr such purpose by either willfully failing to complete
Ihe improvements fOr which funds were provided or willfully failing to pay
for services, labor, meierisis or equipment provided incidenl to such con-
struction. and wrongtully diverts the funds to a use other than thai fOr
which Ihe lunds were received, shell be guilty of a public offense and
punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by
imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, or ~n the county
jail not exceeding one year, Or by both such fine and such imprisonment."
§484(c) OF THE CAUFORNIA PENAL CODE PROVIOES AS FOLLOWS:
"Any parson who submits a false voucher to obtain construction loan
funds and does not use the funds for the purpose for which the claim was
submitted is guilly of embezzlement.'
§206.5 OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE PROVIDES:
"No employer shell require the execution of any release of any
claim or right on account of wages due, or to become due, or made
as an advance on wages to be earned, unless payment of such
wages has been made. Any release required or executed in violettoe
of the provisions of this section shalLbe null end void ms between
the employer and the employee and the violation of the provisions of
this section .s, hall be a misdemeanor."
§532(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
"Any person who rece,ves money for the purpose of obtaining or
paymg'tc~ serwces, labor. materials or equipment incident to constructing
improvements on real properly and willfully rebates any part of the monf
to or on behalf ol anyone contracting with such person, for provision Of tr,
services. labor materials or equipment for which Ihe money was given,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided. however, that normal trade
discount for prompt payment shall not be considered. a violalion at
Ihis section ."
G ANAHL LUMBER CO.
ESTABLISHED IN 1884
MIKE MAHR
1418 HENSHAW RD
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056
28 FEB 1992
Job #13497.7
The undersigned has been paid in full for all labor, services,
equipment or material
furnished to: MIKE MAHR
on the job of: CITY OF TEMECULA
located at: 42775 MARGARITA RD
and does hereby waive and release any right to a mechanic's
lien, stop notice or any right against a labor and material bond
on the job, except for disputed claims for extra work in the
amount of $0.00.
KATHY WALTERS
Credit Department
GANAHL LUMBER COMPANY
NOTICE TO PERSONS SIGNING THIS WAIVER: This document waives
rights unconditionally and states that you have been paid
for giving up those rights. This document is enforceable
against you if you sign it, even if you have not been paid.
If you have not been paid, use a Conditional Release Form.
P.O. Box 31 Ariahelm. CA 92815-0031
1220 East Boll Road Anaheim, CA 92805-5993 (714) 772-5444
CoNcrete ProduCtS
TELEl:HONE {/14) 835.2931 POST OFFICE BOX 15326
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705
UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON
FINAL PAYMENT
The undersigned has been aid in full for all labor, services, equipment, or material
furnished to MAHR gaNSTRUCTION
on the job of CITY OF TEMECULA
located at RANCHO VISTA & MAR~TA, TEMECULA "SPORTS PARK"
(Job Description)
and does hereby waive and release any right to a mechanic's lien, stop notice, or
extra work in the
Dated: JANUARY 16, 1992
STANDARD CONCRRTR PRODUCTS
(ComeDy Name)
NOTICE TO PERSONS SIGNING THIS WAIVER: THIS DOCUMENT
WAIVES RIGHTS UNCONDITIONALLY AND STATES THAT YOU
HAVE BEEN PAID FOR GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS. THIS
DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST YOU IF YOU SIGN IT,
EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN
PAID, USE A "CONDITIONAL RELEASE FORM."
UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT
(Califomia Civil Code No, 3262 (d) (4)
The undersigned has been paid in full for all labor. services. equipment or material furnished to
on the job of
located at
MAHR CONSTRUCTION
(YOUR CUSTOMER)
CITY OF TEMECULA
(OWNER)
30875 RANCHO VISTA, TEMECULA
4408 DESCRIPTION)
and does hereby waive and release any right to a mechanic's lien, stop notice, or any right against a
labor and material bond on the job, except for disputed claims for extra work in the amount of
$ 0.00
Dated: 01-09-92
By:
TRRNCH SHORING CO.
(COMPANY NAME)
DfGNA%~.C~P.~, ADMIN.
ASST.
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT WAIVES RIGHTS UNCONDITIONALLY AND STATES THAT YOU
HAVE BEEN PAID FOR GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS. THIS DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE
AGAINST YOU IF YOU SIGN IT, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN
PAID, USE A CONDITIONAL RELEASE FORM.
NOTE: If reprinted, last paragraph must be BOLD FACE TYPE.
S C C A 4/87
· '-!'~'U'NCONDITIONAL WAIVER' AND *RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT.
and does hereby waive and release any rightto a mechanic's lien, stop noticet or any right against a
NOTICE TO' PERSONS SIGNING THIS WAIVER: THIS DOCUMENT WAIVES
RIGHTS UNCONDITIONALLY AND STATES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PAID FOR
GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS. THIS DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST
YOU IF YOU SIGN IT, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT
BEEN PAID, USE A CONDITIONAL RELEASE FORM.
NOTE: This form of release complies with the requirements of Civil Code Section 3262(dX4).
USE REVERSE SIDE AS RELEASE FOR INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING LABOR FOR WAGES
WOLCOTTS FORM 32624--UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT--Rev 1-85
(price class 7-2)
:~ 1985WOLCOTTS. INC
UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT
[civ. Code IS2S2(d)(4)] -
The undersigned has been 'paid in M! for all labor, services, equipment or matedal furnished
tO HAHR CONSTRUCTION on thejobof CiTY OF TEMECULA
located at RANCH0 VTS~~RGAR'iTA RD, TEHECULA, CALZF . :;. alld does hereby waive and
release any right to a mechanic's lien, stop notice, or any right against a labor and material bond on
the job, except for disputed claims for extra work in the amount of - NONE
. FARLE CORP.
Dated: 2 - 2 6 - 9 2 B W.
By
CORP. 5EC.
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT WAIVES RIGHTS UNCONDITIONALLY AND
:STATES THAT. YOU HAVE BEEN PAID FOR GIVING UP THOSE RIGHTS.
· THIS DOCUMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST YOU IF YOU SIGN IT,
-EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID. IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN PAID, USE
"CONDITIONAL RELEASE FORM: ": "' .~. ~ ~-'
NOTE: This Iorm of release complies with the requkements of Civil Code Section 3262(d)(4).
USE REVERSE SIDE AS RELEASE FOR INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING LABOR FOR WAGES
H&l(b) OF 'rite CALIFORNIA PENAL COO E PRO~DES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:
'Any person who receives money for the purpose of obtaining or
plymS) kx sennces. labor, materials or equipment end wlfu~y fail· to
siXtY such money for such purpose by either w~!Mly failq Io complete
the wnprovm for which funds wire provided or wtlffully failing to ply
lot Services. labor, materials or eQuipmeN provided incident to mJch con-
struction. and wrongfully div~ms the funds to a uSe other IMn thai for
which me funds were received. ~ be guilty of m public offense and
punishable by a fine not exceeding five Ihousand dollars ($5,000). or by
imprisonmenl in the state prison no~ exceeding five years, or k~ the county
jail not exceeding one year. or by both luch fine and such imprisonment.'
HI4(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL COOE PROVIDF. J AS FOLLOWS: .~.'
~
'Any person who submits ·talSe voucher to obtain conltructlon loan
funds and does not use the funds Ior the purpose tot which the claim was
submitted is gt, lly of embezzlement.'
t206,5 OF THE CAUFORNIA LABOR CODE PROVIDES:
"No employer Shill rwqule the execution of any release of any
claim or sign oft account of wage· due, or to become due, or made
se ·n advance On wage8 to be earned, unless payment of such
wage8 him been made. Any reiolea required or executed In violation
of the provllionl of thil section Ihlll~ hi null led void as between
the employer Ind the mlq)ioyee and the violltion of the provision· of
this mtm Ihlll hi · ,,ildl.,~ltnor."
tS32(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
'Any person who receives money for the purpose of obtaining or
plying for Services, labor, materials or equipment incident to constructing
~ On reel ~j4rty and willfutly rebates any part of the mortey
to or On bahIll of ~ contrlcting with such person. for proviston of the
~, lalx)r maladlb or ~ for which Ihe money was given.
shall be guilty of I misdemeanor; provided. however. thai normal trade
discouN for prompt payment shell nof be considered a violation of
this section.'
FORM 110-UF -- PUBLISHED BY ~ ~ k air. 3055 OVERLAND AVENUE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90034 -- (213) 202-7775 r .985 IdIF
Superior Ready Mkx Concrete, L.P.
24635 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD
CORONA, CA. 91720
RELEASE FORM 4
UNCONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE
UPON FINAL PAYMENT
(Civil Code §3262(dX4))
The undersigned has been paid in full for all labor, services,
furnished to
MAHR CLIqSTmKTrlON
(Your C~tomer)
on the job of crr~ OF
"SPORES PARK" RANCID VISTA AND MARaa, RITA, ~, CA.
located at
(,lob
equipment or material
and does hereby waive and release any right to a mechanic's Ben, stop notice, or any right against a labor
and material bond on the job, except for disputed claims for extra work in the amount of $ -0-
Dated: FEB~JARY 24, 1992
SUPERIOR READY HIX CONCRL~rE, L.P.
~~A~ ~ R ad' M~
· mt~) ~na, CA 917~
NONCE: ~S DOCUMENT W~S RIGHTS ~CONDI~ON~LY A~ STA~S
~T YOU ~ BEEN PAID FOR GI~NG UP THOSE ~GHTS. T~S DOCUMENT IS
ENFORC~BLE AGAINST YOU IF YOU SIGN IT, E~N IF YOU ~ NOT BEEN P~D.
· YOU HA~ NOT BEEN P~D, USE A CONDI~ON~ ~i FASE FORH.
NOTE: ~is fo~ of release compli~ ~th the requirements of Ci~ Code ~ction 3262(d)(4).
MAHR CONSTRUCTION
1~118 f~I~SflAH ROAD
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056
March 3, 1992
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Re: Sports Park Restroom & Concession Building
Project No. 91-006
Attn: Rolfe
This letter is just to inform you that on January 7, 1992, Mahr Construction
had their final walk through with the City of Temecula on the job listed above.
To the best of our knowledge all punch list items have been completed as per
the City of Temecula.
Upon release of Mahr's retention, the contract between City of Temecula and
Mahr Construction will be satisfied.
If you should have any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call
us. It has been a pleasure working with you and we hope to work with you in the
near future.'
Sincerely,
IX ~'~ ~ ~ Parham
~ke Mahr~o~n
Mahr Construction
PHONE:
Mahr Construction
1 418 Henshaw Road
Oceanside, CA 92056
(619) 941-5871
TO
City of Temecula
,,T~ 3-4-92 I'°' '"'91-006
Rolfe
Sports Park Restroom
(hand deZivered)
WE ARE SENDING YOU [] Attached [] Under separate cover via
[] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans
[] Copy of letter [] Change order []
[] Samples
the following items:
[] Specifications
COPIES
1
1
1
1
1
1
DATE NO.
DESCRI~ION
Unconditional waiver - B.W. Farley
Unconditional waiver - Anthony Wholesale
Unconditional waiver - Standard Concrete
Unconditional waiver - Superior Ready Mix
Plans
Letter
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
[] For approval
[] For your use
X'~ As requested
[] For review and comment
1'] FOR BIDS DUE
[] Approved as submitted
[] Approved as noted
[] Returned for corrections
[]
19
REMARKS
directly to you,
[] Resubmit
[] Submit
[] Return
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
[] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
Ganahl T.-mber ~nd Roof P. ngi nep. ri
w~ver. to be mailed
COPY TO
SIGNED:
If enclosures ire not as noted, kindly notify
TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD MARCH 10, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:16 PM.
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks, Muf~oz
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and
Agency Secretary June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
AGENCY BUSINESS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Member Moore, seconded by Member Birdsall to approve the minutes
of February 25, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
EXECUTIV; DIRECTOR'S REPORT
City Manager Dixon stated he has received the*Draft Financial Projection Report and he will
bring it before the Agency within the next 30 days. He also stated the City has been
accepting applications to serve on the Redevelopment Advisory Committee, and a report for
appointment of this committee will be forthcoming.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
None given.
AGFNCY M$:MBERS REPORTS
Member Parks asked that the Redevelopment Advisory Committee's responsibilities, how the
Committee interfaces with the Agency and the procedure for reviewing projects be addressed.
4~,D~1092 -1- 03116/92
Temecula Redevelopmint Aeency Minutes
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Moore to adjourn at 8:21 PM.
motion was unanimously carried,
March 10. 1992
The
J. Sal Mu~ioz, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agendy Secretary
4LRDAMZNX(Y$1092 -2- 03116/92